Dementias NFL Games of the Week

[Performify]

[ QUOTE ]

I do sometimes wonder if 2+2 is sometimes too afraid of certain types of bets based on traditional, possibly outdated thinking. For example, not taking bridgejumpers (props for like -500) or road favorites. Still, when I find myself super-confident about a bet, I like to think of why I might be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

MCS,

Good post, and one I personally agree with, in that personally I believe some of the traditional thinking - one very traditional example, those who will never play a road favorite, ever - is very possibly flawed, or at least working from bad assumptions.

I think in general that it is very very rarely that simple (i.e. to say all road favorites are bad news). Any time something would be statistically significantly negative, you could simply fade the play and make money. And we know that's not generally possible either, i.e. playing all home dogs every week blind is not a winning strategy either.

The only simple example I've seen which applies to NFL wagering is the exception of the simple power of wong teasers, but that's a different story obv as it involves using a powerful option correctly and is an edge I believe books leave up as teasers have generally been a moneymaking proposition for the books - as more and more information is shared, and the wong teaser strategy becomes more and more prevalent, I imagine this simple system will cease to exist as well.

In short, i believe there aren't any simple winning systems for NFL wagering. I could certainly be wrong - if home faves of -2.5 to -1 are winning at a 55% clip historically for a statistically significant sample size, then that would be a contrarian example.

But I've yet to see reliable data that such a simple scenario exists. But of course, the absence of proof here is not proof of absence.


Dementia, sorry if you feel this is a hijack, but I think its a valuable discussion that just happened to be sparked from your thread and worth elaborating on...

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
personally I believe some of the traditional thinking - one very traditional example, those who will never play a road favorite, ever - is very possibly flawed, or at least working from bad assumptions.

I think in general that it is very very rarely that simple (i.e. to say all road favorites are bad news). Any time something would be statistically significantly negative, you could simply fade the play and make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is an important point which people don't seem to realize. Absolutes are a bad thing in gambling. I think people are starting to figure out that there are a lot of good bridgejumper props.

Also, my sympathy to Dementia, who went 0-3 with two -140 losses. I went 1-2 myself (Bal +3, NYJ -3.5, Dal -6) so it's not like I tore it up either, but damn, yo.

[Dementia]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, my sympathy to Dementia, who went 0-3 with two -140 losses. I went 1-2 myself (Bal +3, NYJ -3.5, Dal -6) so it's not like I tore it up either, but damn, yo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, let me have it boys. GG, lol.

I did have the Saints moneyline tonight for +260 though, so it balanced out alright. I won't front though, the picks blew up in my face, but that is why they play the game. Next week looks disgusting as hell right now also.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Next week looks disgusting as hell right now also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I grabbed Detroit +4.5 +104, but I don't like anything else right now. Glad you got the Saints ML. Good luck this week!