HERE ARE SOME EMPTY CLICHES:-
from the world of gambling - "only squares bet NFL dogs"
from the world of the NYSE - "if everyone bought at the bottom and sold at the top, then the tops will be bottoms and the bottoms tops"
(translation for the degenerate: if everyone is doing the same thing, it ain't gonna work)
from the world of life - "can't teach a old dog new tricks"
good luck next week
from the world of gambling - "only squares bet NFL dogs"
from the world of the NYSE - "if everyone bought at the bottom and sold at the top, then the tops will be bottoms and the bottoms tops"
(translation for the degenerate: if everyone is doing the same thing, it ain't gonna work)
from the world of life - "can't teach a old dog new tricks"
good luck next week
Didn't we just go through this last year when the faves kept coming in early and you couldn't win a bet on a home dog if your life depended on it? It seemed to me that these figures started evening out as we progressed into the season.
Just as an aside, years ago when Bob Martin was running the show and putting out the lines from the Union Plaza, the books were making a ton. Then he got indicted for various charges by the Fed's, and he was no longer an oddsmaker. In steps Roxy Roxborough and Las Vegas Sports Consultants(LVSC), and they now started making the lines. From what I remember, the first two years that he was in charge, the books were getting their heads handed to them. It straightened out after those first two years and things returned to normal.
Earlier this year you had a change of ownership at LVSC when CBS sold out to Ken White and his boys. Maybe this is just a repeat of what happened after Martin left and Roxy took over. Who knows? But I would tend to believe that things will start evening out very soon!
Just as an aside, years ago when Bob Martin was running the show and putting out the lines from the Union Plaza, the books were making a ton. Then he got indicted for various charges by the Fed's, and he was no longer an oddsmaker. In steps Roxy Roxborough and Las Vegas Sports Consultants(LVSC), and they now started making the lines. From what I remember, the first two years that he was in charge, the books were getting their heads handed to them. It straightened out after those first two years and things returned to normal.
Earlier this year you had a change of ownership at LVSC when CBS sold out to Ken White and his boys. Maybe this is just a repeat of what happened after Martin left and Roxy took over. Who knows? But I would tend to believe that things will start evening out very soon!
Some of the Posters here remind me of the myth that many gamblers actually believe that if a coin lands on tails 3 times in a row....Heads are due or on a roulette wheel if it lands on red 3 times in a row... black is overdue. The old saying is a coin doesn't have any memory ! My advice ... Bet the games based on merits not on some silly " It's due theory " JMHO Good Luck in the coming weeks !
What people Do not get is it has more to do with the TEAMS than the LINES. The lines are basically irrelevant, especially when teams are getting beat by DD week in and week out. How many really close games have ther been this year? Not many, or at least not where the game was "supposed" to be close (according to the line)
As for my numbers here they are (since 1989)
Line < +7 (less than 7 dog)
<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>SU:</TD><TD align=middle>1076-1834-4 (37.0%)</TD><TD align=middle></TD><TD align=middle></TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>ATS:</TD><TD align=middle>1421-1394-99 (50.5%)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Line > +7 (more than 7 dog)
<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>SU:</TD><TD align=middle>279-998-1 (21.8%) </TD><TD align=middle></TD><TD align=middle></TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>ATS:</TD><TD align=middle>657-588-33 (52.8%)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The reason for the discrepency in percentage, which is marginal(2.5%) is more due to a smaller small size withthe bigger dogs, than it has to do with anything that is related to them having a "better" shot to cover IMO.
As for my numbers here they are (since 1989)
Line < +7 (less than 7 dog)
<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>SU:</TD><TD align=middle>1076-1834-4 (37.0%)</TD><TD align=middle></TD><TD align=middle></TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>ATS:</TD><TD align=middle>1421-1394-99 (50.5%)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Line > +7 (more than 7 dog)
<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>SU:</TD><TD align=middle>279-998-1 (21.8%) </TD><TD align=middle></TD><TD align=middle></TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>ATS:</TD><TD align=middle>657-588-33 (52.8%)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The reason for the discrepency in percentage, which is marginal(2.5%) is more due to a smaller small size withthe bigger dogs, than it has to do with anything that is related to them having a "better" shot to cover IMO.
The usual par for the course answers to a stupid question which some posters here have highlighted the ineptness of. Basically there is a Dog in every game and as in life, there are good dogs and bad dogs, and an across the board mentality, like all easy tricks, end in punishment. Its incredible how many never look at an injury list or that two pro-bowlers are missing. You have 2 teams giving up +9 pts this week, Seattle and St Louis against desperate Dogs, how do you know the difference if you dont do any digging?
I respect ANYbodys theories on how to gamble if they have been successful in the past........even if they bet nothing bet FAVORITES!!!
However, I will continue to bet ONLY underdogs(with the exception of the occassional -3 fav or less) and have confidence by doing so that I will have an added small advantage over the next few decades unless something drastically occurs.
At this point in time, there is no convincing me that underdogs will NOT cover the spread more times than favorites in the upcoming years..............thus as stated, INSTANT ADVANTAGE.
However, I will continue to bet ONLY underdogs(with the exception of the occassional -3 fav or less) and have confidence by doing so that I will have an added small advantage over the next few decades unless something drastically occurs.
At this point in time, there is no convincing me that underdogs will NOT cover the spread more times than favorites in the upcoming years..............thus as stated, INSTANT ADVANTAGE.
Fishhead said:
Fishy actually makes a quality post for once.
The long term is 52-48 in favour of the dog.
Put it this way, if you had two blackjack tables in front of you and one has a house edge of almost zero while the other has a house egde of about 9 % , which one are you gonna sit down and play at?:howdy:
winbet said:
Umm actually there are 6 teams that have to win by at least DD to cover this week. (NE is now OTB but they were -10)
I would also classify all those dogs as desperate, except for maybe the Bills, which ironically is the only one I see that might cover, and that has more to do with SD (martyball) ineptness than Bills' ability to play well.
Any team that is 1-8 or 2-7 or 2-6 is desperate IMO, not sure how thinking that is paintuing the picture with a broad brush.
Every team should be desperate unless they have already clinched the best possible scenario(generally that would be HF throughout the play offs)
Actually Fish it has already happened, people just haven't realized it.
Forgive me this is going to be a broad brush approach, but since people are talking in broad terms...
3+ dogs in 2000 102-96-3
2001 97-91-7
2002 111-91-3
2003 94-112-7
2004 103-101-7
2005 48-62-4
The problem is that it WAS profittable in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 but since then it HASN'T been. So people as usual are late to the party in looking at these so called "trends" as the chart above shows betting faves on the blind has been profittable the past 3 years. So if anything the faves are now regressiing overall, and not just an in season thing. So thinking that dogs will regress IN SEASON is definately a flawed thinking. You basically have to look at a season by season balancing, and not a week by week.
That is where a lot of people that use math make their mistakes. They have the right idea, they just don't carry it out far enough. A season is 256 games long, you CAN and WILL have streaks in that amount of time, the results above show it. But over 1536 games you will have a much larger base to determine what is up.
And even the above results are not really accurate, since we added a modifier (3+ dog) to the equation. Since that modifier is man made and more restrictive than simply ANY dog it flaws the results.
Not to mention that guys can and will also get different lines and that as well will skew the results up to 3%.
That is why I say math and data and historical results need to be taken with a grain of salt. But since this whole thought process is based on it, then it has some relevance here.
Wanti how much of your own money are you risking on your theory that the NFL has fundamentally changed and that the only "desperate dog" with a hope this week is Buffalo?:howdy:
IMO what we are witnessing is a hort term flux. Ever sit at a blackjack table and go on a tear for 15 minutes? Thats what the last 6 weeks amounts to in the grand scheme of things.
I still think players who eat chalk will lose, maybe not necessarily this year but eventually they will give it back.:drink:
IMO what we are witnessing is a hort term flux. Ever sit at a blackjack table and go on a tear for 15 minutes? Thats what the last 6 weeks amounts to in the grand scheme of things.
I still think players who eat chalk will lose, maybe not necessarily this year but eventually they will give it back.:drink:
Panchi go over to the other place I listed the sides I took this week as leads, 4 of them were of the DD variety and they were not the dogs.
Until the TEAMS show a way to cover ANY number I will keep betting the better teams. You can never go wrong betting on the team that is better.
If a team can't keep it close then why bet them if the books gie you 9 or 10 points? If they can't score or stay within 21 does the number even matter?
I don't let the lines sway me in terms of who I think will win. The only way I let a line influence me is whether I take a lead,or whether the ML is correlary to the spread (and vig/odds)
In years past getting these teams +9 would seemingly be a gift, now however now +19 wouldn't be enough. That is why the so called "sharps" are all broke or buried, because they are playing teams that USED to be seen as having "value", but this year they do not.
Until the TEAMS show a way to cover ANY number I will keep betting the better teams. You can never go wrong betting on the team that is better.
If a team can't keep it close then why bet them if the books gie you 9 or 10 points? If they can't score or stay within 21 does the number even matter?
I don't let the lines sway me in terms of who I think will win. The only way I let a line influence me is whether I take a lead,or whether the ML is correlary to the spread (and vig/odds)
In years past getting these teams +9 would seemingly be a gift, now however now +19 wouldn't be enough. That is why the so called "sharps" are all broke or buried, because they are playing teams that USED to be seen as having "value", but this year they do not.
