NBA: Taking Severe Underdogs - Your Opinon? - Page 3

DougOzzzz · #21 02-28-2006, 12:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
interpolating season-to-date records, the knicks have a 14% chance of winning on the road and the spurs have an 11% chance of losing at home.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but you shouldn't use these numbers. The problem is that you're double counting home court advantage. You need to either:

a - compare SA's home record vs. NY's overall record
b - compare SA's overall record vs. NY's away record
or
c - (best approach IMO) - compare SA's overall record vs. NY's overall record, then adjust for home court advantage afterwards.

That said, usually it's not a good idea to take these huge dog moneylines. However in this case, my line converter has the equivalent line of NY +15 at about +1500, with dogs of 14 to 16 winning 26 times in 418 games. The sample is pretty small though, so no conclusion can be drawn from those numbers.

LargeCents · #22 02-28-2006, 02:56 AM

I was curious enough to look up some stuff regarding the question about NY getting +1800 & Portland +1200.

According to covers, both teams closed at +15 points. So, I did a database search over on sportsbookpal and found 1006 NBA games that had spreads from 12.5-17.5 range. Straight up the record is 932-74 for the favorite. That's around the 12-1 odds we are talking about.

One question I have is this: If both NY and Portland are getting 15 points, why is one getting only +1200 on the ML, while the other is getting +1800?

DougOzzzz · #23 02-28-2006, 03:00 AM

What were the totals for each game?

While the totals can't explain that large a difference - they can explain some. A game with a 15 point spread and a total of 220 has a greater chance of an upset than a game with a 15 point spread and a total of 170.

This is something that I've been meaning to incorporate into the line converter for a while now.

jmillerdls · #24 02-28-2006, 07:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I asked if there was any way that taking an 18:1 dog in the NBA could carry a negative expectation over the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

And like I said, the bookmakers are very happy to give you odds that are gauranteed to allow for positive expectation over the long run...they want everyone but themselves to make money...we all know that.

jmillerdls · #25 02-28-2006, 07:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its clear the bookmakers have no clue what they are doing and are just giving money away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to fix your radar [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

niss · #26 02-28-2006, 11:03 AM

One thing to take from last night's games (and, of course, many of the other games over the past couple of months) is that the Knicks and Portland are very, very bad teams, and laying huge points against them when they are on the road may frequently be justified.

Nash_Clown · #27 02-28-2006, 01:58 PM

There definitely can be value in taking big underdogs. The books will allow +EV plays if that's what they have to offer to get balanced action on the game. Moneyline bets on big dogs are among the least attractive bets to the general public, wheras moneyline bets on big favs are quite popular.

The fact is, if a dogs chance of winning is greater than the break-even point suggested by the moneyline you have a +EV bet. tehmatt makes a great point: should any NBA team be expected to beat another 18 out of 19 tries? I think there is value in such bets, if you can quantify more precisely what the dogs true chances of winning are. Then you can simply make an EV based decisions.

Also, the method of taking one teams chance of winning multiplied by the others chance of losing is wrong. Say two evenly matched teams face off. Team A has a 50% chance of winning and team B has a 50% chance of losing.

.5*.5= .25 chance fo team A to win!? This is obviously incorrect.

DougOzzzz · #28 02-28-2006, 02:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There definitely can be value in taking big underdogs. The books will allow +EV plays if that's what they have to offer to get balanced action on the game. Moneyline bets on big dogs are among the least attractive bets to the general public, wheras moneyline bets on big favs are quite popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? How do you know this? Have you thought it through? Who the [censored] wants to risk $2200 or whatever to win a measly $100 on a big favorite?

I think a LOT more people are attracted to the big payouts than you think. And generally, the fave bettors will bet the spread, not the ML.

Nash_Clown · #29 02-28-2006, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There definitely can be value in taking big underdogs. The books will allow +EV plays if that's what they have to offer to get balanced action on the game. Moneyline bets on big dogs are among the least attractive bets to the general public, wheras moneyline bets on big favs are quite popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? How do you know this? Have you thought it through? Who the [censored] wants to risk $2200 or whatever to win a measly $100 on a big favorite?

I think a LOT more people are attracted to the big payouts than you think. And generally, the fave bettors will bet the spread, not the ML.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you use the moneyline converter from sportsbook pal, more often than not you are better off laying the points with the favorites than taking them on the moneyline, and vice versa with the dogs.

Look right now at todays Lakers game against Orlando (using the ML converter and pinnacle for the odds.)

Orl +9 -105 ML +425 (should be +394 with ML converter)
LAL -9 -105 ML -465 (should be -421 with ML converter)

As you can see, you have an overlay with a ML bet on Orlando and an underlay with LAL. If you want to bet the Lakers you should lay the points and If you want Orlando you should bet the moneyline for highest EV.

Also, what really matters is that you can find an overlay on a team. Sometimes big dogs have an overlay, and sometimes not. When they do, bet 'em. That's all.

craig · #30 03-01-2006, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There definitely can be value in taking big underdogs. The books will allow +EV plays if that's what they have to offer to get balanced action on the game. Moneyline bets on big dogs are among the least attractive bets to the general public, wheras moneyline bets on big favs are quite popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? How do you know this? Have you thought it through? Who the [censored] wants to risk $2200 or whatever to win a measly $100 on a big favorite?

I think a LOT more people are attracted to the big payouts than you think. And generally, the fave bettors will bet the spread, not the ML.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you use the moneyline converter from sportsbook pal, more often than not you are better off laying the points with the favorites than taking them on the moneyline, and vice versa with the dogs.

Look right now at todays Lakers game against Orlando (using the ML converter and pinnacle for the odds.)

Orl +9 -105 ML +425 (should be +394 with ML converter)
LAL -9 -105 ML -465 (should be -421 with ML converter)

As you can see, you have an overlay with a ML bet on Orlando and an underlay with LAL. If you want to bet the Lakers you should lay the points and If you want Orlando you should bet the moneyline for highest EV.

Also, what really matters is that you can find an overlay on a team. Sometimes big dogs have an overlay, and sometimes not. When they do, bet 'em. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You only have an overlay if the line of +394 is break-even AND +9 is correct. If they should be +9.5 you have no overlay. Also, even more important, there isn't that much of a difference between +394 and +425 (20.24% Break-even and 19.04% break even respectively).

So, if you think there is value in the +9, then yes, you would be better off taking the +425, but not by as much as you are implying.

craig