Say the game pushes at -1
15 % of the time.
Say that ML +116 wins 50% of the time and Favorite wins 50% of time (of course.)
So, 50 of 100 times +$116 + (-$104) = 50*$12 = $600
Also, 35 of 100 times -$100 + $100 = 35 * $0 = $0
The pushes at 15 of 100 times give -$100 + $0 = 15*(-$100)= -$1,500
Result over 100 games as a CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE gives a net of NEGATIVE $900 at $100/game.
NOT A GOOD VALUE. It sure looked good on the surface.
Thanks for the thought process, Fish! This type of stuff is what educates us all and it is always a process of learning for me. Thanks. tulsa
15 % of the time.
Say that ML +116 wins 50% of the time and Favorite wins 50% of time (of course.)
So, 50 of 100 times +$116 + (-$104) = 50*$12 = $600
Also, 35 of 100 times -$100 + $100 = 35 * $0 = $0
The pushes at 15 of 100 times give -$100 + $0 = 15*(-$100)= -$1,500
Result over 100 games as a CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE gives a net of NEGATIVE $900 at $100/game.
NOT A GOOD VALUE. It sure looked good on the surface.
Thanks for the thought process, Fish! This type of stuff is what educates us all and it is always a process of learning for me. Thanks. tulsa
GUYS, how can my pushes estimate be so high when the two teams are obviously closely matched to get that pricing in the first place! You can't come up with such quick values without just saying you are using the ENTIRE set of games. THIS is a subset of games where the teams are closely matched. I am SURE that pushes happen at least 15 out of 100 times when you have such tight lines. HOWEVER,
OK...I said it was conservative estimate so let us get closer to the numbers you guys promote:
Give me 5% pushes
Give me Dog gets 46% wins.
So the numbers end up POSITIVE $52 or .5 units over the course of 100 units wagered. NOT worth it. tulsa
OK...I said it was conservative estimate so let us get closer to the numbers you guys promote:
Give me 5% pushes
Give me Dog gets 46% wins.
So the numbers end up POSITIVE $52 or .5 units over the course of 100 units wagered. NOT worth it. tulsa
I've got to head out...my train is leaving. So, I want to see what else is posted here but I don't have time! I may be wrong, but I don't think so (even though I don't scalp at all...though I do middle sometimes.)
Good luck and thanks for the interesting discussion. I'll catch up on your replies when I get back Sunday! tulsa
ps...you're all wrong and I'm right!!
Good luck and thanks for the interesting discussion. I'll catch up on your replies when I get back Sunday! tulsa
ps...you're all wrong and I'm right!!
The guys I'm going with are running late so I'm back to check in!
Alright...will someone tell me that you're examining the number of times games have a fav hit -1 WHEN AND ONLY WHEN the set is such that the lines are so close as to be considered tight. Tell me, do you think the number of pushes is no different for +1.85 and -2.00 priced games than for -110 and +100 games? Guys, work with me here. You are looking at the overall set of games played not the subset priced at -1: -104 and ML: +116?
I would love to have the time to show that the subset of NCAA games played that are so tightly priced as Fish's hypothetical have AT LEAST 5 out one hundred games end with the favorite winning by 1. I don't have the time to go figure that one out and it would not be easy to go back and find the games that were priced such as the scores are easy to determine historically, but the prices are the hard part. I don't know where one would find historical pricing like that.
I still am confident that 5 out of 100 for that subset (not all games, of course) hit with a favorite pushes the -1. tulsa
Alright...will someone tell me that you're examining the number of times games have a fav hit -1 WHEN AND ONLY WHEN the set is such that the lines are so close as to be considered tight. Tell me, do you think the number of pushes is no different for +1.85 and -2.00 priced games than for -110 and +100 games? Guys, work with me here. You are looking at the overall set of games played not the subset priced at -1: -104 and ML: +116?
I would love to have the time to show that the subset of NCAA games played that are so tightly priced as Fish's hypothetical have AT LEAST 5 out one hundred games end with the favorite winning by 1. I don't have the time to go figure that one out and it would not be easy to go back and find the games that were priced such as the scores are easy to determine historically, but the prices are the hard part. I don't know where one would find historical pricing like that.
I still am confident that 5 out of 100 for that subset (not all games, of course) hit with a favorite pushes the -1. tulsa
Tulsa said:
Sorry but they're pretty close with their numbers.
You are correct in assuming that games that are closely matched do hit pushes more often, but this difference is smaller than you'd think. The actual results at a spread of -1 have hit about 2.3% of the time. That is including 2000 games at a spread of -1 in cbb (I have a lot of data).
The standard error there is 0.1%, so there is no way that number is going to hit more than 3%. 4s hit the most often at around 4.2%
B/C the money line can't push I get the ROI at about 4.7%
There's a difference of 12 points. Therefore, if you bet equally on each side you will win 6 points on each game that does not result in a 1-point win by the favorite. If the favorite wins by 1 point you will lose the dog bet and push on the favorite bet. You would lose 1 unit in this case.
Let's say this happens 3% of the time as a worst-case scenario.
Using 100 games as an average and $100/bet we would have:
97 times this wins * $6.00 = $582
3 times this loses * $100 = -$300
This would give you a profit of $282 for every 100 games.
Let's say this happens 3% of the time as a worst-case scenario.
Using 100 games as an average and $100/bet we would have:
97 times this wins * $6.00 = $582
3 times this loses * $100 = -$300
This would give you a profit of $282 for every 100 games.
