i am just the opposite i never bet sides i only bet totals because i feel most nba games are rigged.you dont know how many times i needed one of these overpayed janitors to hit a couple of free throws to get the cover.i just gave up on sides figuring they cant fix totals but i feel they do that also.
when betting totals its just a hunch bet you have to follow one team and try and ride them.golden state was a great over team early now they have some outragous lines and most of there games are going under lately.like anything else sportsbooks make adjustments.setting lines for nba totals are easy just look at what both teams average and add them up and thats your total they have been using this system for years.
pick your poisen its still hard to win no matter what you prefer to play.
when betting totals its just a hunch bet you have to follow one team and try and ride them.golden state was a great over team early now they have some outragous lines and most of there games are going under lately.like anything else sportsbooks make adjustments.setting lines for nba totals are easy just look at what both teams average and add them up and thats your total they have been using this system for years.
pick your poisen its still hard to win no matter what you prefer to play.
For me I look at the Guards and the guys that normally handles the ball for each team. If you got 2 teams with many ball handlers then you can expect a high tempo game. If you have teams playing with the bulk of the scoring coming from the big men down low you expect a low tempo, set plays type of game which happens in the playoffs and low scoring. Ususally the home team dictate the tempo in most cases. The bottom line is to watch a few games and check out the play of many teams to get a better feel on the totals.
I have tracked various scheduling roles (including B2B, 1DayRest, 2+Days Rest, 3rdin4, 4thin5 etc) and find no consistent correlation between any of them for either Over or Under results.
Projecting Totals has far more to do with correctly identifying the nature of the teams in play. And recent play is a good indicator as well. A team's past ten games provide a good lean to Over/Under. When combined with their opponent you can get even more of a Lean.
Note that Books adjust Totals lines accordingly once a team persists in one direction for six to eight games.
Projecting Totals has far more to do with correctly identifying the nature of the teams in play. And recent play is a good indicator as well. A team's past ten games provide a good lean to Over/Under. When combined with their opponent you can get even more of a Lean.
Note that Books adjust Totals lines accordingly once a team persists in one direction for six to eight games.
I used to use a method formulated by the late Bob McCune
The Deviation Factor in Handicapping NBA Totals
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
Back in the day, before the oddsmakers incorporated it into their linemakingprocess, correct application of the deviation factor was good for an ATSrecord of 55-57% on NBA sides and 60-62% for NBA totals over the course of a season.
Today, the folks that make the line are a lot sharper, but they still don't use the deviation factor as strongly as should be done, mainly because doing so would not "balance the action.
"The deviation factor was the brainchild of the late Bob McCune, who was the first sports-service operator to factor this into the making of the personal line that he gave his customers. The basic premise of the deviation factoris that a team's expected linear deviation from the league mean is not of alinear nature, but of a slightly geometric one.And with that confusing dogma out of the way, let's give you an example.
The NBA team scoring average is around 95 points per game. Assume the Team A is playing Team B, and that both teams score and give up the league average of 95 points per game in their respective home/away venues. Since each team scores 95 and gives up the league average of 95, it's logican thatThe game should be pick-em, and the total should be 190. In practice, thisis how things will work out over the long run. Now, let's assume that Team A and Team B each score and give up 105 pointsin their respective home/away venues.
The game should still be pick-em, andsince the the teams each score and allow 105, they should each score about105 points, which would make the game pick-em and the total 210, right?No. The game should be pick-em, yes, but the total will be, over the long runof similar games between similarly scoring teams, closer to 220.
This is the principle of the deviation factor, and the reasoning is this: Eachteam scores more than the league average, which means that their offenses arebetter than the league average is. Each team also gives up more points thanthe league average, which means that their defenses are worse than the leagueaverage.
When a team that scores more than average meets a team that allows morethan average, the result is that the two combine to a greater final score thana simple averaging of the two would indicate. The factor that I've found towork the most consistently in the NBA is 1.5. In other words, if the total production of two teams is more or less than the league average, the resultingtotal will be further off by 1.5 times the difference from the league average.
So if the league average is 95 (or 190 for both teams), and the two teams' rawnumbers total 200, the actual total can be predicted to be 205, which is the 10point difference x 1.5.Let's take an example from Friday night. According to my stats, the in-venue scoringbetween Denver and Toronto is as follows
enver 79.0 83.6Toronto 88.9 96.4If we add these four numbers together and divide by two, we come up with 174.0. Thedifference between 174.0 and 190 is 16 We take that x 1.5, and now have 24.
We subtract 24 from 190 and arrive at a total of 166. The oddsmakers did their job to adegree because they set the total at 169.5, 5.5 point lower than the raw numbers.They didn't do a good enough job because the final score was 84-79, or a game totalof 163. Our way of figuring the total was 3.5 points closer.Let's take another example from Friday:Sacramento 103.4 100.2Seattle 94.2 93.0Adding all of these up and dividing by 2 gets us 195.4, not far from the line of194.5. But when we add in the deviation factor, we take the 5.4 difference, multiply that by 1.5 for 8.1, add it to 190, and come up with 198.1, which isa good bit higher than the line of 194.5.
The actual score was 111-97, for atotal of 208.One more example from Friday:Utah 90.8 92.6Detroit 84.0 80.6Adding these and dividing by 2, we get 174. And the linesmaker made the total174.5. However, we take the 174 and subtract 190 for -16. 1.5 times thatnumber is -24. We subtract the 24 from 190 and come up with 166, which wouldwarrant an under play.
The final score of 86-75 for a total of 161 justifiedthe play.Basketball being what it is, nothing works every time, as shown here:Golden State 97.0 103.4 L.A. Lakers 90.6 94.9Adding these four together and dividing by two gives us 193.0. We take the3 point difference, multiply it by 1.5, and come up with 4.5, add that to 190 and arrive at a total of 194.5 The linesmaker agreed and had the lineat 195.
Somebody forgot to tell the Warriors and Lakers, because the finalscore was 96-89, for a total of 185 points.As you can see, the deviation factor in its simplest form does adjust thetotal somewhat from what raw figures would tend to have us believe, and ifyou do some work with them, you'll see that the linesmaker does include thedeviation factor into the totals.
However, it's my contention that they still do not factor 100% of what they should into it, and that allows thehandicapper to take advantage of this and secure an edge.</PRE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
For the record, I did not write any of the above article. wil.
http://www.lifesabet.com/readdoc.ph...viation_Factor_in_Handicapping_NBA_Totals.txt
The Deviation Factor in Handicapping NBA Totals
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
Back in the day, before the oddsmakers incorporated it into their linemakingprocess, correct application of the deviation factor was good for an ATSrecord of 55-57% on NBA sides and 60-62% for NBA totals over the course of a season.
Today, the folks that make the line are a lot sharper, but they still don't use the deviation factor as strongly as should be done, mainly because doing so would not "balance the action.
"The deviation factor was the brainchild of the late Bob McCune, who was the first sports-service operator to factor this into the making of the personal line that he gave his customers. The basic premise of the deviation factoris that a team's expected linear deviation from the league mean is not of alinear nature, but of a slightly geometric one.And with that confusing dogma out of the way, let's give you an example.
The NBA team scoring average is around 95 points per game. Assume the Team A is playing Team B, and that both teams score and give up the league average of 95 points per game in their respective home/away venues. Since each team scores 95 and gives up the league average of 95, it's logican thatThe game should be pick-em, and the total should be 190. In practice, thisis how things will work out over the long run. Now, let's assume that Team A and Team B each score and give up 105 pointsin their respective home/away venues.
The game should still be pick-em, andsince the the teams each score and allow 105, they should each score about105 points, which would make the game pick-em and the total 210, right?No. The game should be pick-em, yes, but the total will be, over the long runof similar games between similarly scoring teams, closer to 220.
This is the principle of the deviation factor, and the reasoning is this: Eachteam scores more than the league average, which means that their offenses arebetter than the league average is. Each team also gives up more points thanthe league average, which means that their defenses are worse than the leagueaverage.
When a team that scores more than average meets a team that allows morethan average, the result is that the two combine to a greater final score thana simple averaging of the two would indicate. The factor that I've found towork the most consistently in the NBA is 1.5. In other words, if the total production of two teams is more or less than the league average, the resultingtotal will be further off by 1.5 times the difference from the league average.
So if the league average is 95 (or 190 for both teams), and the two teams' rawnumbers total 200, the actual total can be predicted to be 205, which is the 10point difference x 1.5.Let's take an example from Friday night. According to my stats, the in-venue scoringbetween Denver and Toronto is as follows
enver 79.0 83.6Toronto 88.9 96.4If we add these four numbers together and divide by two, we come up with 174.0. Thedifference between 174.0 and 190 is 16 We take that x 1.5, and now have 24. We subtract 24 from 190 and arrive at a total of 166. The oddsmakers did their job to adegree because they set the total at 169.5, 5.5 point lower than the raw numbers.They didn't do a good enough job because the final score was 84-79, or a game totalof 163. Our way of figuring the total was 3.5 points closer.Let's take another example from Friday:Sacramento 103.4 100.2Seattle 94.2 93.0Adding all of these up and dividing by 2 gets us 195.4, not far from the line of194.5. But when we add in the deviation factor, we take the 5.4 difference, multiply that by 1.5 for 8.1, add it to 190, and come up with 198.1, which isa good bit higher than the line of 194.5.
The actual score was 111-97, for atotal of 208.One more example from Friday:Utah 90.8 92.6Detroit 84.0 80.6Adding these and dividing by 2, we get 174. And the linesmaker made the total174.5. However, we take the 174 and subtract 190 for -16. 1.5 times thatnumber is -24. We subtract the 24 from 190 and come up with 166, which wouldwarrant an under play.
The final score of 86-75 for a total of 161 justifiedthe play.Basketball being what it is, nothing works every time, as shown here:Golden State 97.0 103.4 L.A. Lakers 90.6 94.9Adding these four together and dividing by two gives us 193.0. We take the3 point difference, multiply it by 1.5, and come up with 4.5, add that to 190 and arrive at a total of 194.5 The linesmaker agreed and had the lineat 195.
Somebody forgot to tell the Warriors and Lakers, because the finalscore was 96-89, for a total of 185 points.As you can see, the deviation factor in its simplest form does adjust thetotal somewhat from what raw figures would tend to have us believe, and ifyou do some work with them, you'll see that the linesmaker does include thedeviation factor into the totals.
However, it's my contention that they still do not factor 100% of what they should into it, and that allows thehandicapper to take advantage of this and secure an edge.</PRE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
For the record, I did not write any of the above article. wil.
http://www.lifesabet.com/readdoc.ph...viation_Factor_in_Handicapping_NBA_Totals.txt
