For anyone interested

This Det/Indy series is shaping up to be a "shocker". I commented on it before it started and thought how the odds were slightly off when it came to what the books were offering.

Even down 1-2 the Pistons are over a 2-1 fav at -261 which again is crazy, especially when the two Indy wins were back-to-back.

Obvioulsy the injuries and being short handed have a lot to do with this. But Indy has been playing that way all year, and O niel was ginpy in game three and Indy still won.

As far as historical porbability and past results in situations like this...

In Game 4 where the Home team in that game (fourth) stole a game on the orad, and won their game at home to be up 2-1 have won game 4 at a .608 pace 45-29 record overall.

Overall in all situations regardless of home/away status the home team in game 4 is 125-120 if they have a 2-1 game lead.

In this "bracket" the divisional semis a team that is up 2-1 which stole a game on the road has a game 4 record of 20-11 (.645).

In terms of series results Teams in the NBA with a 2-1 lead win a pretty high percentage of the series regardless of game schedule.

Overall teams with a 2-1 lead won 203 of 245 chances. Most of those did come when the team had the home court. But when the team stole one on the road, and won their home game (same as first situation above) they are 49-25 in the series overall.

In this "bracket", the Div semi finals the team thaty steals HC advantage and is up 2-1 is 19-12 in the series.

So while the situation does not have great numbers as a sample size, the results do go back to the beginning of the Playoffs, and basically represent all the results available in a particular format. Which does include the old 2-3-2 way they used to play. But they have played the 2-3-1-1-1 way for awhile now, and the numbers have held up just about the same. IMO the old 2-3-2 system actually favored the HC advantage team since it is very difficult to win 3 straght games against any team in the play offs, at home or not (thus the reason they changed the format).

Do with this info what you will. But it is just something to think about.

Also on a side note, no team in the NBA has ever come back from a 0-3 def. But in Game 4 the team down 0-3 has a "respectable" record with a 31-44 SU record overall in game 4(includes this years 2 sweeps). In this series (div semis) the overall record is 16-18 (.471), in div semis when the 0-3 team has game 4 at home the rec is 2-4 SU, so actually worse than expected.

Excellent post as always Want.

Are you getting your series info from your NBA database or from another site? Do you check out Whowins.com? That site seems to have excellent series info for all sports.

Looks like a beautiful day in So. Cal.

Unless you break it down by closing lines:digit: , that info is not of much use.

It is SU, when a team is a dog, in the game or in the series, then closing line does not matter. Obviously when the odds are in your favor it works. Like I told you the other day, if you have a 75% chance to win, and are getting positive odds BOTH ways, then it is a no brainer.


I took Indy at +840 before the series. Doesn't mean I will win, nor does it mean I will be betting them again. But ANYTIME you have a team up 2-1 with HC advantage and have almost 5-2 on them, betting them in a series is a no brainer, period end of sentance. If you don't then you are crazy. Give me every team that is up 2-1 in a 7 game series and no limit at +240/250 for the next 2 years I will break any book going.

You guys always want to talk about "advantage", and "if" this or "if" that. But you ALWAYS worry about a LINE. The line means NOTHING. It is an arbitrary number that is basically pulled out of guys azzes. A line hasn't balanced action in years, especially in the NBA.

I am giving results from something where a line doesn't need to mean anything at all. A line only confuses people. That is all it does.

Look at the play offs this year. Out of 55 games played, dogs have COVERED only SIX games. 6 of 55 that is all. They have won 18 others SU, but in terms of the LINE meaning ANYTHING, it meant something in JUST 6 of 55 games. I will take my chances betting the ML when the results are that low in terms of getting a win compared to a loss. 9% is all. Interms of the NBA overall I think the dogs cover (meaning losing by less than the required amount of points) about 12% of the time. SO again, is 12% worth betting a dog +points versus a dog on the ML. Depends on the ML I guess.

But in terms of series prices and the like, when your team is better than 50% historically, and in certain situations, like steraling that game on the road, they are at almost 65% probability to win , and you STILL are getting 5-2 on them, it doesn't matter. In terms of risk/reward/probability it is as no brainer as you get IMO.

And I don't want to hear about team by team breakdown. Handicapping the NBA is impossible. This series will probably prove it before all is said and done. Indy in and of themselves are crazy. After Game one against Boston, that 30 pt blowout, people had them dead. Well guess what, they might just get past det too, after a DD first game loss.

Certainly at the odds they are right now, they are worth it.

"The line means NOTHING. It is an arbitrary number that is basically pulled out of guys azzes. " :lolBIG:

Want- I for one always appreciate your posts, Keep up the good work.

Pistons now -293 at Pinnacle.

It doesn't.

In terms of ATS results. Breakdown any spread values you want to in the NBA, for the most part you will be seeing a 50-50 split in terms of who wins and who "covers". Then take away the SU wins by dogs and see what you get.

Even in terms of DD faves. The SU win rate is only slightly better than the other spreads. DD faves win SU about 78% of the time. All faves (less the DD results) win SU about 71.5% of the time. So even with a team that is supposed to be "dominant" there is only a 6.5% difference in SU win rates in proportion to overall games.

So that tells me right there, that when books hang up a DD number, it certainly means no more who will win SU than hanging a -4. In terms of relativety a -2 fave has only a 6.5% better chance of winning SU than a -10 fave does.

6.5% is by no means enough of a differential in terms of a predicative value to start thinking the books know a winner. No matter how seemingly dominant a team might be. The "failure" to get a much higher result when comapring DD faves to "regular" faves shows me just how arbitrary lines really are.

Common sense should tell you that a -12 fave should win MUCH more often SU than a -3 fave. But when one looks at past results, and isn't some sheep going to the slaughter, they see that the probability of that -3 fave winning is only 6.5% greater than that -12 fav.

Most bettors let books lead them where they want. They do it all backwards. They look at a line THEN they decide what to do. WRONG WRONG WRONG. If you like a team, it doesn't matter what the line is. Period end of sentance. If you like a team bet it, don't worry about lines.

Odds are a different animal, but when it comes to laying or taking a number, that should actually be the very last thing you worry about, if you even worry about it at all.

If you bet thousands of games, those one or two "bad line" beats will eventually get corrected. Getting the best line is important (for people that might win), and probably will account for 1% differential maybe over the long term, and more than likely that will make a difference. But honestly. MOST guys don't win anyways. So that 1% is just a "feel good" thing they have going for them.

So probably arguing about it is moot at this point. Because first we have to assume you can win in the first place. Basically it is like making a 20 sec pit stop in a 500 mile race. 1% can be the difference between winning and losing, but in reality there were other factors involved than getting a "bad line" 1% of the time. Just like the 3-4 extra seconds in the pit could have made a difference in a race, but in reality it probably didn't.

Want, I think pancho might be ABM lol

For some reason, there are people who never consider the M/L as an alternative. I have had replies to posts saying how ballsy taking the M/L was on a +2.5 dog. The spread is a comfort zone for most people and talk of 1pt here and 1pt there is laughable in some posts.

Want- I'm surprised you played Indy at +840, but passed on getting them at +2400 to win in 7 and +2100 to win in 6.

Cool I actually thought about buying alittle bit more on them at +1350 after they lost game one, but I didn't. I am not saying that the series is over by any means. But I like their chances to win.


We had the talk about the odds at those specific game numbers. I just thought that the "simple" win that was paying a very nice price was acceptable. But as I said, if you liked Indy, and thought they would steal one, it might be "better" to wait and see what Game One result was. Well if you waited, then you gained abot +500 on Indy. Obviously harder to bet them after they lost game one the way they did/. But like I said, if you like a team, simply bet them when you think the best odds will occur.

I sort of thought they might get game one, and nt game two, that is why I bet them the way I did. So I was locked in. Again, I could have bet them again at +1350, but looking at the odds now I am glad I didn't. I truly expected Det to be maybe -110/-115 down 2 games to one. But at -290 or whatever they are now it is definately not worth playing them. Of course if they lose again and go down 3-1, then it will be hard to think they win the next 3 games, but the odds will definately be decent enough to take a shot that they do, especially with Indy all ready "in the bank".

Either way, I have a live dogf going, win or lose, and in a series with odds like this one had to start, that is all a guy can ask for.