"Reverse Odds Analysis" [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

"Reverse Odds Analysis"

bad gambler
11-21-2006, 10:44 AM
I have been betting for around 8 years and in my time I have tried various strategies to try and beat the books. There is one strategy which I have been looking into very closely over the past few months widely known as the "Reverse Odds Analysis" Let me try and explain....

Your average punter generally looks at various lines whether it be in basketball, NFL etc and attempts to find line discrepancies between what he believes the outcome of an event is to what the books have set the line at to determine whether Team A will cover against Team B. The way he does that is via some form of analysis whether it be using historical trends, past results etc. So essentially if you see a strong trend whether it be an O/U or side trend in a particular event and feel the current line undervalues that trend you make the bet accordingly. Unfortunately this is what Vegas wants us to do because in the long run they know an average punter who operates in this fashion does not come ahead in front.

Vegas is a multibillion dollar business, these guys are not idiots they want our money and the way they do that is setting a line as such to ensure they get action on both sides 50/50. They use the sharp bettors and insiders who jump on the early lines as valuable indicators to ensure they achieve this, and will adjust the line accordingly if they feel they are not getting the required action on both sides of the line. The books try and achieve a balanced book to ensure that whatever the outcome of a particular event, they will make money. Ultimately the teams playing, the stats and trends associated with a particular matchup is secondary - it is the line of the game that is what matters most when capping a game.

What reverse odds analysis forces you to do is work backwards - ask yourself why the books have set the line at a particular number? Vegas have already done the detailed analysis of games, factored in all the trends and stats, team news etc when setting a line. This is why me doing the same kind of analysis is somewhat fruitless exercise. What you need to do is try and determine using reverse odds analysis is who Vegas believes will cover the spread based on the line set. Easier said then done...

Have you ever seen a line in a game and thought to yourself "this looks too easy?" These are commonly known as "trap" games and this is what Vegas wants you to think. My advice when that ever occurs is pass on the game and move on. Sure the ocassional trap games does yield a positive result but in the long run YOU WILL NEVER WIN. The books will always be one step ahead of you.

The most classic example occured in the NFL on Sunday when the Dallas Cowboys were a 1 point favourite against the Colts. A 5-4 team was a one point favourite against a 9-0 team???????????? It is just so obvious, Vegas knew the Cowboys would win but had to set the line as such to get enough action on the Colts. What resulted was the public looking at the line on the Colts, thought to themselves "this is too good to be true" and proceeded to hand over their cash they used to back the Colts to the books. Essentially what Vegas was telling me was should the two teams play in a neutral venue, the Colts would have been a 2 point favourite, and if they had played in Indiana they would have been a 5 point favourite (using the 3 point differential as a rule of thumb). Good grief it's was so damn obvious.

Now the hard part - trying to identify those games that fit into the reverse odds strategy. Not every game will fit into this category. Another thing to note is the above strategy is most successful for American sports where there is most action seen and more money invoved to affect the lines of particular games. Don't even bother with tennis, it won't work IMO.

I've been using this method over the past few months with reasonable success (only paper bets though). I'm going to track my bets and see how I fare, no gurantees that I will make any money but would be interested to see what the results are. The downside is that my perception of the line may not necessarily equate to what Vegas are thinking.

Only sports I will be betting in here will be NBA and NFL.

bad gambler
11-21-2006, 10:50 AM
Overall Record (13-11-1)

NBA (10-6-1)



24/11/06 Knicks +4 v Celtics (W)
25/11/06 Wizards -2 v Pistons (L)
29/11/06 Nets +3.5 v Celtics (W)
1/12/06 Sonics -3 v Pacers (L)
17/12/06 Kings +2.5 v Suns (L)
19/12/06 Suns -13 v Raptors (W)
20/12/06 Warriors +1.5 v Celtics (W)
22/12/06 Magic -4 v Warriors (L)
22/12/06 Kings +2.5 v Nuggets (W)
23/12/06 Heat -5.5 v Warriors (W)
26/12/06 Hornets +5.5 v Sonics (L)
27/12/06 Bulls -5.5 v Heat (W)
29/12/06 Magic +6.5 v Wizards (W)
30/12/06 Grizzlies -5.5 v Raptors (W)
31/12/06 Grizzlies +8.5 v Rockets (W)
2/1/07 Clippers +5 v Magic (X)
3/1/07 Jazz -11.5 v 76ers (L)



NFL (3-5-0)



26/11/06 Steelers +3 v Ravens (L)
26/11/06 Rams -4 v Niners (L)
30/11/06 Bengals -3 v Ravens (W)
17/12/06 Ravens -11 v Browns (L)
18/12/06 Colts -3 v Bengals (W)
23/12/06 Raiders +7.5 v Chiefs (L)
24/12/06 Seahawks +4.5 v Chargers (W)
24/12/06 Jaguars -3 v Patriots (L)

SwiSha
11-21-2006, 11:25 AM
good stuff BG :yeah:

jayjay
11-21-2006, 10:00 PM
Good write up BG. My own view on spreads is quite simple, have no time for them for obvious reasons. ML is the way I've been going for years and with success. Sure lower prices, but it's all about the win not the margin.

bad gambler
11-22-2006, 03:21 AM
Good write up BG. My own view on spreads is quite simple, have no time for them for obvious reasons. ML is the way I've been going for years and with success. Sure lower prices, but it's all about the win not the margin.

I know what you mean. I tend only to bet on ML's if:

1) The line is really tight i.e. if the favourite is only a 1 or 2 point favourite in which case I will accept the additional juice
2) If it is an underdog ML

If I am in a terrible run, I might revert back to taking the low ML's (generally around the $1.60 mark) to build up some confidence before going back to taking the spreads.

In the cases where you like the underdog in a matchup do you take the points or take the ML?

sports freak
11-22-2006, 07:30 AM
I have been betting for around 8 years and in my time I have tried various strategies to try and beat the books. There is one strategy which I have been looking into very closely over the past few months widely known as the "Reverse Odds Analysis" Let me try and explain....

Your average punter generally looks at various lines whether it be in basketball, NFL etc and attempts to find line discrepancies between what he believes the outcome of an event is to what the books have set the line at to determine whether Team A will cover against Team B. The way he does that is via some form of analysis whether it be using historical trends, past results etc. So essentially if you see a strong trend whether it be an O/U or side trend in a particular event and feel the current line undervalues that trend you make the bet accordingly. Unfortunately this is what Vegas wants us to do because in the long run they know an average punter who operates in this fashion does not come ahead in front.

Vegas is a multibillion dollar business, these guys are not idiots they want our money and the way they do that is setting a line as such to ensure they get action on both sides 50/50. They use the sharp bettors and insiders who jump on the early lines as valuable indicators to ensure they achieve this, and will adjust the line accordingly if they feel they are not getting the required action on both sides of the line. The books try and achieve a balanced book to ensure that whatever the outcome of a particular event, they will make money. Ultimately the teams playing, the stats and trends associated with a particular matchup is secondary - it is the line of the game that is what matters most when capping a game.

What reverse odds analysis forces you to do is work backwards - ask yourself why the books have set the line at a particular number? Vegas have already done the detailed analysis of games, factored in all the trends and stats, team news etc when setting a line. This is why me doing the same kind of analysis is somewhat fruitless exercise. What you need to do is try and determine using reverse odds analysis is who Vegas believes will cover the spread based on the line set. Easier said then done...

Have you ever seen a line in a game and thought to yourself "this looks too easy?" These are commonly known as "trap" games and this is what Vegas wants you to think. My advice when that ever occurs is pass on the game and move on. Sure the ocassional trap games does yield a positive result but in the long run YOU WILL NEVER WIN. The books will always be one step ahead of you.

The most classic example occured in the NFL on Sunday when the Dallas Cowboys were a 1 point favourite against the Colts. A 5-4 team was a one point favourite against a 9-0 team???????????? It is just so obvious, Vegas knew the Cowboys would win but had to set the line as such to get enough action on the Colts. What resulted was the public looking at the line on the Colts, thought to themselves "this is too good to be true" and proceeded to hand over their cash they used to back the Colts to the books. Essentially what Vegas was telling me was should the two teams play in a neutral venue, the Colts would have been a 2 point favourite, and if they had played in Indiana they would have been a 5 point favourite (using the 3 point differential as a rule of thumb). Good grief it's was so damn obvious.

Now the hard part - trying to identify those games that fit into the reverse odds strategy. Not every game will fit into this category. Another thing to note is the above strategy is most successful for American sports where there is most action seen and more money invoved to affect the lines of particular games. Don't even bother with tennis, it won't work IMO.

I've been using this method over the past few months with reasonable success (only paper bets though). I'm going to track my bets and see how I fare, no gurantees that I will make any money but would be interested to see what the results are. The downside is that my perception of the line may not necessarily equate to what Vegas are thinking.

Only sports I will be betting in here will be NBA and NFL.

I feel this goes with the majority of all U.S sports to be honest,to be honest somtimes the line actually tells you the outcome,funny to say but often TRUE!!

jayjay
11-22-2006, 02:23 PM
[QUOTE=bad gambler;4486075]I know what you mean.

There is also another more fundamental reason why I play ML over spread, I am crap on spreads. :lol: I'm not ashamed to say it, but my figures say over the years say I hit over a season 50-55% on spreads, and 72-77% on ML. That's picking every match over a season.

So even though we all obviously pick and choose our spots and don't play every match, I know that I'm obviously not good enough picking spreads. So leave them.

Also, the numbers for ML teams priced at 1/3 or lower are pretty exceptional, and that's the kind of range I play mostly.

In the cases where you like the underdog in a matchup do you take the points or take the ML?

If the points are in my favour, then I'll take the points. For example if I think an underdog will win and they are getting 6 pts, I won't risk the ML, because underdogs will rarely produce a blow out win, so you're going to have to sweat the comeback by the fav, so best take the points incase that comeback turns into a 1-3pt win for the fav.

If the underdog is only getting say 1 or 2 pts, then I am more likely to play ML on them. 3 or more and I'll take the points.

On the opposite side, I'll take a fav on the spread if they are -1, because there is no risk there in terms of them winning, they have to win by at least 1 pt so at worst I'll get my stake back (if they win).

Anything more though, and I play ML, because as I alluded to, I'm crap on spreads and I like to bet straightforward. I am not really a fan of taking handicaps in any sport NFL, tennis, football.....because you are going against what the intention of the team or player you are backing have.

They just want to win, a 1pt win is the same as a 20pt win at the end of the day, and I don't want to concern myself with a team scoring a garbage time TD and screwing up my spread bet.

That's my philosophy anyway. If I was good enough on spreads, my philosophy might have been different.

bad gambler
11-23-2006, 06:43 AM
I missed out on posting today in the NBA

The line on the Cavs-Raptors opened at -3.5, 70% of public was on the Cavs yet the line moved to -/+2 come tipoff

Current eastern conference leaders laying only the 2 points at Toronto, classic scenario

Mr Flamboyant
11-23-2006, 07:07 AM
BG, this theory seems roughly based on the one you had in that recent thread about 'fading the public' ...

I guess it comes down to thinking "where do the books WANT me to put my money?" .. I used to think the concept of 'trap games' was a myth .. But the examples you've used along with a couple of others in the NBA so far this season suggest it's a theory that holds true ..

Agree it's best to steer clear of the lines that appear too good to be true .. it's a no-brainer really if you can have that mentality of thinking like the bookies .. By looking at "spots" and situations teams enter games in, you can pick holes in seemingly good lines ..

sports freak
11-24-2006, 06:34 AM
I missed out on posting today in the NBA

The line on the Cavs-Raptors opened at -3.5, 70% of public was on the Cavs yet the line moved to -/+2 come tipoff

Current eastern conference leaders laying only the 2 points at Toronto, classic scenario

Hit the Nail right on the Coffin :)

sports freak
11-24-2006, 06:35 AM
BG, this theory seems roughly based on the one you had in that recent thread about 'fading the public' ...

I guess it comes down to thinking "where do the books WANT me to put my money?" .. I used to think the concept of 'trap games' was a myth .. But the examples you've used along with a couple of others in the NBA so far this season suggest it's a theory that holds true ..

Agree it's best to steer clear of the lines that appear too good to be true .. it's a no-brainer really if you can have that mentality of thinking like the bookies .. By looking at "spots" and situations teams enter games in, you can pick holes in seemingly good lines ..

You are a quick learner ;)

bad gambler
11-24-2006, 10:41 PM
OK here we go, got one for today in an early game in the NBA and should have one in a late game as well. First posted play, in fact I am actually playing this one as well.

NBA Friday 24/11

Knicks to cover +4 v Celtics

bad gambler
11-25-2006, 02:52 AM
BG, this theory seems roughly based on the one you had in that recent thread about 'fading the public' ...

Not at all - the whole fading the public phenomenon still relies on you to go through the 'capping' process using some form of analysis etc but ensuring that the team you eventually back after your analysis is not a 'public' team.

As aforementioned, reverse odds analysis does away with all that analysis - Vegas has already done their detailed analysis and in most cases it is already built in within a particular line which they set.



I guess it comes down to thinking "where do the books WANT me to put my money?" .. I used to think the concept of 'trap games' was a myth .. But the examples you've used along with a couple of others in the NBA so far this season suggest it's a theory that holds true ..

Agree it's best to steer clear of the lines that appear too good to be true .. it's a no-brainer really if you can have that mentality of thinking like the bookies .. By looking at "spots" and situations teams enter games in, you can pick holes in seemingly good lines ..

Now you are getting the idea ;)

bad gambler
11-25-2006, 02:55 AM
OK here we go, got one for today in an early game in the NBA and should have one in a late game as well. First posted play, in fact I am actually playing this one as well.

NBA Friday 24/11

Knicks to cover +4 v Celtics

FT: Knicks 100-77 - WIN

Mr Flamboyant
11-25-2006, 07:17 AM
Ever since I stumbled upon this site back in March, I've realised (through the posts of others) that there's so much more than meets the eye when it comes to successful sports betting .. It's almost like unlocking the Divinci Code ..

dave nz
11-25-2006, 12:35 PM
I have been betting for around 8 years and in my time I have tried various strategies to try and beat the books. There is one strategy which I have been looking into very closely over the past few months widely known as the "Reverse Odds Analysis" Let me try and explain....

Your average punter generally looks at various lines whether it be in basketball, NFL etc and attempts to find line discrepancies between what he believes the outcome of an event is to what the books have set the line at to determine whether Team A will cover against Team B. The way he does that is via some form of analysis whether it be using historical trends, past results etc. So essentially if you see a strong trend whether it be an O/U or side trend in a particular event and feel the current line undervalues that trend you make the bet accordingly. Unfortunately this is what Vegas wants us to do because in the long run they know an average punter who operates in this fashion does not come ahead in front.

Vegas is a multibillion dollar business, these guys are not idiots they want our money and the way they do that is setting a line as such to ensure they get action on both sides 50/50. They use the sharp bettors and insiders who jump on the early lines as valuable indicators to ensure they achieve this, and will adjust the line accordingly if they feel they are not getting the required action on both sides of the line. The books try and achieve a balanced book to ensure that whatever the outcome of a particular event, they will make money. Ultimately the teams playing, the stats and trends associated with a particular matchup is secondary - it is the line of the game that is what matters most when capping a game.

What reverse odds analysis forces you to do is work backwards - ask yourself why the books have set the line at a particular number? Vegas have already done the detailed analysis of games, factored in all the trends and stats, team news etc when setting a line. This is why me doing the same kind of analysis is somewhat fruitless exercise. What you need to do is try and determine using reverse odds analysis is who Vegas believes will cover the spread based on the line set. Easier said then done...

Have you ever seen a line in a game and thought to yourself "this looks too easy?" These are commonly known as "trap" games and this is what Vegas wants you to think. My advice when that ever occurs is pass on the game and move on. Sure the ocassional trap games does yield a positive result but in the long run YOU WILL NEVER WIN. The books will always be one step ahead of you.

The most classic example occured in the NFL on Sunday when the Dallas Cowboys were a 1 point favourite against the Colts. A 5-4 team was a one point favourite against a 9-0 team???????????? It is just so obvious, Vegas knew the Cowboys would win but had to set the line as such to get enough action on the Colts. What resulted was the public looking at the line on the Colts, thought to themselves "this is too good to be true" and proceeded to hand over their cash they used to back the Colts to the books. Essentially what Vegas was telling me was should the two teams play in a neutral venue, the Colts would have been a 2 point favourite, and if they had played in Indiana they would have been a 5 point favourite (using the 3 point differential as a rule of thumb). Good grief it's was so damn obvious.

Now the hard part - trying to identify those games that fit into the reverse odds strategy. Not every game will fit into this category. Another thing to note is the above strategy is most successful for American sports where there is most action seen and more money invoved to affect the lines of particular games. Don't even bother with tennis, it won't work IMO.

I've been using this method over the past few months with reasonable success (only paper bets though). I'm going to track my bets and see how I fare, no gurantees that I will make any money but would be interested to see what the results are. The downside is that my perception of the line may not necessarily equate to what Vegas are thinking.

Only sports I will be betting in here will be NBA and NFL.


Personally I don't cap games like this in any sport. I have set methods that I use and refine that work well for me.

HOWEVER :

I know of several guys who use what u outline here BG. One guy is the master at it and up a very nice amount doing it. Due thanks to the NBA.

That is the key here, what may work well for one sport may not work for another. In my experience (of which I have seen on a daily basis for awhile now) the number one sport to use this on is the NBA. Daylight second IMO but I guess the NFL would be a strong contender.

Goodluck with it BG.

BTW just took a few days off posting will be back tomorrow :cool:

bad gambler
11-25-2006, 08:05 PM
Another game in the NBA today fits nicely to the reverse odds theory. Wizards coming off 3 straight road losses up against the red hot Pistons who have won 5 on the bounce yet are laying -2, regardless of the fact they are at home.

Once again I'm actually playing this one as well.

NBA Saturday 25/11

Wizards to cover -2 v Pistons

bad gambler
11-26-2006, 07:24 AM
Another game in the NBA today fits nicely to the reverse odds theory. Wizards coming off 3 straight road losses up against the red hot Pistons who have won 5 on the bounce yet are laying -2, regardless of the fact they are at home.

Once again I'm actually playing this one as well.

NBA Saturday 25/11

Wizards to cover -2 v Pistons

FT: Pistons 115-111 - LOSS

bad gambler
11-26-2006, 07:35 AM
My first bet on NFL using the reverse odds theory. This line suggests that this would a straight pk'em game in a neutral venue or Steelers only -3 favourite at home. Not based on the way Big Ben has been throwing this season IMO.

NFL Sunday 26/11

Steelers to cover +3 v Ravens

bad gambler
11-26-2006, 12:57 PM
And another sucker bet in the NFL:

NFL Sunday 26/11

Rams to cover -4 v Niners

Sheva
11-27-2006, 11:11 PM
The reverse odd theory doesn't seem to apply so far on NFL!

Altough you got unlucky with Rams winning 20-17..

bad gambler
11-28-2006, 09:02 AM
My first bet on NFL using the reverse odds theory. This line suggests that this would a straight pk'em game in a neutral venue or Steelers only -3 favourite at home. Not based on the way Big Ben has been throwing this season IMO.

NFL Sunday 26/11

Steelers to cover +3 v Ravens

FT: Ravens 27-0 - LOSS

bad gambler
11-28-2006, 09:03 AM
And another sucker bet in the NFL:

NFL Sunday 26/11

Rams to cover -4 v Niners

FT: Rams 20-17 - LOSS

rod_steel
11-29-2006, 11:11 AM
BG knows what he is talking about trust me...

Defintely merit in this theory, lot of the top professional Nth American cappers use this as their bible and it works a treat especially in the NBA

bad gambler
11-29-2006, 06:55 PM
NBA Wednesday 29/11

Nets to cover +3.5 v Celtics

bad gambler
11-30-2006, 11:12 AM
NBA Wednesday 29/11

Nets to cover +3.5 v Celtics

FT Nets win 106-103 - WIN

bad gambler
11-30-2006, 06:37 PM
NFL Thursday 30/11

Bengals to cover -3 v Ravens

bad gambler
12-01-2006, 11:25 AM
NFL Thursday 30/11

Bengals to cover -3 v Ravens

FT: Bengals 13-7 - WIN

bad gambler
12-01-2006, 10:21 PM
NBA Friday 1/12

Sonics to cover -3 v Pacers

bad gambler
12-02-2006, 06:22 PM
NBA Friday 1/12

Sonics to cover -3 v Pacers

Sonics win 105-103 - LOSS

bad gambler
12-17-2006, 02:15 AM
NBA Saturday 16/12

Kings to cover +2.5 v Suns

fisherking
12-17-2006, 06:53 AM
nice to see you back :)

bad gambler
12-17-2006, 01:01 PM
NBA Saturday 16/12

Kings to cover +2.5 v Suns

FT: Suns 105-98 - LOSS

bad gambler
12-17-2006, 01:02 PM
NFL Sunday 18/12

Ravens to cover -11 v Browns

bad gambler
12-17-2006, 02:22 PM
nice to see you back :)

Thanks mate, only limited posting until at least Christmas but will be around :)

bad gambler
12-18-2006, 10:48 AM
NFL Sunday 18/12

Ravens to cover -11 v Browns

FT: Ravens 27-17 - LOSS

bad gambler
12-18-2006, 10:51 AM
I'm not having much success here initially, but this one is the strongest play I have come across when I have decided to do this so lets see what happens. I've also gone quite large on the play myself.

NFL Monday 18/12

Colts to cover -3 v Bengals

bad gambler
12-19-2006, 11:43 AM
I'm not having much success here initially, but this one is the strongest play I have come across when I have decided to do this so lets see what happens. I've also gone quite large on the play myself.

NFL Monday 18/12

Colts to cover -3 v Bengals

FT: Colts 34-16 - WIN

bad gambler
12-19-2006, 11:56 AM
NBA Tuesday 19/12

Suns to cover -13 v Raptors

inmeclf
12-19-2006, 05:43 PM
NBA Tuesday 19/12

Suns to cover -13 v Raptors

Hey BG,

How is this a reverse line movement? Caribsports has 71.50% on the suns, therefore IMO any (albeit small) line movement in favour of the suns is consquential of weight of money and not vegas looking to make a play on the suns?

bad gambler
12-19-2006, 07:43 PM
Hey BG,

How is this a reverse line movement? Caribsports has 71.50% on the suns, therefore IMO any (albeit small) line movement in favour of the suns is consquential of weight of money and not vagas looking to make a play on the suns?

What I am doing is not reverse line movement - reverse odds analysis is a completey different concept

Ask yourself why are the Raptors, a team who have won 3 straight given 13 points, albeit against a red hot team - Suns are not playing the Bobcats here, Raptors are a solid young team who are fresh and are on their first game of a road trip. They shouldn't be getting more then 10 points, especially when they have been an ATS covering machine on the road of late, 4-1 ATS in last 5 games on the road.

Vegas want you to play the Raptors getting what my perception is which is a very very big line in favour of the Raptors - what the public does is inconsequential to this particular theory, I just used it in an example earlier to help me explain the more broader concept of this theory.

inmeclf
12-19-2006, 08:12 PM
my apologies, i got confused there mate

bad gambler
12-20-2006, 02:32 PM
NBA Tuesday 19/12

Suns to cover -13 v Raptors

FT: Suns 115-98 - WIN

bad gambler
12-20-2006, 08:03 PM
NBA Wednesday 20/12

Warriors to cover +1.5 v Celtics

bad gambler
12-21-2006, 10:55 AM
NBA Wednesday 20/12

Warriors to cover +1.5 v Celtics

FT: Warriors 96-95 - WIN

bad gambler
12-22-2006, 11:37 PM
NBA Friday 22/12

Magic to cover -4 v Warriors

bad gambler
12-23-2006, 12:24 AM
Very unique situation, 2 plays on the one day that fits the bill perfectly

NBA Friday 22/12

Kings to cover +2.5 v Nuggets

bad gambler
12-23-2006, 11:48 AM
NBA Friday 22/12

Magic to cover -4 v Warriors

FT: Warriors 117-108 - LOSS

bad gambler
12-23-2006, 11:48 AM
Very unique situation, 2 plays on the one day that fits the bill perfectly

NBA Friday 22/12

Kings to cover +2.5 v Nuggets

FT: Kings 101-96 - WIN

bad gambler
12-23-2006, 10:02 PM
NBA Saturday 23/12

Heat to cover -5.5 v Warriors

bad gambler
12-23-2006, 10:15 PM
NFL Saturday 23/12

Raiders +7.5 v Chiefs

bad gambler
12-24-2006, 02:06 PM
NBA Saturday 23/12

Heat to cover -5.5 v Warriors

FT: Heat 105-92 - WIN

bad gambler
12-24-2006, 02:06 PM
NFL Saturday 23/12

Raiders +7.5 v Chiefs

FT: Chiefs 20-9 - LOSS

bad gambler
12-24-2006, 02:09 PM
NFL Sunday 24/12

Seahawks to cover +4.5 v Chargers

Jaguars to cover -3 v Patriots

bad gambler
12-25-2006, 11:30 AM
NFL Sunday 24/12

Seahawks to cover +4.5 v Chargers

Jaguars to cover -3 v Patriots

FT: Chargers 20-17 - WIN

FT: Pats 24-21 - LOSS

bad gambler
12-27-2006, 01:57 AM
NBA Tuesday 26/12

Hornets to cover +5.5 v Sonics

The Tennis Ninja
12-27-2006, 02:23 AM
Surely the only way to beat sportsbetting is to find a game where the odds are wrong?

For example a match team A vs team B.

You handicap the match as 50% chance of team A winning and 50% chance of team B winning.

The odds are in fact team A 1.6 and team B 2.2.

In this instance the bet on team B has a positive expected value, the bet on team B a negative EV.

There is no other way to beat the bookies. Even if you think you're doing something different you must be doing this if you can proove winning seasons consecutively.

I understand the theory however my handicapping skills are not up to scratch which is why I'm breaking even at best.

I am going to be VERY selective next year and see how I fair.

The Tennis Ninja
12-27-2006, 02:25 AM
You're betting far too many games BG.

bad gambler
12-27-2006, 02:39 AM
Ninja - you have completely missed the point of this thread, read from the start and it will make more sense

Horatio Caine
12-27-2006, 08:36 AM
Ninja - you have completely missed the point of this thread, read from the start and it will make more sense

:haha:

:silly:

;)

bad gambler
12-28-2006, 12:12 AM
NBA Tuesday 26/12

Hornets to cover +5.5 v Sonics

FT: Sonics 102-94 - LOSS

bad gambler
12-28-2006, 12:13 AM
NBA Wednesday 27/12

Bulls to cover -5.5 v Heat

bad gambler
12-28-2006, 06:55 AM
NBA Wednesday 27/12

Bulls to cover -5.5 v Heat

FT: Bulls 109-103 - WIN

bad gambler
12-29-2006, 08:44 PM
Strongest NBA play using this theory to date, I've taken the ML and not bothered with the points as an actual bet. Might also add the points later:

NBA Friday 29/12

Magic to cover +6.5 v Wizards

bad gambler
12-30-2006, 12:07 PM
Strongest NBA play using this theory to date, I've taken the ML and not bothered with the points as an actual bet. Might also add the points later:

NBA Friday 29/12

Magic to cover +6.5 v Wizards

FT: Wizards 112-111 - WIN

bad gambler
12-30-2006, 09:09 PM
NBA Saturday 30/12

Grizzlies to cover -5.5 v Raptors

bad gambler
12-31-2006, 09:28 PM
NBA Saturday 30/12

Grizzlies to cover -5.5 v Raptors

FT: Grizzlies 110-104 - WIN

Bilbo
12-31-2006, 09:32 PM
FT: Grizzlies 110-104 - WIN

phew :p

bad gambler
12-31-2006, 09:43 PM
NBA Sunday 31/12

Grizzlies +8.5 v Rockets

bad gambler
01-01-2007, 04:02 AM
NBA Sunday 31/12

Grizzlies +8.5 v Rockets

FT: Rockets 111-109 - WIN

bad gambler
01-02-2007, 07:31 PM
NBA Tuesday 2/1/07

Cippers to cover +5 v Magic

bad gambler
01-03-2007, 10:32 AM
NBA Tuesday 2/1/07

Cippers to cover +5 v Magic

FT: Magic 91-86 - PUSH

Amazing how Vegas can get these lines dead on :)

SwiSha
01-03-2007, 10:35 AM
great thread BG ..

bad gambler
01-03-2007, 07:20 PM
NBA Wednesday 3/1

Jazz to cover -11.5 v 76ers

Anders
01-03-2007, 07:46 PM
bg - what's the running tally %/units-wise on how the theory has gone?

bad gambler
01-03-2007, 07:54 PM
bg - what's the running tally %/units-wise on how the theory has gone?

Mate check out post 2 of this thread for all posted plays :wavey:

Starting to get a roll on now, reason for the sluggish start was really the identification of which games which fall under this theory. I still have got this completely down pat, but feel I'm improving.

I'm fairly close to using this exclusively for NBA now, cuts a hell a lot of time out of capping games as well. Call me a believer of this theory now lol

Anders
01-03-2007, 08:19 PM
Saw it, cheers... will follow with interest... have taken time off from forum postings this yr to do something similar re dedicating some time to working on theories I've dabbled with over the years... have a good NHL one that is proving profitable to date...

bad gambler
01-04-2007, 06:30 AM
NBA Wednesday 3/1

Jazz to cover -11.5 v 76ers

FT: Jazz 98-87 - LOSS

And on that note I will discontinue the tracking of this and start using it exclusively to bet on NBA, I've got enough confidence in this theory now.

House always wins

GL


EDIT: Lost by the hook, graded as a loss