JackStraw, very interesting.
would you give an example of this system?
thanks.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JackStraw:
There was a hockey system a few years where
you would take a 1/2 puck or more and go under
a hockey total of 5 1/2 or more in a two team
parlay. You would prefer a plus price but would
accept an average lay of up to -125, +05 and
-30 would be acceptable.
This system was so strong that Las Vegas and offshore books literally cried Uncle. They lost
hundreds of thousands on these parlays. The problem was the strong correlation between taking a 1/2 a puck or more and going under. The average score in hockey had dropped to 4 1/2 pucks per game. Books were still posting 5 1/2 and 6 total pucks on the game. Games were ending in ties after overtime as teams were content in letting the games end that way.
Las Vegas books started to refuse the parlays or drop the limits drastically. Stardust cut their limit to $50. MGM Grand took $1000 parlays and lost so much money they were forced to keep lowering the limits. Books were also barring players who only bet the parlays. The trick was to send runners in at various times of the day. It took a long time for Roxy when he was running LVSC to finally warn books how much a disadvantage they were at by accepting these parlays.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
would you give an example of this system?
thanks.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JackStraw:
There was a hockey system a few years where
you would take a 1/2 puck or more and go under
a hockey total of 5 1/2 or more in a two team
parlay. You would prefer a plus price but would
accept an average lay of up to -125, +05 and
-30 would be acceptable.
This system was so strong that Las Vegas and offshore books literally cried Uncle. They lost
hundreds of thousands on these parlays. The problem was the strong correlation between taking a 1/2 a puck or more and going under. The average score in hockey had dropped to 4 1/2 pucks per game. Books were still posting 5 1/2 and 6 total pucks on the game. Games were ending in ties after overtime as teams were content in letting the games end that way.
Las Vegas books started to refuse the parlays or drop the limits drastically. Stardust cut their limit to $50. MGM Grand took $1000 parlays and lost so much money they were forced to keep lowering the limits. Books were also barring players who only bet the parlays. The trick was to send runners in at various times of the day. It took a long time for Roxy when he was running LVSC to finally warn books how much a disadvantage they were at by accepting these parlays.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Forget the example, just understand the reasoning. If you bet the dog you are going to win a lot of your bets because of a tie. In the NHL 1-1 and 2-2 ties are quite common, 3-3 and above are not so common. Also it is based on the fact that NHL teams are like NFL teams with the lead. Once a team gets a lead past the halfway point of the game they give up a lot of potential offensive opportunities in an attempt to avoid getting caught up ice. Home teams tend to be conservative for the last 10 minutes, but road teams can be conservative from the start of the 2nd period in some cases. So the angle worked on the fact that a road team would get the first goal or maybe a 2-1 lead and then just sit on it. When NHL teams are sitting on leads the games have little chance of becoming high scoring. Just look at the playoffs, that is all due to teams playing tight once they get a lead. No odd-man offensive rushes also means few odd-man rushes given up to the opponent. This is accomplished by having one winger or the center always trailing the play at a conservative distance and having the defense make sure no one gets behind them. It costs a team a ton of opportunities to score, but serves a purpose with a lead.
This system though mostly worked because the history of the NHL has been 5-7 goals scored a game and only in the last decade since the neutral zone trap began being seen everywhere did the NHL have this 4.5 or 5 total on most games. The books were slow to adjust but now that you have to pay a big price to bet the under, they have regained enough edge to render this strategy less valuable.
This system though mostly worked because the history of the NHL has been 5-7 goals scored a game and only in the last decade since the neutral zone trap began being seen everywhere did the NHL have this 4.5 or 5 total on most games. The books were slow to adjust but now that you have to pay a big price to bet the under, they have regained enough edge to render this strategy less valuable.
