The initial credit goes to renowned professional gambler Stanford Wong. In his book, Sharp Sports betting (basically mandatory reading for any serious gambler), Wong had a whole chapter devoted to looking at teasers over a database of NFL results from 1990-2000. Chapter 16, p259 for those following along. Daliman, renowned 2p2 poster and karaoke superstar, made wong teasers the most popular betting threads I've seen on 2p2. first offering here Daliman is to Wong as John the Baptist is to Jesus. *NOTE: Please buy Wong's book. It's kind of like the Super System for sportsbetting. It touches on numerous topics and will take you from n00b to advanced beginner in the shortest amount of time.
What's a teaser?
A teaser is a bet verse the spread where the player is given an extra cushion on the team he bets. For example, You place a 4 point teaser bet on the Spacely Sprockets to beat the Cogwell Cogs. The spread on the game was Spaceley -8.5, or Sprockets were expected to win by 8.5 points. After the game is complete, you would subtract 8.5 points from the Sprockets score. If they still have more points/runs/whatever, they win the bet verse the spread. Now, with a teaser, you add that amount to the side you bet. In this instance, you have a 4 point teaser on the Sprockets. To win this bet, you need the sprockets to score 4.5 more points than their opponents during the game (-8.5+4).
Obviously, the cushion makes your side much more likely to win. Wong's book looked at how NFL teams would do getting extra points. With 0 points (spread itself)-side won 48.6% and tied 2.8% w 0.5 points --51.4--1.5 w 1.0pt --52.9--1.8 w 5.5pt --66.2--1.2 w 6.0pt --67.4--2.0 w 6.5pt --69.4--1.3 w 7.0pt --70.7--1.3 for the full chart;please buy Wong's book! It's worth it!
But, Vegas and online books are well aware that these sides are much more likely to win, so they adjust the payouts. It's almost always the case that the house has a good sized edge on teasers.
Using simple algebra, one can see what the breakeven side win percentage has to be to win the bet. With a two-team teaser player needs 69% to win at +110 odds 70.7% at +/-100 72.4% at -110 73.9% at -120 75.2% at -130
similar math can be applied to 3, 4, 5, ...., n team teasers
Now, if you compare those two sets of numbers above, you notice the house has the edge almost always. You might be wondering, how the hell are there teasers that win?
Why do Wong Teasers Work?
Wong teasers work by taking advantage of the fact that football scoring is non-continuous. It comes in clumps, most often 7 and 3. As a result, the distribution of results is not continuous. A large number of game results seem to hover around 3 and 7 points, ie a final score is much more likely to be 3 or 7 points in difference than 5 or 1 or 16. A Wong teaser takes advantage of this by teasing across the 3 and the 7. The following achieve that in a 6 point teaser...a favorite of 7.5 to 8.5 points now wins 1.5 to 2.5. The 3 and 7 have been gained. A dog of 1.5 to 2.5 now gets 7.5 to 8.5. Again, the 3 and 7 have been crossed.
The clumpiness of distributions umps the chance your teased side will win if you get the 3 and 7. From Wong's 1990-2000 database, for 6-point teases Home Favorites of 7.5 to 8.5 went 130-33-3 verse the tease line. Visiting Favs of 7.5 to 8.5 went 32-10-0 Home Dogs of 1.5 to 2.5 went 134-39-0 Visiting Dogs of 1.5 to 2.5 went 172-62-1 all in all, that's 76.1% covers on 6 point teases ignoring pushes. Compare that to the roughly 68% all 6 point teasers did. You can see the monstrous difference covering the 3 and 7 makes. Back to our chart, there was an edge to a player teasing at -130.
FWIW, Bishop 22 reported 6 point wong teasers only covering at 71% from 2001-2005 in this thread. Wong Teasers did very well last year (2006), however, which has led to the 2p2 noteriety.
Now, Wong's book has other data (6.5 pt teaser and 7 pt teaser) and observations on only partially covering the 7 and 3. If you want that, BUY HIS BOOK. I'm not here to break copyright. I only want to give you a little 'tease' of the info contained within.
What follows are the better posts over the past year on DALIMAN-WONG Teasing If you have more questions, read through and see what you can find.
The beginning Daliman
Quote: Daliman's Wong teasers only NFL betting-Week 1 #7215775 - 09/08/06 12:06 AM
Ok, I started to do this last year, then got out of control with too many bets, betting too much, etc so this year I going to try to actually follow through posting and sticking to my proper bet sizes and types. Since Mansion has VERY good 6 point 2-team teaser odds ( EVEN MONEY!), I am going to use the free $$$ they gave me as my seed $$$ for this. Here is my plan:
- I will bet 5% of whatever I have in my account on each 2 team wong teaser,( paying even money). - I will bet 2 %of whatever I have in my account on 4 team teasers( paying +300). - I will not be betting 3 team teasers at Mansion, as they are only +175 there, (+180 is standard.) - I will post all my wins and losses, both by game and by bet. To win on the 2 teamers, I will need to win 70.71% of my teased games, and slightly lower on the 4 teamers.
Wong teasers, BTW, are teasers in which the extra 6 points allows the player to cover both the 3 and the 7 fully, therefore any dog getting 1.5-2.5, and any fave giving 7.5-8.5. I MAY possibly bet on games on the 3 or 7 IF there are other very favorable conditions, such as home team, especially dog, high negative spread #, or a wongable spread shown for a 3 point dog at most other sites. I will state why I deviate in any such cases.
Any wongable team will be placed with all other teams in 2 team teasers, plus any possible 4 teamers. First weeks teams: Cincy +8.5 vs KC Dallas +8.5 vs Jax Ariz -1.5 vs SF Oak +9 Vs SD (Home team, -127)
Starting BR is $2100, so 2 teamers will be $105 @, (there will be 6 of them*) and the 4 teamer will be $42.
* A quick-and-dirty way to figure how many bets/matchups you will have when you are round-robining teams together like this is multiply the amount of teams by 1 less than it's total, then divide by 2. So...
4x3 = 12 12/2 = 6. Six 2 team teasers.
What is round-robin-ing? Why should I do it? It's betting every possible combination of the wongable games that are available each week. You should do it if the price is right and if you want the potential of the hugely positive weekend.
Quote: Re: Daliman's Wong teasers only NFL betting-Week 1 [Re: CharlieDontSurf] #7223403 - 09/08/06 03:27 PM
the round robin thing...have never really understood it
It is easy. You identify a number of picks. For this week there were four good ones. Call them A, B, C, D.
You want to make 2 bet teasers and 4 bet teasers.
This means you want to bet A&B, A&C, A&D, B&C, B&D, C&D [6 2-bet teasers. More generally with N good bets, where N >= 2, you'll want to bet N*(N-1)/2 sets of 2-teasers: 2 good bets = 1 set; 3 good bets = 3 sets; 4 good bets = 6 sets; ... ; 12 good bets = 66 sets].
This also means you want to bet A&B&C&D [1 4-bet teasers. More generally with N good bets, where N >= 4, you'll want to bet N*(N-1)*(N-2)*(N-3)/24 sets of 4-bet teasers: 4 good bets = 1 set; 5 good bets = 5 sets; 6 good bets = 15 sets; ... ; 12 good bets = 495 sets].
Interestingly enough if you find 6 good bets then that means you want to have 15 bets on the 2-bet teasers and 15 bets on the 4-team teasers.
Also, the 5% on 2-bet teasers and 2% on the 4-bet teasers is probably too much for a reasonable risk of ruin/best return. From what I understand most people would say 5% on even money bets where you have slight edges is probably too much (although if you are truly scaling all your units and aren't just using a fixed limit that adjusts every so often you may be ok with 5%) when you are betting independent events. But your 5% is being linked with dependent events. This means in the example of the betting you really have more like somewhere between 8% and 17% riding on each bet. For instance if you win A and B but lose C and D you win only 1 of the 7 bets. If you win A, B, and C but lose D you win only 3 of the 7 bets.
Also, the 5% on 2-bet teasers and 2% on the 4-bet teasers is too much if you find lots of good lines as if you define Pb(x) to be the percentage of your bankroll in play each week given x good bets you get:
Now maybe it would be a very odd week to have 8 games all wongable, or even 7 games all wongable but is 6 games really impossible?
Also how are ties being handled? If you tie one bet is the whole teaser a push, or are the 2 bet teasers a push and the 4 bet teasers become 3 bet teasers or does a tie mean a lose of the teaser? Or is a tie only a push if you push or win all the other bets in the teaser?
Assuming no ties (or that ties are loses) then if Wpb(b,r) gives the percentage change in your bankroll after having bet b bets with r of them winning you get (for 2 to 6 bets - even though at your current amounts you are margin betting when there are 6 good bets):
So the only way to have a winning week is to pick everyone right or else go 4/5 or 5/6.
Also, if each bet is iid then to break even you need to win approximately 70.71% of your individual bets. (I.e., ~71% of your bets on A or B not 71% of your A&B 2-bet teasers).
And, from my quick check in SSB going from 1.5 to 7.5, 2 to 8*, or 2.5 to 8.5 is worth 27%. So if the line was a fair 50/50 line going in then your wonged teaser bet should win 77% of the time. Note that on the 2 to 8 if you lose on ties then you only really add 25% on the 2 to 8 move which is still good for 75%.
Hence this system should be free money as you have a pretty decent edge unless I've messed something up.
Will I win every week? No, most weeks you will break even or lose a little. You're playing for the large, hugely positive week.
Quote: Re: Daliman's Wong teasers only NFL betting-Week 1 [Re: sfwusc] #7261290 - 09/12/06 02:52 AM
what % of the 4 do you need to get right to atleast break even?
My brain is hurting...
That was covered up above. If you are doing the 2-bet teasers and the 4-bet teasers then to break even in the long run you need to win each individual game sqrt(1/2) times which is ~70.7%. If you mean how many of the 4 games do you need to win to have a break even week the answer is all 4 if you are doing the 2-bet and 4-bet teasers. Just 3/4 (which is exactly even) if you are just doing the 2-bet teasers. If you are doing the system the way daliman said he was (both 2 and 4 bet teasers) then the only weeks you have break even or better (and all of these are better) is:
2 for 2 3 for 3 4 for 4 4 for 5 5 for 5 5 for 6 6 for 6
So only once you get to 5 and 6 game weeks can you miss one. Note that while you will have more negative weeks than positive weeks (most likely) doing this the daliman way your positive weeks will be, in general, much more valuable than your negative weeks.
To give you an idea if you are exactly break even with daliman's system if you bet 4 teams each week you expect only 1 in 4 weeks to be positive but you still break even in the long week. If you with each game 75% of the time (which is a slightly conservative estimate assuming the original line is fair and you are WONGing it) and every week was a 4 team week and you used daliman's system you'd expect just less than 1 in 3 weeks would be winning weeks but you'd still make on average 4.3% (of your bankroll, not of your bets) a week. Given the amount of money bet +4.3% of your bankroll represents an edge of about +13.4% of the money bet.
100 such weeks might involve (all % are of your bankroll, not of the bet amount) 32 times going 4 for 4 for +36%, 42 times going 3 for 4 for -2%, 21 times going 2 for 4 for -22%, 5 times going 1 for 4 for -32% (and less than 1 in 100 going 0 for 4 with is the same -32% as 1 for 4). So with the 75% win rate on games you expect that about 1 in 3 weeks is break ever and about 3 in 4 is nearly break even (the bulk of those being the -2%).
If you find 5 games a week and hit at 75% you expect to win 8.9% (of your bankroll, not of your bets) a week on average and have winning weeks nearly 2 in 3 times (~63.2% of the time), but the times you have losing weeks they will be much worse than the 2% (going 3 for 5 is -30%, any worse and you lose at least half your bankroll). Given the amount in play this represents an edge of about 14.8% of your money in play.
If you find 6 games a week and hit at 75% you expect to win 17.3% (of your bankroll, not of your bets) a week on average and have winning weeks slightly more than 1 in 2 times (~53.4%), although note that with 6 teams and daliman's system this is assuming you are betting 105% of your bankroll and nearly 1 in 30 times you lose 95% of your bankroll and around 1 time in 215 you lose "all" 105% of your bankroll. Given the amount in play this represents an edge of about 16.5% of your money in play [notice this is less than the 17.3 because 105% of your bankroll is in play].
Going the other way with only 3 games hit at 75% you expect to make 1.9% (of your bankroll, not of your bets) a week with winning weeks ~42.2% of the time. Given the amount of money in play this represents 12.7% of your money in play.
With only 2 games hit at 75% you expect to make 0.6% (of your bankroll, not of your bets) a week and have winning weeks ~56.3% of the time. Given the amount of money in play this represents 12% of your money in play.
So the daliman system, even with the conservative 75% numbers, is one with very, very high EV and relatively high varriance. If every week you got the expected 4 team rate f return you'd expect to slightly more than double your bankroll over the course of the nfl season (end up with 2.05 times starting bankroll). If every week you got the 5 team rate of return you'd expect to more than 4x your bankroll over the course of the nfl season (end up with 4.26 times starting bankroll). If every week you got the 6 team rate of return [and you could bet 105% of your bankroll like the system wants] you'd expect to end up with 15! times your bankroll (15.068 times to be more exact).
Now in actual fact I'm not sure you do quite this good since your average weekly rate of return isn't constant and can be quite negative. I simulated the 17 week season with 4 games a week at 75% hit rate 200 times and the average bankroll at the end of the season was 1.79 times the starting bankroll (but this may simply be because the difference between the 2.05 and the 1.79 is because of the 1 in 1000 type season with 50 times bankroll or some such since the end of the tail of the distribution is a hockey stick). There are certain repeated plateaus since the rate of return isn't that varried (I'm sure with dynamic programming you could solve it exactly rather than my simulation, but whatever) but the 101st best season sees an ending bankroll of 1.17 times the starting one and the 100th best season sees an ending bankroll of 1.23 times the starting one. In total 117 of the 200 seasons, or 58.5%, showed an increased bankroll at the end of the season. 35 times, or 17.5% of the time, you ended the season with less than 50% of your starting bankroll. 64 times, or 32% of the time, you ended the season with more than double your bankroll. If you write every 10th best season, starting with the 10th worst (the absolute worst was 14.5% of your bankroll), your ending bankroll was:
You can see from that the return is sort of like a cubic function, really steep on both edges and smoother in the middle (from about half your bankroll to triple your bankroll). At the extremes if you with 4 for 4 each week for 17 weeks your bankroll is 186 times bigger. If you go 0 for 4 or 1 for 4 each week your bankroll is about 1/700th of your starting bankroll.
Of course in practice the limits at mansion may well prevent this rapid growth either by them changing the way they allow these, or by banning you, or by your growth rate hitting the maximum amount they allowed wagered on these types of games.
What is the maximum bet amount on these types of bets on mansion? If you started trying to bet $1500 a bet on these teasers would it still work?
Will it work on college games? NO
Quote: Re: Daliman's Wong teasers only NFL betting-Week 1 [Re: centris] #7263269 - 09/12/06 09:43 AM Reply Quote Quick Reply
Is there any reason to think that system would be any less successful in college football? College football would of course give many more opportunities, and since the number of bets scales almost like n^2 with the number of wongable games, n, you would have to bet much less than 1% of your bankroll a game. Pinnacle offers even money 6 point teasers on college football.
Let's say you were to try such a system in college football and there were too many wongable lines for you to do all n(n-1)/2 of them, without any knowledge of the teams is there anyway you could select which games to tease just based on the point total or anything like that.
Wong did not run the analysis on College football, and I believe initial evidence told him there is too much volatility in scores due to harder-to-guage talent levels. Do not try this system with NCAA.
I also studied this personally and saw very little merit to wonging college games in this thread. The only ones that seemed like they might be slightly positive EV where games in the big BCS conferences were the total points expected were 42.5 and below.
How much will my bankroll increase over a season? What's the variance? You can expect to double it, but the deviation will be big. High risk-high reward
Re: Daliman's Wong teasers only NFL betting-Week 1 [Re: SumZero] #7265821 - 09/12/06 01:47 PM Quote:
(I'm sure with dynamic programming you could solve it exactly rather than my simulation, but whatever)
I ended up solving it (what your year end bankroll is assuming you do 17 weeks in a season, 4 games a week, daliman's percentages on both 2-game teasers and 4-game teasers, and assuming you are 75% likely to win each individual game+7, which is conservative if the original line were fair).
I get that after examining all 17,179,869,184 possible results (I combined 1 win weeks and 0 win weeks since they payout the same, which makes 4^17 possibilities for those following at home), weighted appropriately for the number of ways those results can occur and the likelihood they do occur that the bankroll EV at the end of the season is exactly (rounded) 2.039416 times your starting bankroll. So you expect to slightly more than double your bankroll. However, variance (sigma^2) was 5.42766 and standard deviation (sigma) was 2.329734. So although you expect to more than double your bankroll your results are very, very distributional. So high risk high reward strategy.
Sorry if those who don't like math are getting bored with my number crunching, but I find a mechanical strategy that is so likely to be +EV quite interesting to analyze.
Won't the books adjust and change the prices? Yes and yes. Goodbye +100s for 2 teamers. Hopefully, -110s will last. Some books, ie 5dimes, are putting fake wongs out there by doing things like having the 6 point teaser line list a team at 8.5 when they are nearly an even money 3 point dog (where did that ½ point go?). Mansion has even been known to block winning teaser bettors.
5 of 6 are a half-point to one-and-a-half points better than pinnacle!
Did you see in the latest Pinnnacle Pulse that they're taking proactive steps to avoid taking action on Wong Teasers?
Cleveland +9 -129 v. Pittsburgh
We initially offered Cleveland at +9 (-112). Using this unusual number (instead of +7.5 at a normal moneyline) helps protect us on teasers, as teasing "large home favorites" is one of the strongest teaser plays you can make. The opening number of Cleveland at +9 (-112) is equivalent to +8 (-105) using Pinnacle's point-selling option.
Indianapolis -1 -112 v. Jacksonville
This game has remained at the current price (-1 -112) since opening. Once again, teaser protection is a concern. While small underdogs are not as dangerous as large home favorites, we would still prefer to minimize damage from these types of plays. Skewing the line this way is an easy way to achieve this.
Numerous posts on this topic, but it updates every season and sometimes within season, so it's useless to quote anything
Can I tease across the 0? Yeah, but you'd be stupid. DON'T DO IT!
Moving across zero is generally the worst tease you can do. You spend three of your tease points moving across numbers that don't matter at all, from -1 to 0 to 1. And more importantly, you're only moving across one key number, teasing from -2.5 to +3.5 - moving across +3.
As Wong writes in SSB, the value of the teasers is moving across the numbers where most of the games end up: 7 and 3.
Generally speaking, if a teaser doesn't move across both of those numbers, its generally not a good teaser to play. That's Wong's point, anyways.
What about +3 and -7? didn't find much math here....someone dive into the databases
What is the odds if you include -7 favorites to winning 1.5+ and +3 dogs losing by less than 9.5?
If we are going to take games this week then it is going to include games like this.
That said I am looking and +3 dogs are getting +110 and such...which mean they could be good sharp bets. Then again we might be better off just taking those games.
Any info is welcome and thanks in advance!
I am actually of the opinion that +3 and -7 high NEGATIVE bets( -120 or more) are better bets, because those bets are very close to going to 2.5 or 7.5, plus, with the teaser, it totally takes the negative # out of the equation, which can be a HUGE edge.
Explain why you believe this is a profitable tease.
As bishop stated above, just getting off the 3 or 7 is barely profitable alone, and add in the fact that home teams are better teases, and dogs with a winning record at home are the most profitable teases there are, covering I believe around 78%.
Quote: Re: Daliman's NFL Wong teasers-Week 3 [Re: Daliman] #7356545 - 09/20/06 12:21 AM You're deluding yourself if you think that teasing the numbers +1, +3, -7 & -9 has a positive expectation.
Quote: Re: Daliman's NFL Wong teasers-Week 3 [Re: Daliman] #7418772 - 09/25/06 10:51 AM Well, if teasing from +3 to +9 is enough to still let you bet teasers at Mansion, that's "positive expectation" by itself. I got my teaser limits slashed to 0 at Mansion after a handful of teasers for piddling amounts.
At the time this post was made, MIN +3 +105 was pretty easy to find (Pinnacle had +3 +107), and taking +3 +105 is better than teasing to +9 under almost all circumtsances, but it's not a hard and fast rule that you should never tease up from +3 to +9. One example where teasing from +3 to +9 may be profitable is when the market line on the +3 is something like +3 -125 and you're able to tease up 6 points to +9.
Also, there was a well-known book that, until the end of the 2004 season, offered 2 team 7 point teasers, ties win, at -110, in which case, teasing +3 to +10.5 was a no-brainer.
In any case, there's plenty of room between the statements "this subset is blindly profitable" and "this subset is not positive expecation."
Where did Wong suggest teasing from +3 up to +9? I haven't read that book in a while but I was pretty sure that wasn't suggested.
If your goal is to strictly follow "Wong teasers" you'll want to bet on game day, not earlier in the week, since his analysis involved only closing lines. Minnesota +3 to +9 wouldn't be included because the closing line was +3.5.
The whole thing gets pretty muddled anyway on lines involving the 3 because what's the "real line" if the market close is between +2.5 and +3, like where most books have +2.5 +100 or +3 -120.
As I said in my initial thread, I will do a very limited amount of handicapping on the 3 and 7, as he said those are pretty much =EV at -110 anyways. I am getting +100, so theoretically, they are +EV already, but I like to have a bit of cushion.
Also, I never said this was following to the letter Wong's theories. But if a game is specifically wongable when I put my picks in or look later, I take it, unless I already have the other side from earlier in the week. I don't know enough about them to know if reteasing is the proper play.
Re: Any thoughts on these teasers? [Re: Performify] #7485308 - 09/30/06 04:14 AM
But these (moving off the seven) can be profitable in my opinion, with handicapping (i.e. where you cap the game so that it frequently ends up on seven so moving off has extra value).
One other way teasing down from -7 to -1 can be profitable is as part of a middle or "Polish middle" (A "Polish middle" is betting something like one team -1.5 -105 and the other team +125 on the moneyline. If that team wins by exactly 1, you lose both bets, but that happens rarely enough that the "Polish middle" is profitable. The politically correct term is usually "reverse middle.")
Teasing to -1 at even money is effectively like a single bet at -241 odds. The AZ ML is +305 on Pinnacle right now, and ATL -1 -241 and AZ ML +305 is a great "Polish middle." Even just middling ATL -1 -241 and AZ +7.5 -105 (which isn't hard to find) is probably also profitable.
Do I bet early in the week or late? well, there was a huge debate on this in NFL Week 5 of 2006. seems like waiting has the least variance in Performify's summary of Thremp's harshness of that thread
Re: Daliman's NFL wong teasers: Week 5 [Re: kdog] #7551551 - 10/05/06 12:53 AM Thremp has been correct in all his responses here.
let me say some of the same things, but in a slightly different way, because that's just how I roll.
A couple statements on teasers that might help explain:
A teaser that moves from +2.5 to +8.5 has more value than a teaser that moves from +3 to +9. A teaser that moves from +3.5 to +9.5 is almost certainly -EV. The difference in value between teasers that moves from +2 to +8 or +2.5 to +8.5 or even from +1.5 to +7.5 is so small as not to matter, for all practical purposes. Teasing across zero is the worst thing you can do with a teaser (that was a lesson from last week, just throwing it in for completeness)
Put very simply, the vast majority of value in a teaser comes from moving across two numbers: the three, and to a lesser (but still very very important) extent the seven.
Teasers that don't include both of these numbers are generally a -EV proposition.
Teasers that start on one of these numbers (like +3) and move off the number but not across it have less "value" than a teaser that clearly moves across the number. This is because in a straight bet you're already not going to lose by landing on that number, just push. The added chance of a win on that number is +EV but its less +EV than taking out the probability of the game being graded a loss when it does land on that number.
The same principle applies to ending on one of these two strong numbers, either +7 or -3. Doing so by itself is generally thought to NOT be -EV but is also less +EV compared to a line that moves across that number. Again, its the difference between a push on the number compared to a win on the number, same as moving off that number except in reverse.
The only exception I'd acknowledge would be unless you have some very specific handicapping that changes the probability distribution of points of finish for a typical NFL game. For example, one exception might be: if you knew a game was going to be played in almost hurricane-style winds like that random game at Chicago last year (where they returned a missed fieldgoal for a TD, can't remember offhand who their opponent was), moving that line six points in any direction might be +EV because of how difficult it would be for either team to put up any points at all. But that would be due to specific handicapping not because of the regular strength of the teaser.
PS: as Daliman says, buy Wong's book if you haven't already. Everyone. Seriously.
Re: Does Wong comment on waiting? [Re: stir] #7551715 - 10/05/06 01:11 AM
OK, I have the greatest respect for Wong (he made me a lot of money in a previous life as a card counter.)
Therefore, if he didn't cover it when he strongly advocates "Wong teasers", I am of the opinion it wouldn't be an oversight on his part, but rather he didn't think it was important.
Look at it this way. Would you rather tease lines for the whole season now or the day before the game?
Letting the line sharpen itself is fine in almost all circumstances. Wong teasers are meant to beat very sharp lines.
Re: Daliman's NFL wong teasers: Week 5 [Re: sfwusc] #7568048 - 10/06/06 10:00 AM A) Wong says in his book that sharp's bet lines early because the bad lines quickly get corrected by the sharp bettors - so late lines tend to be more accurate than early lines.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the Wong Teasers are predicated on the idea that the line is fairly accurate. Buying the 3 and the 7 has more value when the "true" value of the favorite is 2 than when the "true" value of the favorite is 4. Since the late lines are closer to "true", late lines should be better for Wong Teasers.
B) Predicting which way the lines is going to move is a form of handicapping. If you can do it, great. But passing up a teaser because you think the line will move is handicapping.
C) I am very intrigued by the notion of teasers being more valuable in games with low totals. Wong makes no mention of this in his book. But the theory to me seems very sound: in games where few points are scored, each point you buy is more valuable. I would love to get some data on this.
D) I bought SSB about six months ago and loved it. I've been betting the Wong teasers all year so far. I just bet the six-point ones.