NHL - Regulation only Vs Including OT

[NhlNut]

I'm going to be using the regulation only option quite a bit, as I feel OT and the shootout are a crapshoot. It's like going back in time to before the NHL added the extra point.

So, is my thinking wrong? How are you going to bet the NHL?

[MyTurn2Raise]

i haven't decided

i'm betting both until I find which one is value town

[NhlNut]

bump
10 nhl bettors here?

[NhlNut]

A month later, anyone rethought their positions?

[MyTurn2Raise]

haven't decided yet

[Freerollin`]

I agree that it's a crapshoot, so I'm taking the following approach: if the team I pick is a fave, I'll take reg only since (if it goes to OT), I'll essentially be laying a negative number for a 50/50 event; if I take the dog, I'll take OT included because if the game goes to OT, I'll be taking an overlay from the book.

Any thoughts on this (probably poorly-constructed) logic?

[MyTurn2Raise]

I was thinking of starting to gather all the lines and compare regulation v OT to see what the current betting market is saying about the difference.

[1C5]

When they say they include OT, does that mean they also include Shoot outs?

[Freerollin`]

yes

[NhlNut]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it's a crapshoot, so I'm taking the following approach: if the team I pick is a fave, I'll take reg only since (if it goes to OT), I'll essentially be laying a negative number for a 50/50 event; if I take the dog, I'll take OT included because if the game goes to OT, I'll be taking an overlay from the book.

Any thoughts on this (probably poorly-constructed) logic?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you make a lot of sense.
But I've yet to hear anyone give a cogent arguement as to why one should choose OT included on a consistant basis.