Thoughts on betting on blowouts

[gdsdiscgolfer]

Is it generally recommended to put alot of money on a guaranteed victory? Say putting down alot on a 1:9 Money Line (numbers aren't out yet) for Pistons vs. Hawks.

Is this strategy of just betting alot with low odds but minimal risk a recommended strategy?

[BobJoeJim]

Well, if it was truly a "guaranteed victory" then yes, betting your entire bankroll would be advisable. Blindly betting big favorites with no specific reason for the bet other than "low risk, since they'll probably win" is a sure way to lose in the end. The lines on big favorites will have enough vig to be negative EV, just like the lines on underdogs will. I don't know for sure if the vig is better, worse, or the same on big favorites as on "normal" spreads, but I do know that it's there.

Keep in mind, that while your risk of losing any given game is low, so is the reward, and that one time you end up getting upset, you'll lose enough to cancel out a lot of small wins.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince you never to bet a favorite, but you need a tangible reason to think the bet is good. EV is all that matters on any bet, so you want to focus on finding bets that are +EV, rather than worrying about low risk.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Blindly betting big favorites with no specific reason for the bet other than "low risk, since they'll probably win" is a sure way to lose in the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what destroys a lot of baseball bettors. Baseball games can never really be considered an upset when the dog wins. But most bettors want to try and pick a "winner" rather than trying to bet value. Hence the favorites often get more action than they should. Picking "winners" is a surefire road to the poorhouse.

[yoolykeme]

I was thinking about this the other day. But what about teams that you "know" will have seasons like Duke and UCONN in NCAAB this year -team that are pretty much going to have less than 7 losses for the season. Couldn'y tou effectively Martingale (gasp) bet teams like those and come up a winner? That is, of course, that your bankroll is able to with stand 7 losses in a row, or whatever, but you would think that the likelihood of that would be slim.

I'm sure that you get my idea here. Let me know what you think.

[MyTurn2Raise]

one example...Lakers over -800 v Pistons in the NBA finals a few years back

with big college basketball favorites, there will often be no moneyline on the game

[BobJoeJim]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking about this the other day. But what about teams that you "know" will have seasons like Duke and UCONN in NCAAB this year -team that are pretty much going to have less than 7 losses for the season. Couldn'y tou effectively Martingale (gasp) bet teams like those and come up a winner? That is, of course, that your bankroll is able to with stand 7 losses in a row, or whatever, but you would think that the likelihood of that would be slim.

I'm sure that you get my idea here. Let me know what you think.

[/ QUOTE ]
I get the idea, but the math just doesn't work. What do you actually mean when you say you "know" that one team will win? Anyone who has ever followed sports knows that upsets can and do happen, even the most spectacularly unexpected upsets. So when you say you "know" a team is going to win, you don't mean it's 100% certain. You mean it's 95% certain, or 90%. Or something. When the moneyline is -12,000 (I saw this on one of those 40 point spread college basketball games, like what you're talking about, earlier this year), then for you to break even betting the favorite they have to win MORE than 99% of the time. Are you really THAT sure? Because I guarantee you the linemaker who set that line thinks there's only, say, a 98.5% chance, and expects to make a profit off of that one time in 70 that the miracle happens.

The idea is simple, bet on teams that aren't going to lose. The flaw is that you don't win enough on each bet to negate the upsets that can, and WILL happen eventually, if you keep trying to take advantage of games that appear to be sure things.

EDIT: This concept reminds me of the blackjack "system" where you just double your bet every time you lose, and so each time you win just one hand, you make back all your losses, plus some. You start with enough of a bankroll to let you double your initial bet, let's say 8 times, because the odds of losing 8 50/50 bets in a row is less than half of a percent. That's basically zero, right? It's a sure thing!

The system works every time except the last time. In the end, though, it consists of repeatedly making negative EV bets, on the sole reasoning that you are "very unlikely" to lose. But more likely than not you will eventually lose, since that's the definition of a negative EV bet in the first place.

[badpokerplyr]

[ QUOTE ]
one example...Lakers over -800 v Pistons in the NBA finals a few years back

with big college basketball favorites, there will often be no moneyline on the game

[/ QUOTE ]

I occasionally will take the big favorite moneyline on NCAA bball, 5Dimes comes to mind as a place that always has a line. How good that line is though is another story. I think you only have to get burned once to not be a big fan of the heavy favorite moneyline. For me, I had a bunch of extra money sitting in one of my accounts.. figured why not take the Rams over the Pats in the SB for a small, but "GUARANTEED" profit.

[Koss]

I don't think you could consider the Superbowl a "guaranteed" win, but what about betting on a 1 seed over a 16 in the NCAA tourney? Do moneyline's even exist for those games?

[wiesman02]

[ QUOTE ]
but what about betting on a 1 seed over a 16 in the NCAA tourney? Do moneyline's even exist for those games?

[/ QUOTE ]

A sportsbook like Pinnacle give u moneylines on every ncaa b-ball game. There's few out there that do that. So, yes, moneylines do exist for those games.

[MyTurn2Raise]

someone here was all over Texas -3200 v Colorado in the ...that's as close to a "know" they'll win as I've seen, but I still couldn't pull the trigger.