#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daliman WONG Teaser FAQ
Hmmm, maybe I am asking the wrong question, because one would think that lower o/u matters more if the line has been teased up to 7.5-8.5 for a dog than if teased down to 1.5-2.5 for a favorite. Or maybe it doesn't matter at all.
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daliman WONG Teaser FAQ
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, maybe I am asking the wrong question, because one would think that lower o/u matters more if the line has been teased up to 7.5-8.5 for a dog than if teased down to 1.5-2.5 for a favorite. Or maybe it doesn't matter at all. [/ QUOTE ] Pretty negligible difference, but the line of thought likely has other applications... |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daliman WONG Teaser FAQ
<font color="red">Will it work on college games?</font>
NO math in this thread 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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daliman WONG Teaser FAQ
I've been crunching numbers on NCAA football data tonight to determine if there are any subsets for which Wong teasers could still be profitable. I think I have found some significant data but I'd like some others to look it over and see whether you agree.
I looked at all NCAA division 1 football games from 2001-2006 and the current 2007 season, for which the lines were between 1.5 and 2.5 or 7.5 and 8.5. The overall numbers agree with what has previously been posted, that the winning percentages are a bit below the breakeven percentage for 6-pt 2-team -110 teasers (0.7237): ALL Season Wins Losses Win % 2000 64 19 0.7711 2001 72 24 0.7500 2002 76 40 0.6552 2003 70 33 0.6796 2004 74 22 0.7708 2005 77 26 0.7476 2006 70 29 0.7071 2007 34 15 0.6939 Total 537 208 0.7208 However, the numbers for Road teams, specifically Road Underdogs are better: ROAD Season Wins Losses Win % 2000 29 5 0.8529 2001 37 10 0.7872 2002 35 16 0.6863 2003 30 17 0.6383 2004 35 14 0.7143 2005 37 7 0.8409 2006 31 12 0.7209 2007 14 6 0.7000 Total 248 87 0.7403 ROAD UNDERDOGS Season Wins Losses Win % 2000 14 2 0.8750 2001 19 7 0.7308 2002 22 9 0.7097 2003 18 4 0.8182 2004 26 5 0.8387 2005 26 4 0.8667 2006 22 11 0.6667 2007 9 5 0.6429 Total 156 47 0.7685 Next, I looked at a subset of these games where the O/U total was less than 50 points. The overall numbers were uninteresting (222-86, 0.7208 - same percentage as the overall totals), however the edge for road teams and particularly road underdogs became even more noticeable: ROAD, total < 50 Season Wins Losses Win % 2000 7 1 0.8750 2001 11 3 0.7857 2002 10 4 0.7143 2003 14 6 0.7000 2004 16 6 0.7273 2005 16 1 0.9412 2006 26 8 0.7647 2007 6 2 0.7500 Total 106 31 0.7737 ROAD UNDERDOGS, total < 50 Season Wins Losses Win % 2000 4 0 1.0000 2001 8 2 0.8000 2002 7 1 0.8750 2003 7 1 0.8750 2004 12 4 0.7500 2005 13 1 0.9286 2006 17 7 0.7083 2007 5 2 0.7143 Total 73 18 0.8022 Next I looked at games with the O/U total less than 47 points. This data showed even more of an edge for Road teams and particularly Road underdogs. ROAD, total < 47 Season Wins Losses Win % 2000 3 0 1.0000 2001 6 2 0.7500 2002 7 1 0.8750 2003 10 5 0.6667 2004 11 5 0.6875 2005 10 0 1.0000 2006 20 4 0.8333 2007 5 2 0.7143 Total 72 19 0.7912 ROAD UNDERDOGS, total < 47 Season Wins Losses Win % 2000 2 0 1.0000 2001 5 2 0.7143 2002 4 0 1.0000 2003 4 1 0.8000 2004 9 4 0.6923 2005 8 0 1.0000 2006 15 3 0.8333 2007 5 2 0.7143 Total 52 12 0.8125 For the under 47 numbers, the sample sizes are getting pretty small as there just aren't that many games/year that meet the conditions. But I think the data clearly shows that 2-team 6-pt -110 Wong teasers have been profitable for road teams in expected low-scoring games over the past several years. Since there are so many more college games, the sample sizes for the Road teams in general are actually larger than for the NFL data that Wong originally used. I think betting these games with a total < 50 is a good bet, although that may not be the optimal cutoff number. If people are interested in this, I can go back and add a few more seasons. The database I use goes back to the 1996 season but the data starts getting shittier pre-2001 (games listed with 0 as the total, etc.). I could also get the results for some different point totals besides 50 and 47. Feedback is appreciated; if I'm way off here and/or overlooked anything, please let me know. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daliman WONG Teaser FAQ
Interesting stuff Mogwai. Is the cover percentage ATS roughly 50%? The percentage that the teaser wins isn't nearly as significant as the percentage that hits on the teaser's "sweet spot."
For instance, if the subset went 55% ATS for some reason, of course we'd expect to see the subset's teased lines jump 5% as well. This leads to a false expectation of +EV for these teasers since betting straight up ATS might be better. J |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daliman WONG Teaser FAQ
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting stuff Mogwai. Is the cover percentage ATS roughly 50%? The percentage that the teaser wins isn't nearly as significant as the percentage that hits on the teaser's "sweet spot." For instance, if the subset went 55% ATS for some reason, of course we'd expect to see the subset's teased lines jump 5% as well. This leads to a false expectation of +EV for these teasers since betting straight up ATS might be better. J [/ QUOTE ] You are correct. The ATS is high in his sample. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daliman WONG Teaser FAQ
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting stuff Mogwai. Is the cover percentage ATS roughly 50%? The percentage that the teaser wins isn't nearly as significant as the percentage that hits on the teaser's "sweet spot." For instance, if the subset went 55% ATS for some reason, of course we'd expect to see the subset's teased lines jump 5% as well. This leads to a false expectation of +EV for these teasers since betting straight up ATS might be better. J [/ QUOTE ] this is exactly right and something I mentioned in my post straight ATS are way above 50% for this subset...significant by any binomial test by a large margin skip the teaser and just bet that subset ATS...you'll thank me later they are actually >50% straight up to win the game over 300+ trials from 1993 to 2006, which means the ML is what you should really be hitting |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daliman WONG Teaser FAQ
Mogwai, please take a canary with you next time.
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daliman WONG Teaser FAQ
Ok, that makes sense. I'll run the numbers tonight and see what the exact results were for the unteased line, but I'm sure you're right. If straight betting this subset ATS is more +EV than teasing it, that's even better since you have more opportunities to do so (probably fairly often you only have one team per week in this situation). I can also look at expanding the line ranges further than {1.5-2.5,7.5-8.5}. Sorry if this is commonly known stuff, I'm new at this.. thanks for the replies.
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daliman WONG Teaser FAQ
um...definitely not commonly known or the lines wouldn't continue to show such a positive bias over time
I'd prefer not to make it commonly known it's definitely known among frequent bettors that work at this stuff a very good investigation all the way around mogwai |
|
|