College Wongs
 

i know some of us have speculated that perhaps college games with lower expected totals might qualify for wong teaser status.
The idea being that a lower expected total means a smaller range for possible outcomes.
Regretfully, it just isn't the case. The only way to get the basic 6 point teaser leg higher than 69% by different total subsets is when the expected total is less than 35.5. There have only been 6 times this has happened since 1998. the teaser leg went 5-1, so there are sample size issues even with that.

So, lower totals still don't make college wongs good


I have also speculated that restricting it to the larger conferences (current BCS 6) might make them slightly better. Unfortunately, I've pulled all my data off the goldsheet and there is no simple way to parse out games only involving those teams since the goldsheet spells each team about 20 different ways. I'd have to go through game by game (I have about 17.5k games from 93 and on). Maybe I'll hire some high school kid to do it in the future. However, I'm not expecting much.

Oh well... was a thought.

Re: College Wongs
 

oh yeah, I have some definitive news in general

basic teaser strat (-7.5 to -8.5 and +1.5 to +2.5) has not been +ev for NCAAF from 1993 through 2006 for -110 2-team pricing

here's the breakdown for NCAAF:

Home Faves of 7.5 to 8.5
232-101-2 for 69.67%

Road Faves of 7.5 to 8.5
166-66 for 71.55%

Faves of 7.5 to 8.5 (home, road, nuetral)
422-180-2 for 70.10%

Home Dogs of 1.5 to 2.5
203-85-2 for 70.49%

Road Dogs of 1.5 to 2.5
245-94-1 for 72.27%

Dogs of 1.5 to 2.5 (home, road, nuetral)
494-193-3 for 71.91%


note1: I also looked at 6.5, 7, and 10 pt teasers. The additional points added very little and I'd call them a total ripoff for NCAAF.
note2: pushes excluded for percentages

Re: College Wongs
 

Thanks for the data! I was always curious on the numbers for these.

Re: College Wongs
 

Doesn't this imply that dogs are profitable in 3-teamers at +180? I'm ignoring the road dog advantage for the moment as insignificant. Low margins vs BE (70.9%), so I'm not sure if the sample size is adequate to make a decision.

J

Re: College Wongs
 

it's more a reflection of road dogs of 1.5 to 2.5 going well above 50% ATS over the time period---if you ask me, that's where the betting should be at and I should've included that in the second post

Re: College Wongs
 

Got it (in hindsight of course) betting those road dogs would've been more profitable than teasing them.

I think this raises an important point, that the key numbers to use when evaluating teasers is not the percentage of times the teaser covers, but the percentage the number lands in the "sweet spot." Otherwise you get bias if the unteased number covers ATS more than it should.

J

Re: College Wongs
 

Nice work.

Re: College Wongs
 

Doh, somehow I missed this thread. Would've saved me some time.

Re: College Wongs
 

This should somehow be added to MT2R's post in the sticky.

Re: College Wongs
 

my turn i like messing with excel and data, you could break it up and send me a small segment to sort out the pertinent data