Teasing NFL With NCAAF

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see any scenario where going from 6.5 to .5 is more or even = EV to 7.5 to 1.5, whether you are talking NFL, NCAA, or Intramural Flag football.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am inclined to agree with you, and yet I have always heard that teasing NCAAF games is for suckers.

If teasing from -6.5 to -0.5 is EV neutral to slightly EV positive, shouldn't NCAAF teasers be highly Wongable then?

It's possible that for a game like this:

Tulane +6½ -110 +225
Army -6½ -110 -265

the true moneyline is somewhere from +/-220 to 230. In other words, at the very bottom of what seems like the possible range (meaning the handicappers have skewed the line to take into account people overbetting favorites).

It doesn't really seem likely though.

And even if this were true, if 3 and 7 are still key numbers, then going from -7.5 to -1.5 would still have a lot of value. So what gives?

[trixtrix]

[ QUOTE ]

Edit: Which is what happens the other way, but the other way has much higher variance for a very slightly higher reward, and it's dependent on a fair line. Neat.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly! my method exactly replicates every conceivable outcome his method does w/ the exception that a loss on the ncaa leg would default to a no play.

what's great here is you don't even have to consider the strength of the ncaa team you're taking, all it matters is that you can find a spread of -6.5 to tease and a ml line near or equivalent to +235. so you can tease as many ncaa teams as you can find teasable in this fashion.. i mean we are supposed to understand that this is used to cicumvent teaser limits in the first case right? so why not just do it w/ every team you can find in that fashion, so you can extract every last dime of utility value you get from teaser limits at the cost of giving away ev on the other leg..

underneath it all, op is simply doing nothing but -ev hedging, and even that isn't done optimally..

if his way is considered "2nd level" thinking (lol), then the synthetic 1 leg teaser would be what? 5th level?

the irony here is that op tries to establish this as some great truth when in actuality most experienced sharps have already considered it.

[trixtrix]

[ QUOTE ]

Calling us a bunch of squares is your subtle way to nudge us towards enlightenment?


[/ QUOTE ]

i called you a square b/c you're a square, or at least you appear to be square in this thread..


the difference here is that i defended my position that your "method" is simply an over-complicated way to achieve an essentially one leg nfl teaser leg, which you didn't even clarify in your original post. and i backed it up w/ logic and evidence..

i'm still waiting for you to prove my "stupidity" and "lack of value" in your contentions..

in fact, from the few others who have chimed in. it's evident that the exact opposite is recognized..

plus only a square would resort to baseless insults when faced w/ superior logic

but carry on w/ your hilarity of defense which essentially boils down to nothing but a forum circle-joke, it's highly entertaining.. and lol'ing at someone who posts about having something spelled out for me, when in private has chickened out of both a 4digit ncaa season prop bet and a 4digit nfl season prop bet.. get a fuuking clue

[PropPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't get the trixtrix hate

it's the general idea that has merit

I mean, right now Miami FL is -6.5 -112 with a -275 v +243 ML on Pinny. If this was the market efficient rate, that means the ML has about a -259 real value. The market is saying that the -6.5 6-point teaser should hit over 72% of the time, which would be a positive leg for a +100 book on two team teasers. With the right books and right situation, this is a good tool to have in your repetoire. The problem is the NCAA games played on Saturday and NFL on Sunday, so who knows if you got the market closing for NFL games. But, all in all, this is a good thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read up to this post, and pretty much my thoughts exactly.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume that, using Basic Strategy Teasers, you can win the NFL side of this teaser 73+% of the time.

Shouldn't teasing that NFL side with a -6.5 NCAAF favorite result in a +EV teaser (at a book which pays even money)?

Let's take a look at the numbers. 5Dimes has 2 NCAAF games this week that have -6.5 lines:

Tulane +6½ -110 +225
Army -6½ -110 -265

Oklahoma State +6½ -110 +220
Texas A&M -6½ -110 -260

The important thing to look at here is the moneylines. These games are handicapped as having a fair value moneyline of +245/-245 and +240/-240 (looking at Pinnacle we get +/-244 and +/-230).

Let's take Army -6.5 as our example then. If we assume the moneyline is efficient/accurate, then Army has a 70.588% (24/34) chance of winning this game.

0.73 X 0.70588 = 51.53%

Betting this teaser at even money looks to be a +EV bet (a 3.06% edge in this case).

Looking at this, I am not so sure that NCAAF teasers are quite as horrible as people are making them out to be. Unless there is an inefficiency in NCAAF moneylines for -6.5 spreads which has not been exploited yet...

The strategy here would of course be to look for favorable moneyline games (for example -6.5 -275), where the line is assumed to be sharp, and tease them with BST NFL sides at books that pay even money for teasers.

Edit: Not sure why I rounded down the fair moneyline from -245 to -240 for Army, but the win pct would of course just be even higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, there's an error in the methodology here where I determine the true moneyline for the -6.5 pt favorite.

Taking Army as +225/-265, I calculated the true line as -245, which would be a 71% winning pct (slighly EV for an even money teaser).

Thanks to a recent post by Ganchrow, I now know this is the wrong way to calculate the "true" moneyline.

The true line here would be -236, for a 70.24 win pct.

73% X 70.24% = 51.28%

This means it is a little harder to find an EV neutral NCAA leg for the teaser, which actually clears up some confusion for me. I couldn't believe how teasing two -6.5 favs could be +EV.

[Ganchrow]

Frequently, a good way to get an idea of the marginal value of the availability of 1 or more bet candidates is to consider the change in Kelly utility from including in the universe of allowable bets.

Let's consider 4 independent events: NFL Game 1, NFL Game 2, NCAAF Game 1, and NCAAF Game 2. We'll assume that the two NFL games are "Wong-able", and that the spread on each of the two NCAA games is 6.5. The payout odds on 2-,3-, and 4-team teasers are +100, +180, and +400 respectively. Further assume (as per the OP) that the win probability of the Wong-ed side of each NFL game is 73%, and that the SU win market of each NCAA game and (where the associated probability of the zero-vig market price represents an unbiased estimator of the "true" win probability) is given by:

NCAA Dog +225 (implying ~29.766% win probability)
NCAA Fave -265 (implying ~70.234% win probability)

This gives us 13 possible bet candidates (ignoring those choices with clearly non-positive gradients -- non-positive because bets are bounded at zero) listed below with payout odds and win probabilities (a '/' between multiple single events indicates a parlay):

<ul type="square">[*]NCAA1 Dog +225.00 29.289%[*]NCAA2 Dog +225.00 29.289%[*]NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong +100.00 53.290%[*]NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 +100.00 51.619%[*]NFL1 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 +100.00 51.619%[*]NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 +100.00 51.619%[*]NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 +100.00 51.619%[*]NCAA1 Dog/NCAA2 Dog +347.64 8.579%[*]NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 +180.00 37.682%[*]NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 +180.00 37.682%[*]NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 +180.00 36.500%[*]NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 +180.00 36.500%[*]NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 +300.00 26.645%[/list]
Let's consider the full-Kelly optimal allocations and associated expectations for each of the following unconstrained (i.e., assuming sufficiently large maximum bets) cases:
<ul type="square">[*]baseline case -- only the Wong teaser[*]all 2-team teasers[*]all teasers[*]all 13 bets[/list]
<u>Case 1 -- baseline, unconstrained</u>
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 6.580%
EV = 0.4330%
EG = 0.2169%


<u>Case 2 -- 2-team teasers, unconstrained</u>
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 6.580%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0%
EV = 0.4330%
EG = 0.2169%

So long as the Wong teaser is available, the teasers that include the NCAA bets are insufficiently attractive to induce a full-Kelly bettor to allocate any funds to them.


<u>Case 3 -- all teasers, unconstrained</u>
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 6.580%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
EV = 0.4330%
EG = 0.2169%

Because all the 2-team teasers that include an NCAA game have allocations of zero, we'd correctly expect that the larger teasers will as well. This is because the larger teasers all have breakeven probabilities no higher than the 2-team teasers, but at longer odds.


<u>Case 4 -- all bets, unconstrained</u>
NCAA1 Dog stake = 0%
NCAA2 Dog stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 6.580%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0%
NCAA1 Dog/NCAA2 Dog stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
EV = 0.4330%
EG = 0.2169%

The option to hedge NCAA exposure does not make the NCAA teasers any more attractive.


So what we see is that given the (reasonable) NCAA market stated by the OP, the NCAA teasers do not come into play in the unconstrained case where betting limits are sufficiently large.

The next question to consider is how these NCAA teasers might be used when betting limits are a factor. We'll consider the same 4 cases as above, except now we'll assume that the maximum bet sizes for each candidate are 2% of bankroll.


<u>Case 5 -- baseline, max bet=2%</u>
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 2.000%
EV = 0.1316%
EG = 0.1117%

The maximum bet constraint binds and the bettor would bet the limit.


<u>Case 6 -- 2-team teasers, max bet=2%</u>
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 2.000%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.959%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.959%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.959%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.959%
EV = 0.2291%
EG = 0.1449%

This implies that the 2-team NCAA teasers are useful in the face of low limits on Wong teasers.


<u>Case 7 -- all teasers, max bet=2%</u>
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 2.000%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.730%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.730%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.730%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.730%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 = 0.302%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0.302%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
EV = 0.2348%
EG = 0.1455%

Despite the lower breakeven win probabilities on the 3-team teasers, those that include both Wong-able sides are nevertheless useful due to the 2-team teaser limits.


<u>Case 8 -- all bets, max bet=2%</u>
NCAA1 Dog stake = 0%
NCAA2 Dog stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 2.000%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.730%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.730%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.730%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.730%
NCAA1 Dog/NCAA2 Dog stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 = 0.302%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0.302%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
EV = 0.2348%
EG = 0.1455%

Once again we find that the ability to hedge the NCAA leg of the NCAA teasers at the market price is of no value to the full-Kelly bettor.


Now let’s further decrease the maximum bet to 0.1% of bankroll.

<u>Case 9 -- all bets, max bet=0.1%</u>
NCAA1 Dog stake = 0%
NCAA2 Dog stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 0.100%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.100%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.100%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.100%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.100%
NCAA1 Dog/NCAA2 Dog stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 = 0.100%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0.100%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0.042%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0.042%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0.100%
EV = 0.0322%
EG = 0.0289%

And so we see that a bettor with a sufficiently large bankroll will find that the maximum bet sizes may bind even on teasers with an NCAA leg. This would induce him to start betting teasers containing multiple NCAA legs. Hedging is still of no value in this scenario.

Now let's see what would happen were the NCAA market more attractive.

In the unconstrained case, the primary problem with the NCAA teasers is that they simply don't provide a Kelly bettor sufficient value to reallocate away from the higher EV Wong teasers. So let's consider Case 4 above, with an NCAA market with the same theoretical hold as in the previous example (~3.262%), but such that the zero-vig market win probability would be breakeven on a two team teaser (i.e., p = 2^(-.5) &amp;#8776; 70.711%). In other words:

NCAA Dog +230.28 (implying ~29.289% win probability)
NCAA Fave -271.68 (implying ~70.711% win probability)

(The market is slightly wider than the previous 40¢ due to the higher magnitude lines.)

<u>Case 4b -- all bets, unconstrained, NCAA market = +230.28/-271.68</u>
NCAA1 Dog stake = 0%
NCAA2 Dog stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 5.779%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.493%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.493%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.493%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.493%
NCAA1 Dog/NCAA2 Dog stake = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
EV = 0.4441%
EG = 0.2223%

It should come as absolutely no surprise that if the SU win probability on the NCAA favorites were higher, the teasers including them would become more attractive.


In the constrained case, the primary problem with hedging the NCAA teasers is that doing so is simply too expensive. So let’s now consider case 8 above, with an NCAA market with the same implied probability as in the initial case, but with a width of only 20¢ as opposed to 40¢.

NCAA Dog +230.25 (implying ~29.766% win probability)
NCAA Fave -250.25 (implying ~70.234% win probability)

<u>Case 8b -- all bets, max bet=2%, NCAA market = +230.25/-250.25</u>
NCAA1 Dog stake = 0.040%
NCAA2 Dog stake = 0.040%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 2.000%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.789%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.789%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.789%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.789%
NCAA1 Dog/NCAA2 Dog stake = 0.008%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 = 0.260%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0.260%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
EV = 0.2351%
EG = 0.1455% (the increase in EG from case 8 above is outside 4 decimal place precision)

Due to the lower vig for the NCAA market, the full-Kelly bettor will now find it affordable to hedge some of his NCAA risk. This will allow him to place larger wagers on those 2-team teasers that include an NCAA leg.


So what we find is that given a reasonable NCAA market at standard juice, creating teasers including NCAA games is really only of value in order to partially circumvent limits. However, if a bettor believed for some exogenous reason that a particular 6.5 point NCAA favorite had a larger probability of winning straight-up than that implied by the OP's original market (~70.234), the NCAA might start becoming attractive.

Furthermore, a bettor able to transact at sufficiently reduced juice, could find hedging to be an affordable option. This would allow him to place larger bets on the teasers including an NCAA leg.

[zOrO2k6]

ok

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's consider 4 independent events: NFL Game 1, NFL Game 2, NCAAF Game 1, and NCAAF Game 2. We'll assume that the two NFL games are "Wong-able", and that the spread on each of the two NCAA games is 6.5. The payout odds on 2-,3-, and 4-team teasers are +100, +180, and +400 respectively. Further assume (as per the OP) that the win probability of the Wong-ed side of each NFL game is 73%, and that the SU win market of each NCAA game and (where the associated probability of the zero-vig market price represents an unbiased estimator of the "true" win probability) is given by:

NCAA Dog +225 (implying ~29.766% win probability)
NCAA Fave -265 (implying ~70.234% win probability)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

So what we find is that given a reasonable NCAA market at standard juice, creating teasers including NCAA games is really only of value in order to partially circumvent limits.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, thanks Ganchrow. It's gonna take me a while to digest all that, but a question pops into my mind.

Many books now offer payouts of -110, +180, +300. So what if we change that one assumption? (your +400 is clearly a typo)

The edge of the Wong teaser would be down from 6.58% to 1.91%.

However, betting the two Wongs, plus an NCAA leg would have an edge of 4.80%. Betting the two Wongs, plus two NCAA legs would show an edge of 5.15%.

I'm not just concerned with using these NCAA legs to avoid limits; it seems to me they could also be used when you only have 1 Wongable NFL game, or if the 2 team teaser payout is -110 (and you only have 2 Wongable NFL games).

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
In the constrained case, the primary problem with hedging the NCAA teasers is that doing so is simply too expensive. So let’s now consider case 8 above, with an NCAA market with the same implied probability as in the initial case, but with a width of only 20¢ as opposed to 40¢.


NCAA Dog +230.25 (implying ~29.766% win probability)
NCAA Fave -250.25 (implying ~70.234% win probability)


<u>Case 8b -- all bets, max bet=2%, NCAA market = +230.25/-250.25</u>
NCAA1 Dog stake = 0.040%
NCAA2 Dog stake = 0.040%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong stake = 2.000%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.789%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.789%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 stake = 0.789%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 stake = 0.789%
NCAA1 Dog/NCAA2 Dog stake = 0.008%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6 = 0.260%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0.260%
NFL1 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
NFL1 Wong/NFL2 Wong/NCAA1 Fave+6/NCAA2 Fave+6 = 0%
EV = 0.2351%
EG = 0.1455% (the increase in EG from case 8 above is outside 4 decimal place precision)

Due to the lower vig for the NCAA market, the full-Kelly bettor will now find it affordable to hedge some of his NCAA risk. This will allow him to place larger wagers on those 2-team teasers that include an NCAA leg.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, a bettor able to transact at sufficiently reduced juice, could find hedging to be an affordable option. This would allow him to place larger bets on the teasers including an NCAA leg.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, this is the only part which confuses me - the hedging.

To take a real world example, the Seahwaks/Steelers -6 (not an NCAA game but still appplicable) has a moneyline on Pinnacle of +240/-260. This implies a Steelers win pct of 71.06%.

The over round is only 101.634%.

So if we included this slightly +EV leg (due to limit constraints), it would be useful to hedge by betting Seahawks +240?

For me, this is counter intuitive.

[Ganchrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Many books now offer payouts of -110, +180, +300. So what if we change that one assumption? (your +400 is clearly a typo)

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, thank you, +300 is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
The edge of the Wong teaser [at -110] would be down from 6.58% to 1.91%.

[/ QUOTE ]It's even worse than that. Edge would in fact drop to 1.7355%.

In this case, the allocation would be 1.752% of bankroll on both of the 3-team teasers comprised of exactly one NCAA leg, and nothing anywhere else. This is a result of the 3-team teaser at +180 offering a significantly lower break-even prob than a 2-team teaser at -110.