Does anyone besides me agree that the line on live events gets way overinflated for the team that scores first in football on a game where the spread is 3 points or less?
I am wondering if you can make money long term just by betting against the team that scores first.
Lets say the Colts are -3 -108 at kickoff against Seattle(This is just an example)and the Colts score a quick TD to start the game.
Generally they will then make Seattle +3 +180 or so in the live wagering.
Dont you think these people are overinflating the team that scores first? I dont have the data to back myself up on this but I have noticed that these people are putting a much too high premium on the team that scores first.
I feel that if you go against the team that scores first in live betting you can make a small fortune long term.
Does anyone else have anything worth mentioning that says otherwise?
I am wondering if you can make money long term just by betting against the team that scores first.
Lets say the Colts are -3 -108 at kickoff against Seattle(This is just an example)and the Colts score a quick TD to start the game.
Generally they will then make Seattle +3 +180 or so in the live wagering.
Dont you think these people are overinflating the team that scores first? I dont have the data to back myself up on this but I have noticed that these people are putting a much too high premium on the team that scores first.
I feel that if you go against the team that scores first in live betting you can make a small fortune long term.
Does anyone else have anything worth mentioning that says otherwise?