I went all the way back to 1989. These are the results I have...
Overall Games CLOSING -3 : 566
Results for those games ATS : 259-245-62
Games with a posted CLOSING total of <37/line of -3 : 169
Results of those games ATS: 72-80-17
Games with a posted CLOSING total of >37/line of -3 : 397
Results of those games ATS: 187-165- 45
It doesn't take a genius to see that OVERALL (according to these numbers) there has been about a 10.95% probability (62/566) of getting a push.
With totals less than 37 there has been about a 10.05% probability (17/169) of getting a push.
With totals over 37 there has been about a 11.33% probability (45/397) of getting a push.
So my numbers still hold true when I go back a few more years. Actually they go up slightly with the OVER side. But that might be a streak of 3 or 4 games that does that. That just shows the volatility of trying to figure this stuff out. I have numbers all thje way back to 84-85 but cannot find that disc right now, but I am certain the same will hold true.
There was one year with an inordinate amout of pushes, the same year Aces went bankrupt by letting people bet anything. I have said it before, and I say it again, they just got "unlucky". Because had the historical results held true, they would have cleaned up. Probably would have eventually gotten busted, but they would not have gone broke then. I believe there were 12 or 13 pushes that year, rather than the "normal" 3 or 4. So about 4 times as many. Also if you do throw that year out (which you cannot) the probabilility of a push on -3 DOES in fact drop BELOW 10% since 1989.
But that is just it, we cannot add or subtract the "good" or the "bad" years to suit our need, or arguments. IMO that year was a major anomoly, and was far outside the norm. I believe there were 12 of 56 games that pushed on -3. It is in here somewhere for sure. So we just have to take all the games we can find and get a median that way.
But it would not be wrong to say that the probability, based on past results of getting a push on a game lined -3 is less than 10%. As long as you know in your head that that one year had a high enough percentage to push the number slightly higher.
Sort of like a bell curve back in school. The whole class might get grades of 80-85, but there is always that one kid that gets 100. So that is the one year (out of the 17 I looked at) that threw it out of whack. For the most part the other years range from 7% to 11% or so. But OVERALL, and including that 'anomoly' year, they are right arounf 11%. SO it is NOT wrong to use that figure either.
Again, these are MY numbers. The results can vary for sure. But overall I cannot see how it could ever get as high as 14% unless it was for a pretty short span and the numbers used were a "worst" or "best" case study, depending on how it was defined.
It could still be broken down further into games where the numbers only moved slighty, as well as looking at games where the number moved "a lot". But since we can't even agree on the basics, THAT would get REALLY confusing.
Basically if you want to bet both sides of this game, and can risk 11 bux in juice to collect 100 dollars then you basically have a 50/50 shot of cashing. Which is still better than betting one side at -110 and needing 52.7% winners.
And maybe that is what the SHRINK was saying all along. I think he just got the percentages a little too high. If all things were equal and you could lay 22 cents TOTAL BOTH ways, it is still a 2.7% advantage over betting one side. That is over a long series of bets.
Which gets to my argument. A decent capper that can pick winners at better than 52.7% doesn't have any advantage here. The only way it "REALLY" works is if the guy has bet both sides in all 566 games where the line was -3. Since that is the standard we/I have used for my results. And that same guy would now be just about even depending on the odss he could have gotten. So in 17 years he surely wouldn't have gone broke, but wouldn't have made much, if anything either.
THAT is my argument in a nutshell, basically.
Overall Games CLOSING -3 : 566
Results for those games ATS : 259-245-62
Games with a posted CLOSING total of <37/line of -3 : 169
Results of those games ATS: 72-80-17
Games with a posted CLOSING total of >37/line of -3 : 397
Results of those games ATS: 187-165- 45
It doesn't take a genius to see that OVERALL (according to these numbers) there has been about a 10.95% probability (62/566) of getting a push.
With totals less than 37 there has been about a 10.05% probability (17/169) of getting a push.
With totals over 37 there has been about a 11.33% probability (45/397) of getting a push.
So my numbers still hold true when I go back a few more years. Actually they go up slightly with the OVER side. But that might be a streak of 3 or 4 games that does that. That just shows the volatility of trying to figure this stuff out. I have numbers all thje way back to 84-85 but cannot find that disc right now, but I am certain the same will hold true.
There was one year with an inordinate amout of pushes, the same year Aces went bankrupt by letting people bet anything. I have said it before, and I say it again, they just got "unlucky". Because had the historical results held true, they would have cleaned up. Probably would have eventually gotten busted, but they would not have gone broke then. I believe there were 12 or 13 pushes that year, rather than the "normal" 3 or 4. So about 4 times as many. Also if you do throw that year out (which you cannot) the probabilility of a push on -3 DOES in fact drop BELOW 10% since 1989.
But that is just it, we cannot add or subtract the "good" or the "bad" years to suit our need, or arguments. IMO that year was a major anomoly, and was far outside the norm. I believe there were 12 of 56 games that pushed on -3. It is in here somewhere for sure. So we just have to take all the games we can find and get a median that way.
But it would not be wrong to say that the probability, based on past results of getting a push on a game lined -3 is less than 10%. As long as you know in your head that that one year had a high enough percentage to push the number slightly higher.
Sort of like a bell curve back in school. The whole class might get grades of 80-85, but there is always that one kid that gets 100. So that is the one year (out of the 17 I looked at) that threw it out of whack. For the most part the other years range from 7% to 11% or so. But OVERALL, and including that 'anomoly' year, they are right arounf 11%. SO it is NOT wrong to use that figure either.
Again, these are MY numbers. The results can vary for sure. But overall I cannot see how it could ever get as high as 14% unless it was for a pretty short span and the numbers used were a "worst" or "best" case study, depending on how it was defined.
It could still be broken down further into games where the numbers only moved slighty, as well as looking at games where the number moved "a lot". But since we can't even agree on the basics, THAT would get REALLY confusing.
Basically if you want to bet both sides of this game, and can risk 11 bux in juice to collect 100 dollars then you basically have a 50/50 shot of cashing. Which is still better than betting one side at -110 and needing 52.7% winners.
And maybe that is what the SHRINK was saying all along. I think he just got the percentages a little too high. If all things were equal and you could lay 22 cents TOTAL BOTH ways, it is still a 2.7% advantage over betting one side. That is over a long series of bets.
Which gets to my argument. A decent capper that can pick winners at better than 52.7% doesn't have any advantage here. The only way it "REALLY" works is if the guy has bet both sides in all 566 games where the line was -3. Since that is the standard we/I have used for my results. And that same guy would now be just about even depending on the odss he could have gotten. So in 17 years he surely wouldn't have gone broke, but wouldn't have made much, if anything either.
THAT is my argument in a nutshell, basically.
I have considerably more of data than you do and I can say without hesitation that as the total moves higher, the frequency of the game landing on 3 drops.
Look at what pinnacle charges to to buy on/off the 3 for games with different totals.
Also, why restrict your analysis to games lined right at 3?
Use, -1,-2,-4,-5, as well and compare how often those games land on 3 at various totals.
Look at what pinnacle charges to to buy on/off the 3 for games with different totals.
Also, why restrict your analysis to games lined right at 3?
Use, -1,-2,-4,-5, as well and compare how often those games land on 3 at various totals.
GOOD INFORMATION
Now what about SINCE the 2-point conversion has come back into the league?
BEFORE the 2-point conversion, i had always used a figure that was roughly 9.7% of the games falling on the number 3, which your numbers support basically.
I AUTOMATICALLY raised this to around 10.3% without any ACTUAL supportive statistics since the 2-point conversion was brought into the league and think over time this will be about accurrate. If you can give me some statistics since then, it would be interesting.
By the way, the number SEVEN will also fall more now since the 2-point conversion is now in effect.
Again, still sticking with my 11-12% range for this NE-PITT game, but still can be swayed to 10-11% or 12-13% possibly.
Now what about SINCE the 2-point conversion has come back into the league?
BEFORE the 2-point conversion, i had always used a figure that was roughly 9.7% of the games falling on the number 3, which your numbers support basically.
I AUTOMATICALLY raised this to around 10.3% without any ACTUAL supportive statistics since the 2-point conversion was brought into the league and think over time this will be about accurrate. If you can give me some statistics since then, it would be interesting.
By the way, the number SEVEN will also fall more now since the 2-point conversion is now in effect.
Again, still sticking with my 11-12% range for this NE-PITT game, but still can be swayed to 10-11% or 12-13% possibly.
Pancho, I have all those splits too. But like I said, since we cannot agree on a number that is more likely to be standard like a -3, how can we ever agree on rogue numbers like -1 thru -5?
I have a couple sources myself. I cited the one that is quickest and easiest. The numbers for the other one are in the archives here for sure, definately at another site. They would just need this years numbers added in to update them. Which I put up yesterday in this thread. There were 3 games of 40 that I got that pushed that closed -3, and ALL of those were available at another price. But even using the standard I use there were 3 of 40 (7.5). Obviously too small a group to make any determination. But still telling anyways.
As far as Pinnacle charging more or less. I do not buy off or on, and couldn't care less how much they charge.
They can barely correlate a series price, so I won't hold them to a very high standard when it comes to setting odds.
Besides that whole shaprness of Pinnacle argument is a whole other can of worms. So using them as some benchmark is definately skewed IMO.
They also offered NE -3 +119 yesterday for a couple hours. Plus they also had Pitt +135 on the ML. Do those numbers add up? Right now Pitt is +131/ NE -3 is +106. Right now it is about a 50/50 probabilty based prop to bet NE -3 +106, and Pitt on the ML. You have positive odds both ways and a less than 5% chance of losing both, and about an 15-16% of losing one way and pushing another, but for positive odds.
But that is definately advance stuff there. And again, since we cannot agree on the basics, trying to prove that is crazy.
But Pinnacle makes mistake A LOT, especially when they do their odds. I think we had a running thread about how their baseball odds were completely out of whack. Especially early. I think people blamed it on a new guy or something like that. But I don't hold them to any higher standard than I do anyone else. I certainly do not think they are unbeatable.
They play the volume game just like everyone else. But you can grind them out just like they grind the players out. They offer alot of "value" lines. But in the end for a line to have value it has to win. The only way a line is truly loss free is when you scalp or when you cannot lose no matter what. And I have shown time and time agaim Pinnacle opens themselves up for that many many times in a year. So does that make them smart? Or sharp? Depends on which side had the most money I guess. If they open themselve up for me to scalp a couple hundred of them, does that matter if they have a guy lose 50K on the line that made my scalp possible? Not hardly. Because they lost a little to win a lot. Now if the big bettor wins, then it is more than likely a temporary set back. Not many guys quit gambling once they win, so eventually the guy will lose it back to them.
Again, this is going off topic. But citing Pinnacle as a source of divinity is getting old, and has no merit in this argument.
I have a couple sources myself. I cited the one that is quickest and easiest. The numbers for the other one are in the archives here for sure, definately at another site. They would just need this years numbers added in to update them. Which I put up yesterday in this thread. There were 3 games of 40 that I got that pushed that closed -3, and ALL of those were available at another price. But even using the standard I use there were 3 of 40 (7.5). Obviously too small a group to make any determination. But still telling anyways.
As far as Pinnacle charging more or less. I do not buy off or on, and couldn't care less how much they charge.
They can barely correlate a series price, so I won't hold them to a very high standard when it comes to setting odds.
Besides that whole shaprness of Pinnacle argument is a whole other can of worms. So using them as some benchmark is definately skewed IMO.
They also offered NE -3 +119 yesterday for a couple hours. Plus they also had Pitt +135 on the ML. Do those numbers add up? Right now Pitt is +131/ NE -3 is +106. Right now it is about a 50/50 probabilty based prop to bet NE -3 +106, and Pitt on the ML. You have positive odds both ways and a less than 5% chance of losing both, and about an 15-16% of losing one way and pushing another, but for positive odds.
But that is definately advance stuff there. And again, since we cannot agree on the basics, trying to prove that is crazy.
But Pinnacle makes mistake A LOT, especially when they do their odds. I think we had a running thread about how their baseball odds were completely out of whack. Especially early. I think people blamed it on a new guy or something like that. But I don't hold them to any higher standard than I do anyone else. I certainly do not think they are unbeatable.
They play the volume game just like everyone else. But you can grind them out just like they grind the players out. They offer alot of "value" lines. But in the end for a line to have value it has to win. The only way a line is truly loss free is when you scalp or when you cannot lose no matter what. And I have shown time and time agaim Pinnacle opens themselves up for that many many times in a year. So does that make them smart? Or sharp? Depends on which side had the most money I guess. If they open themselve up for me to scalp a couple hundred of them, does that matter if they have a guy lose 50K on the line that made my scalp possible? Not hardly. Because they lost a little to win a lot. Now if the big bettor wins, then it is more than likely a temporary set back. Not many guys quit gambling once they win, so eventually the guy will lose it back to them.
Again, this is going off topic. But citing Pinnacle as a source of divinity is getting old, and has no merit in this argument.
Judge Wapner said:
Judge brings up an excellent topic here. While I was taught this and actually read about this being the gospel at one time, I am not so sure that lines are based on public perception any longer. There are just too many other variables in today's market, like all the Wise Guys and Syndicates who make up sizable volume on an everyday basis compared to the Public who for the most part just bets NFL Football...
I'd love to hear from some bookmaker's on this, if possible...
Thanks in Advance,
THE SHRINK
Shrink, I have the same reservations, due to industry sports vs public sports(ex: MLB vs NFL), especially at critical junctures of year or seasons, in particuliar sports, and also when some seasons stand to the player/bank at certain junctures.
re: your NE and Atl plays..are you a "Groundhog Day" or "Same Time Next Year" fan..Pats win/Phi lose same Sunday 365 up the line every January?
I say NE 24 - Pitt 13...Phi 20 - Atl 17
Pancho or Moi, Can your programs isolate certain teams for 10, 15, or 20 yr trends of 3..off the top of my head try GB, NYG, SD, Oak, St.L, NYJ, Sea, Jax, NO, and Chi, to be ahead of the class the last 10 years?
re: your NE and Atl plays..are you a "Groundhog Day" or "Same Time Next Year" fan..Pats win/Phi lose same Sunday 365 up the line every January?
I say NE 24 - Pitt 13...Phi 20 - Atl 17
Pancho or Moi, Can your programs isolate certain teams for 10, 15, or 20 yr trends of 3..off the top of my head try GB, NYG, SD, Oak, St.L, NYJ, Sea, Jax, NO, and Chi, to be ahead of the class the last 10 years?
Last edited:
Horse-
I posted that breakdown here or there somewhere.
It broke down team by team pushes when they were both FAVORED by 3 and a DOG of 3. Just to get some handle on which teams had better percentages.
It might not be reliable or even logical. But I found about 8 teams that were involved in about 70% of all the games that pushed on 3. I found several teams that have NEVER been in a game that pushed on 3.
But that leads to more questions that answers sometimes. Are those teams due? Do they play a certain style? Will coaching changes matter? Free angency changes teams doesn't that factor in? All the logical questions and more. But I started the breakdown about 3 years ago when this whole argument really got fueld. I think one of those teams has since been in a push game while the other still haven't. Off the top of my head that is about once in maybe 20 games or so these teams have been in games lined 3. So well below the 'league probability'.
Since 1989 The 'top push' teams have been Den, SD, Atl, Pitt, Jets, Phi, Buff, NE. Those teams make up about 44 of the 62 games that have resulted in pushes on 3 (independantly). Overall they were involved in 54, but were common oponents in 10 of those games. That is a pretty high percentage of all games that have pushed on 3. Just something I found and thought was interesting.
I posted that breakdown here or there somewhere.
It broke down team by team pushes when they were both FAVORED by 3 and a DOG of 3. Just to get some handle on which teams had better percentages.
It might not be reliable or even logical. But I found about 8 teams that were involved in about 70% of all the games that pushed on 3. I found several teams that have NEVER been in a game that pushed on 3.
But that leads to more questions that answers sometimes. Are those teams due? Do they play a certain style? Will coaching changes matter? Free angency changes teams doesn't that factor in? All the logical questions and more. But I started the breakdown about 3 years ago when this whole argument really got fueld. I think one of those teams has since been in a push game while the other still haven't. Off the top of my head that is about once in maybe 20 games or so these teams have been in games lined 3. So well below the 'league probability'.
Since 1989 The 'top push' teams have been Den, SD, Atl, Pitt, Jets, Phi, Buff, NE. Those teams make up about 44 of the 62 games that have resulted in pushes on 3 (independantly). Overall they were involved in 54, but were common oponents in 10 of those games. That is a pretty high percentage of all games that have pushed on 3. Just something I found and thought was interesting.
