Would You Win More Money Betting Games If...

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
107
Tokens
Hey Guys,

Doing my weekly column for The Sports Network, and I wanted to get some input from people around in the forums.

This week is the 15th anniversary of Offshore Online Sports Betting, so I am doing a couple pieces based on the history of sports betting.

I have a question hopefully some of you would like to answer.

The point spread was not invented until the year 1940. Assuming the point spread was never invented today, and you could only bet a team on the money-line. Would you win more money betting games? Would you be a more successful handicapper? Would it change the way you handicapped games?

To me, the answer is YES I would be more successful and NO it would not change the way I handicap games. I have been doing this for a living for over three years and I have worked on the other side of the counter in the industry for nearly a decade. I feel the first thing you should ever think of when handicapping a game is, who is going to win the game. If you are not 100% confident in who is going to win a game straight-up, how can you logically handicap a game. Obvious argument that will be put up here is, well, the line shows value one way or another. Yes, this may be true, but lets say the line is +4.5, you are leaving yourself far to small a window to work with if you are uncertain of a winner. The most likely outcome in a football game is a win by 3 points. That means the most likely outcome is a cover by 1.5 points. Do you really feel confident betting with only a point and a half? Are you sure there is no other game where your edge may be bigger? The handicapping process should always be, which team wins, then by how much.

Now I realize that money-line betting increases your BEP through the roof, and the odds are piled up against you. However, would you not feel more confident going into a Saturday or Sunday card knowing that you simply have to, pick a winner? I can assure you that we would all watch games VERY differently.

Remember, the point spread only matters in roughly 17% of all NFL games and slightly less in college. The team that covers the point spread also wins outright in more then 80% of the games.

I would also have to think that playing strictly money lines with no options to play the spread, there would be ALOT more people playing with house money each week then trying to claw back to even.

And for you underdog happy bettors, you would all be drooling over the jacked up prices that would be available.

Let me know what you guys think, hopefully this can strike a healthy debate.

Would you win more money each week if the point spread still didn't exist?
 

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
17,706
Tokens
First of all, I would wager a lot less. The swings in money would be too great for me to handle. I think most people would feel that way. The book would also agree with that.

If I had a $1000 bankroll, I could lose that in 1 game in College Football.

Pointspreads IMHO make it more challenging to make a pick, which results in more evenly distrubuted money. Without pointspreads, I think there would be a lot less to bet on. Think about College Football.

There is such a gap between the elite teams and the average football team. The book would have almost all of the action on these huge favorites. If the huge favorites, like this year, keep beating inferior teams and we were all taking this huge moneyline favorites. Books wouldn't be able to survive.

Perfect example: Oklahoma vs Kansas this past weekend. Oklahoma a 37 point favorite. I don't know if anyone would of thought Kansas had any shot of beating Oklahoma. Oklahoma won that game by 30. Failed to cover the spread by a touchdown. If there wasn't point spreads, chances are there wouldn't even be a line on this kind of game.

Moneyline betting would also result in less options.

Which brings me back to your original question:
I would rarely ever wager and probably win less money if the point spread didn't exisit. As I mentioned, the swings would be too great for me. Also, I believe there would be a lot less betting options which would hurt my bottom line.

Not to mention, I often take a underdog simply because I think it's too many points. It does change the way I handicap. I look for value in the spread. Particularly in the NFL, I usually start with underdogs and work my way to the favorites when I am handicapping. I want to find a underdog I like. It makes it easier for me to root for and gives me the feeling like I have a better chance to win since my bet can still win even if my team losses by X amount of points. Whether its true or not, it would effect my physce (spelling? )

I actually even question if I would bet on sports if there wasn't pointspreads.

GL with your article.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,283
Tokens
People would not bet on the big favs or the big dogs.

people would concentrate on the close matchups just like they do in baseball.

You would not have much action on Kansas/OU

But you would get most of your action on games like LSU/Alabama where the fav would be somewhere around -130

This comment I dont understand

And for you underdog happy bettors, you would all be drooling over the jacked up prices that would be available.


There are moneylines on just about every college game already so nothing new would be offered.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
34,770
Tokens
Interesting,

I mostly bet totals and ML already..

Feel the line is mostly a crapshoot any who..
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,106,898
Messages
13,439,271
Members
99,339
Latest member
billcunninghamhomeloans
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com