|Handicapping "Think Tank" technical handicapping and statistics|
| ||LinkBack||Thread Tools|
proper odds of NFL final landing on 3 when spread is three, and 7 when spread is 7.
What are the proper odds that when the spread is three the favorite wins by three, also what would be the proper odds for a sprad of 7 and the favorite wining by 7 and for 10....
Lastly what type of middle is needed on what numbers to favor the player?
That might help some but "proper" comes down to what sample size ( # years ) and rule changes you feel are important. Many say to ignore pre-94 numbers, which would be my proclivity as well.
Thanks for reply Buckeye:
What I am trying to determine is what middles swing the odds in my favor?
If I can lay 2.5 -110, and get 3.5 -110 would the odds swing in my favor?
would it be beneficial to buy the 3.5 to 4 -120?
Same goes for laying 6.5 -110 and getting 7 or 7.5 -110?
I am only a "middler-lite", but I'll try to help you some more! I'm not sure what you mean by "odds swinging in your favor", as that depends on what you are comparing to. Are u comparing playing a +3' alone, when the consensus is +3, to the middle attempt, or r u just asking at what point does a middle become profitable? I can't help much with the first, but I can with the second!
For standard 10 cents juice each way ( -110 lines ) the break even hit% necessary is 4.76%(1/21) for a full middle and 9.09%(1/11) for a side attempt. This is true no matter which spread sport or what lines the attempt is "off of"!
In other words, a -2'-110,+3'-110 is profitable if "-3" lands > 4.76% of the time you play those attempts. For -3-110,+3'-110 it must land > 9.09%.
So the real question is what is the "hit rate %" for a -3? That is affected a bit by what the consensus closing line is and what statistical sample year range you use and what TOTAL the game has, etc. etc. but many use 10% as a ball-park for a -3 landing -3! So if you subscribe to that number being accurate, then that makes the full middle example above VERY PROFITABLE and the side a marginal play. Many won't play the side because the cost(xfer fees and time) and risk(getting stiffed by playing at outs with that much in opinion) of moving money around to balance after middling offsets the very small profit margin of that shot(in their mind). I personally use 11% for the "-3" hit rate, but my numbers show that for closers they hit 20% last season and <4%(2/55) thusfar this season, so it is far from an exact science or consistent thing.
Many people have databases and use different numbers so sources differ and it isn't like a number like 10% can be relied as absolute given the sample sizes. So it isn't some cookie-cutter EASY answer to say 10% is accurate for "3", etc. You could find things like Total or which teams were involved can sway the numbers a lot when you are looking at such small samples. You could have calculated the 82-98 numbers at that site I gave you, but I'll do it for you to give you something to start with: "3" 44/454=9.7% "7" 11/278=4% "10" 4/96=4.2%
As for your +3'-110 buy to +4-120 question, that article I pointed you at shows that using their numbers it is nowhere near a smart BUY(they do the calculation and show it to you)! I'd suggest that "BUY" considerations should be looked at INDEPENDENTLY from the middle they may be involved in. If -2'/+3' is a great middle attempt at -110 each way(it is IMO) and +3' to +4-120 is a bad buy(it is IMO), then combining them doesn't make the buy any BETTER. However, if -2'-110/+3+100 is your side attempt instead, and you can buy the +3+100 to +3'-115 at that out, then since the 15 cent buy off of 3 is a bargain(independently) as well it will "help" to buy into the full middle shot which is a more +EV play long term.
BTW, we have pokerjoe to thank for pointing out that article, he posted it last year when I asked what a hook was worth in NFL!
Now that I spilled on the question I think you were asking, Ill drivel on a bit about the other. Being to compare playing +3'-110 straight, when the consensus is +3, compared to playing an available -2'/+3' middle instead on the same game ( also could look at it as playing -2'-110 straight instead as they are equal in my assumptions ).
Let's assume that 3's land 10% and that those that don't land are 50-50 for dogs/favs covering. So the +3' should cover 45%+10% of the time for 55%.
Secondly let's assume that we must compare with the POSSIBLE LOSS AMOUNT as consistent when comparing straights to middles ( not amount bet but net loss possible per attempt ). To me this is the only fair comparison between the two scenarios.
STRAIGHT +3'-110 ( $100 risked to win $90.91, total risk of $100 if you lose the straight bet )
($90.91 * .55) - ($100 * .45) = $50 - $45 = $5 profit expectation per attempt ( 52.38% needed to break-even so 55% is a small winner )
MIDDLE +3'-110 ($1100 to win $1000) and -2'-110($1100 to win $1000) TOTAL RISK still $100 if the middle doesn't hit
($2000 * .1) - ($100 * .9) = $200 - $90 = $110 profit expectation per attempt ( not surprising if 10% hit and only 4.76% is break-even )
So that one isn't close but it is a little unfair as just because you can find a +3' doesn't mean you can find -2' ( in fact it is tough to find one let alone both ) so lets just compare -3/+3' side attempt to the straight bet on +3' since that is a much more realistic opportunity that happens pretty much every week.
SIDE +3'-110 ($1100 to win $1000) and -3-110($1100 to win $1000) AGAIN TOTAL RISK is still only $100
($1000 * .1) - ($100 * .9)=$100 - $90 = $10 (also makes sense with 10% hit and 9.09% needed)
So playing the side attempt still beats the straight $10 to $5, but now you have a debate as moving $2K around may cost you more in xfer fees and hassle than the $5 more per attempt is worth! If all xfers are free and you don't mind the other risks with moving $ around like that then it doubles the profit, but it is a real close call for most! You also may hit limits constraining the side/middle that prohibit such tries.
END OF DUMP