bb ? for math majors

Challenge to those sharper w/numbers than myself (meaning most of free-and not-so-free-world). Yesterday the option was presented of betting the Edmonton/Colorado game over 5.0+$1.25 and under 4.5+$1.10. Without doing the work, I say that if betting slightly more on the under 4.5+$1.10, that betting BOTH the under 4.5 and over 5.0 is a play. For two reasons: first, 5.0 under-$1.45 does NOT correlate to 4.5 over-$1.30, meaning the books are giving away at least 15 cents for us to play with. Secondly, we know that in L3Y Colorado home has had 39 percent of their games fall 4 or less; 23 percent fall on 5; 38 percent fall 6 or more. L3Y Edmonton away had 37 percent of games fall on 4 or less; 16 percent fall on 5; 48 percent fall on 6 or more.

Numbers to help: L3Y 20 percent of all games fell on 5; L3Y whenever a total was 5.0, 20 percent (of games w/total of 5.0) fell on 5.

So did bb make the correct play?

[This message was edited by Bobby Bryde on 12-20-02 at 07:01 AM.]

 

[BZ]

Bobby,
It was worth a shot. However, if 39% of the games are 4 or less and you got 4.5 +10, seems to me that was the good play.

Thanks for your continued insight.

 

When a line is 5 under -145, then

20 will land on 5
44 will land on 4 and less
36 will land on 6 or more

__________

So if you did your bet of ov 5+25 and un 4.5+10, lets see...And lets say you did this with 100 bucks on each side.

20 times you will lose 100 = -2000
44 times you will win 10 = +440
36 times you will 25 = +900

______________

So if you made this bet, you'd end up -660. Mr Bobby Bryde, you will not only lose, but you will get smoked and move out of your house and go live in a trailer park if you keep doing this. The only reason you think it's good is because 4.5 over 30 and 5 un 45 are not equal, I agree. But don't forget, you have that 20 cent gap in between games (vig) that you still have to overcome, you understand.

 

[mdrams]

the fact that you're betting more on the under demonstrates that you think the under is a solid play so also betting the over is taking away from your profits should the under be the final outcome.

 

I agree with Sick Gambler. He uses the mathematical percentages based on the line, which works, but I use histories from individual teams to determine. In this case, the results are:


20% of the time the game hits 5 (works by using Bobby's added stats at the bottom and by averaging COL's 23% and EDM 16%)
38% of the time the game goes 4 or under (took average of COL 39% and EDM 37% as provided by Bobby)
42% (rounded) of the time the game goes over 6 (again, average of COL 38% and EDM 47%).


So, by using the $100 bets you get:

20 losses = $2,000 loss
38 4 or unders at +1.10 = $380 gain
42 6 or overs at +1.25 = $1062.50 gain

Total of $557.50 loss

Same church, different pew. Even if the game had an 80% chance of hitting 6 or over and a 0 percent chance of 4 or under, it would still only be breakeven, due to the large 20% window.


Good luck,

HW

 

Heat,

how is that possible that a 5 un 45 goes over 52.5% of the time. It's -145, which means it's a favorite to win more often than lose. You have this winning 47.5% of the time, when Vegas has it winning about 58% of the time.

 

Sick,

I am not doing the calculation on the mathematics of the line...I am using the actual results from both teams for the last 3 years that Bobby provided. Based on the historical stats, EDM and COL would go over 5 more than the mathematical number for the average NHL team...

In this case, it doesn't matter, it is not a positive return play.


HW

 

Heat,

I can't believe you are actually going by this? Tell me you're kidding. You mean to tell me that you are basing the results on only 9 or 10 games? How can you go by 9 or 10 games as a sample. It's too small a sample size to be even considering this. That's like saying if the Cubs and Milwaukee play each other next year, the Over under should be 13, even though the total is 7 flat because they played some 12-10, 16-12 and 15-11 scores in their recent meetings over the last 9 games. How many times have you seen Randy and Maddux pitching, and the line is 7 flat, then the game ends 9-4. Then the next time they go head to head, the line is 7 flat again. They don't go by past games, they go by overall performance. Past games have very little effect on the next game. They do look at it, but very very minimal effect it has. Just doesn't make any sense. It's only 9 or 10 games Heat. But the -145 is based on hundreds of thousands of games, not 9. You know that anything can happen over 9 games. It's too small a sample size to be calculating a total over this # of games.

 

Sick,

I believe that Bobby stats cover all Colorado home games and all Edmonton road games for 3 years...so it's over 120 for each. Maybe still not a large enough sample size, but enough to prove the point that it doesn't matter which way you figure it.

We can discuss further if you would like...I think that using the mathematical way can sometimes fail to account for the idiosyncrasies of certain teams. Understand that I am not here to get into pissing matches - just to simply discuss, learn and share.


HW

 

heat, by no means is this a pissing match, and if that's how you took it, i'm sorry. Still, 120 games means nothing in this business. When I was struggling in NFL 8 years ago, I made my dog pick each game for the last 9 weeks of the NFL by putting a dish of food on each side, and whichever he would go for, I would take that team. And that dog went a total of 79-46-8, over a total of 131 games, I kid you not. Anything can happen over that minimum # of games. Just look at me for example, this summer in bases, from june till world series, I swear, I went something like 197- 68. Then from late October till early december, I went something like 47-149. If you would have followed me in summer, you'd all think I am a genius. If any of you follow me after that, you'd wanna break my legs. Streaks happen all the time, and just because 120 games went a certain way, doesn't mean anything. Take it from me big guy, and this is good sound advice to all. It's the line you have to look at, not the game. You get a good price, jump on it. I don't care who is playing who and where. If the worst team in basketball is playing in Dallas and the line is 19, and you find a 20, play it, I don't care. If you have a dog playing at Boston vs Pedro who is 19-1 with a 1.24 era and the dog is +380 everywhere, and you find a +440. Don't say, well, I think the dog will lose anyway, so I ain't playing it. Play it..!! You will win in the long run, mark my words.

 

Sick,

No, I didn't take it as a pissing match at all...I am here to learn and share ideas and thoughts, as I always have been. Sometimes these threads end up in places far away from where they started.

From what I see, a lot of people use that methodology - see a line that is a half point or full point off, and nail it, because of the extra winning percentage that the half point or full point provides. I understand the theory, I just can't get away from the teams.

HW

 

thanks for attempts at math for me and certain that some others are going to add their opinions/work.

i do think that three years of stats is more than enough to go by, esp. since the numbers dont fluctuate much over the three years. and dont forget we are using stats for BOTH teams, not just one.

but it is looking to me that the under 4.5+10 would/should have been the only play in this spot!

thanks guys...

bb