Do we have to go through this again?
I thought I posted up enough results to show that it was BARELY worth 10 cents, and only if you don't pay more that -117.
Here for you math guys who like to figure stuff out use these numbers...
In the NFL from 1985 to 2003
There have been 624 games that closed at -3. Obviously discrepencies will occur from varying differences in numbers, but I use a single source so at least it is consistant. But I am sure with ealry lines, and or line shopping you could maybe find as much as a 8-10% difference.
Of those 624 game 68 landed right on 3. So about 10.9%, have pushed. Again if you shopped around and got on early or late there could be some differnce there as well, but have to assume consistancy.
But at the varying odds you are going to get there is actually no way to verigfy whether or not it is worth the but off beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even at the 11%, it is BARELY a break even propostion. And that is betting every game.
I stand by my stipulation that a "better" handicapper would avoid the pushes more often than a "mediocre" one. But of course that is theory.
But those who want can do the math. But don't forget that the games that pushed DID NOT LOSE, they tied. So to make it a truly fair proof, you have to lay odds of -120 on every game. You also have to know that even the games that didn't cover ATS also had some ATS losses.
In that time frame there were 29 times the -3 fave won but won by either 1 or 2. So when you factor in that extra vig as well on those 29 "losers".
But do out the math, it isn't worth it.
I thought I posted up enough results to show that it was BARELY worth 10 cents, and only if you don't pay more that -117.
Here for you math guys who like to figure stuff out use these numbers...
In the NFL from 1985 to 2003
There have been 624 games that closed at -3. Obviously discrepencies will occur from varying differences in numbers, but I use a single source so at least it is consistant. But I am sure with ealry lines, and or line shopping you could maybe find as much as a 8-10% difference.
Of those 624 game 68 landed right on 3. So about 10.9%, have pushed. Again if you shopped around and got on early or late there could be some differnce there as well, but have to assume consistancy.
But at the varying odds you are going to get there is actually no way to verigfy whether or not it is worth the but off beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even at the 11%, it is BARELY a break even propostion. And that is betting every game.
I stand by my stipulation that a "better" handicapper would avoid the pushes more often than a "mediocre" one. But of course that is theory.
But those who want can do the math. But don't forget that the games that pushed DID NOT LOSE, they tied. So to make it a truly fair proof, you have to lay odds of -120 on every game. You also have to know that even the games that didn't cover ATS also had some ATS losses.
In that time frame there were 29 times the -3 fave won but won by either 1 or 2. So when you factor in that extra vig as well on those 29 "losers".
But do out the math, it isn't worth it.
Wantitall4moi-
I'd recommend you double-check your math.
Using your numbers, assume that in the games that don't hit "3", you hit 50%. That would be a combined record of 278-278-68. Laying-110, you'd be down 27.8 units.
If you paid -120 (buying the "3" for 10 cents)
You'd now be 346-278. Your EV would be:
+346 (1.0) - 276 (1.2) or +14.8 units. Paying that 10 cents made a 40-unit swing, juice included.
Buying off the 3 is worth an average of 24 cents. Buying onto the 3 is worth about 27 cents (turning a loss into a push is worth more than turning a push into a win, since avoiding a loss saves juice).
This is the reason all those books offering 10c half-points on the 3 went out of business... If you give me a wager, and give me 15 cents for free with point buying/selling, you're toast, even with 10c normal juice.
Another bit of basic strategy... The "7" is always worth paying 10 cents, on or off (I think off is worth 14 cents, on about 16, but that is from memory).
I'd recommend you double-check your math.
Using your numbers, assume that in the games that don't hit "3", you hit 50%. That would be a combined record of 278-278-68. Laying-110, you'd be down 27.8 units.
If you paid -120 (buying the "3" for 10 cents)
You'd now be 346-278. Your EV would be:
+346 (1.0) - 276 (1.2) or +14.8 units. Paying that 10 cents made a 40-unit swing, juice included.
Buying off the 3 is worth an average of 24 cents. Buying onto the 3 is worth about 27 cents (turning a loss into a push is worth more than turning a push into a win, since avoiding a loss saves juice).
This is the reason all those books offering 10c half-points on the 3 went out of business... If you give me a wager, and give me 15 cents for free with point buying/selling, you're toast, even with 10c normal juice.
Another bit of basic strategy... The "7" is always worth paying 10 cents, on or off (I think off is worth 14 cents, on about 16, but that is from memory).
Daringly, no I didn't I actually have them as well, just not right in front of me. I do have from 1985 to 1999 just not from 2000 to 2003. the only thing I have done with the recent numbers is figured push rates.
But from 1985 to 1999 Here is the complete breakdown.
For that time frame I have 427 results broken down.
In those 425 games the -3 faves won SU 260 times, their ATS record in those 260 wins was 203-17-40. Also in that time frame the faves lost SU 165 times. In two of those games there was a tie.
So basically you would have 243 winners at -120. Then you would have 185 losers @-120 , when you buy every game. Thatis a "profit" of 20250 minus 15412 = 4834.16.
Now at -110 each way ( a dime difference) you would have 203 winner@ -110, 185 losers @ -110, and 40 refunds with no losses. That would be a profit of 18454 minus 16818 = 1636 profits. So a difference of $3198.
I know it is less than that with the updated numbers added in, I think it was a difference of like $2500 or $2600 over that time period for a 100 player. That is a 19 year result, so basically would gain a 100 player 135 bux a year, or would save him one bet.
To me it isn't worth the psychological problems associated with it.
BTW it is not profitable on the -7. -3 is the only one that is even close.
But from 1985 to 1999 Here is the complete breakdown.
For that time frame I have 427 results broken down.
In those 425 games the -3 faves won SU 260 times, their ATS record in those 260 wins was 203-17-40. Also in that time frame the faves lost SU 165 times. In two of those games there was a tie.
So basically you would have 243 winners at -120. Then you would have 185 losers @-120 , when you buy every game. Thatis a "profit" of 20250 minus 15412 = 4834.16.
Now at -110 each way ( a dime difference) you would have 203 winner@ -110, 185 losers @ -110, and 40 refunds with no losses. That would be a profit of 18454 minus 16818 = 1636 profits. So a difference of $3198.
I know it is less than that with the updated numbers added in, I think it was a difference of like $2500 or $2600 over that time period for a 100 player. That is a 19 year result, so basically would gain a 100 player 135 bux a year, or would save him one bet.
To me it isn't worth the psychological problems associated with it.
BTW it is not profitable on the -7. -3 is the only one that is even close.
Actually my push rate in t my first post was incorrect, there weren't 68 pushes, there were only 56, I added 12 twice for some reason. That is the problem when you try and do this on the run, you always get numbers in the wrong section, or use them twice.
I jsut did it last mnth in Vegas, and that is where all my updated numbers are, and it was somewhere around 25-26 hundred difference if you could buy for a dime.
I jsut did it last mnth in Vegas, and that is where all my updated numbers are, and it was somewhere around 25-26 hundred difference if you could buy for a dime.
OK I found the numbers posted at another site...
There were 612 games, not 624 (the extra 12) 2 of the 612 games ended in a tie. Leaving 610 games to work with. (although technically had you bought off the 3 in the two ties they would be graded as losses)
But in terms of the 610 games with a winner.
-3 faves were 372-238 SU. The ATS record in those games was 285-269-56. So there were 31 games in which the fave won by one or two points.
So that gives you this break down. 285 @ -110 (winners) minus 269@ -110 (losers) = 1455 without buying off, and assuming a flat -110.
Now with buying off you would have 341 @ -120 minus 269@ -120 = 6000
For a difference of 4545.
So maybe I have to stand corrected. Ithought it was half that number. So either I made a mistake the first time, or am not thinking straight right now.
But then again it is all relative I guess. That 4545 represents some pretty steep assumptions, and for the most part you might get some of the lines for free anyways.
But when you are trying to prove or disprove something you have to assume constants and numbers that are correlary. At 4545 in 19 years it would have made a difference of 239.2 per year for a $100 bettor. Again, that is in the blind, buying of every game that closed -3. (with my source)
So technically it is profittable, but in reality I am not so sure. Who bets every -3 game? Or who would buy off every -3 game?
I also can show that in those 56 pushes there are generally only 7 or 8 teams involved in approximately 40 of them, be those teams -3 or +3. So if you eliminate games where those teams are involved altogether it is a whole different story. Then you have only 14-16 pushes in 390 games or so.
But then again how people interpret things is what make them different from everyone else. Some people like to look at the broad picture, other lie to get more specific. Sometimes getting to micro is bad, but not in some cases.
There were 612 games, not 624 (the extra 12) 2 of the 612 games ended in a tie. Leaving 610 games to work with. (although technically had you bought off the 3 in the two ties they would be graded as losses)
But in terms of the 610 games with a winner.
-3 faves were 372-238 SU. The ATS record in those games was 285-269-56. So there were 31 games in which the fave won by one or two points.
So that gives you this break down. 285 @ -110 (winners) minus 269@ -110 (losers) = 1455 without buying off, and assuming a flat -110.
Now with buying off you would have 341 @ -120 minus 269@ -120 = 6000
For a difference of 4545.
So maybe I have to stand corrected. Ithought it was half that number. So either I made a mistake the first time, or am not thinking straight right now.
But then again it is all relative I guess. That 4545 represents some pretty steep assumptions, and for the most part you might get some of the lines for free anyways.
But when you are trying to prove or disprove something you have to assume constants and numbers that are correlary. At 4545 in 19 years it would have made a difference of 239.2 per year for a $100 bettor. Again, that is in the blind, buying of every game that closed -3. (with my source)
So technically it is profittable, but in reality I am not so sure. Who bets every -3 game? Or who would buy off every -3 game?
I also can show that in those 56 pushes there are generally only 7 or 8 teams involved in approximately 40 of them, be those teams -3 or +3. So if you eliminate games where those teams are involved altogether it is a whole different story. Then you have only 14-16 pushes in 390 games or so.
But then again how people interpret things is what make them different from everyone else. Some people like to look at the broad picture, other lie to get more specific. Sometimes getting to micro is bad, but not in some cases.
FYI - moves on or off 3's are worth approximately 10 cents (in regular season NFL). Looking at seasons going back for a while will show that the favorite win by eactly 3 around 10% of the time.
Last year though as I recall, it was an even greater precentage - so mabye you could make the case for 11 or 12 cents.
Last year though as I recall, it was an even greater precentage - so mabye you could make the case for 11 or 12 cents.
cure77 - you're really starting to scare me.
On a no-vig line, if non-push results a win 50% of the time, the "fair line" is +100. If we're now winning 55% by buying the 3, what is the fair no-vig line? 55/45, or -122. In your own example, it is worth a lot more than either of you seem to understand. 1% is NOT 1 cent of moneyline.
On a no-vig line, if non-push results a win 50% of the time, the "fair line" is +100. If we're now winning 55% by buying the 3, what is the fair no-vig line? 55/45, or -122. In your own example, it is worth a lot more than either of you seem to understand. 1% is NOT 1 cent of moneyline.
OK, now I see what I did wrong. I was doing it ass backwards.
The numbers above are accurate. ATS record of 285-269-56.
Betting every game @ -110 would give you a result of -991. 285 @-110= 25909 @ $100 a play. MINUS 269 x 100 = 269000@ $100 a play. So you collect 25909, and lose 26900 equals -991.
OK, the other mistake i made was with the buy off odds. Add the 56 pushes to the win column, that now makes 341 wins, and still the 269 losses. So 341 wins @ -120 @ $100 a play = 28416. Minus 269 @ -100 @ $100 a play = the 26900. That is a PROFIT of 1516.
So the difference IS $2507. +1516 and -991. I knew I got 25 or 26 hundred when I did it out last time.
I am surprised no one pointed out my error, it was pretty apparent, guess no one really cares. But then again I don't have the right name so I don't have a dozen dicks up my ass spouting shit left and right that is taken as gospel, which is incorrect 75% of the time.
At -125 it is basically a break even proposition at the results I listed above. So technically you can say that it is worth 15 cents assuming you have -110 across the board.
Once I get all the line moves and line change data finalized I can be a little more concrete in when and where you can get -3 at better vig or even at -2.5.
But the fact still remains that when you eliminate certain teams, the numbers for the rest of the league are ones that you wouldn't think twice about.
The numbers above are accurate. ATS record of 285-269-56.
Betting every game @ -110 would give you a result of -991. 285 @-110= 25909 @ $100 a play. MINUS 269 x 100 = 269000@ $100 a play. So you collect 25909, and lose 26900 equals -991.
OK, the other mistake i made was with the buy off odds. Add the 56 pushes to the win column, that now makes 341 wins, and still the 269 losses. So 341 wins @ -120 @ $100 a play = 28416. Minus 269 @ -100 @ $100 a play = the 26900. That is a PROFIT of 1516.
So the difference IS $2507. +1516 and -991. I knew I got 25 or 26 hundred when I did it out last time.
I am surprised no one pointed out my error, it was pretty apparent, guess no one really cares. But then again I don't have the right name so I don't have a dozen dicks up my ass spouting shit left and right that is taken as gospel, which is incorrect 75% of the time.
At -125 it is basically a break even proposition at the results I listed above. So technically you can say that it is worth 15 cents assuming you have -110 across the board.
Once I get all the line moves and line change data finalized I can be a little more concrete in when and where you can get -3 at better vig or even at -2.5.
But the fact still remains that when you eliminate certain teams, the numbers for the rest of the league are ones that you wouldn't think twice about.
