This was in the May edition of Playboy, what are your thoughts if any?
"Always bet on a home underdog. At least that's the theory handicapper Mike Lee put forth... Home dogs lose more than they win but their higher payoffs make them profitable. Over two seasons, counting only games played through August (divisional leaders become prohibitave favorites as the pennant races tighten up,) Lee found that home dogs won 48.2 percent of the time for an overall profit of 7.3 percent. A survey of the 2002, 2003, and 2004 seasons shows that the angle still works, with a lower win (44.7 percent) but higher profit (7.5 percent) rate. Bet a fixed amount of your bankroll (say three percent) on every play, so your winnings increase as your wallet thickens."
Any thoughts?
"Always bet on a home underdog. At least that's the theory handicapper Mike Lee put forth... Home dogs lose more than they win but their higher payoffs make them profitable. Over two seasons, counting only games played through August (divisional leaders become prohibitave favorites as the pennant races tighten up,) Lee found that home dogs won 48.2 percent of the time for an overall profit of 7.3 percent. A survey of the 2002, 2003, and 2004 seasons shows that the angle still works, with a lower win (44.7 percent) but higher profit (7.5 percent) rate. Bet a fixed amount of your bankroll (say three percent) on every play, so your winnings increase as your wallet thickens."
Any thoughts?
