A trend question

[TheGeneral+ 0]

If I told you that No team in any particular league had went over the total more than 10 straight times in the last decade of that sport, then pointed out that there was a team playing today that was sitting on 10 overs, would you consider wagering on the under in that game.

Let's say it's an NFl game if it matters. Would it matter the sport?

Thanks

 

[PanchoSanza 0]

no, not for that reason anyway.

 

[christof 0]

There is a college team that has 9 overs in a row playing this Sat.

 

[Tablarasa 0]

General,

Why would I want to martingale myself against the streak? If you are going to get involved, you follow the trend, not bet against it imo.

 

[sickgambler 0]

when are you boys going to learn.... read my lips cause I won't repeat myself...

THE PAST MEANS NOTHING.... it has no bearing on what's going to happen the next game, or two. Everything evens out over 1 million games, not 9 games, or 24 games, or 67 games. Even if a team went over 16 games in a row, its odds of going under next game is 50-50..

..

 

[Fishhead 0]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sick gambler:
when are you boys going to learn.... read my lips cause I won't repeat myself...

THE PAST MEANS NOTHING.... it has no bearing on what's going to happen the next game, or two. Everything evens out over 1 million games, not 9 games, or 24 games, or 67 games. Even if a team went over 16 games in a row, its odds of going under next game is 50-50..

..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sick- Of course you are right in theory. But you are not 100% correct.....only about 98%.

 

[Tablarasa 0]

Actually, Sick, that isn't quite true.

Whether a team goes over or under a total is not a statistical 50-50 prop like flipping a coin, subject to balancing out over several million random games the way you expect a coin toss to.

The line is designed to attract two way action, not reflect the actual game result, therefore it just has to be set appropriately to generate that action, REGARDLESS of outcome.

If a team went over 20 times in a row, the book set the total 10 points higher than everyone thought it should be, and everyone bet under....it very well could still be an over.

 

[joeybagadonuts 0]

General "Due Theory" LMFAO

When are you going to learn that sporting events are INDEPENDENT of each other??

 

[TheGeneral+ 0]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> When are you going to learn that sporting events are INDEPENDENT of each other?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never

 

[Tablarasa 0]

That's an interesting viewpoint.

Whether the Yankees go under today and the Red Sox go under tomorrow are certainly independent events, but if you honestly think whether the SAME team goes under every single day or not is independent from each other, then I would love to see you setting the lines.

When you look at something like NBA totals as a great example, and you see a 166 on the board next to a 212, which way are you inclined to bet? Both those games do not share the same chance of "randomly" going over(under), they are obviously tilted due to the actual performance of teams to generate two way action, and the actual result of the decision per the trend is irrelevant, so long as the action generated was appropriate.

 

[joeybagadonuts 0]

Tab-
Believe me I understand what you’re saying... all I meant was that there is no more chance (statistically speaking) of a team that has went over 9 times in a row being "due" to go under the next game. Now, the fact that books may adjust the lines accordingly, that’s a whole different story. The only reason I laugh at the general was he posted a few months ago about some trend regarding prop bets on whether a run would score in the 1st inning. He said that if in the 1st few games of the day, no runs scored, the later games would be "due" to have a run scored in the 1st….

 

[TheGeneral+ 0]

joeybagadonuts,

There is no need to laugh at anyone when a question is asked. Just give your viewpoint and move along.

It's really just a question.

 

[Tablarasa 0]

Joey,

The "due theory" has broken many a gambler's dreams, and is a sure way to go bankrupt.

I personally regard betting a "due" exactly the same as betting a martingale system in a casino, you will often bail out but if you don't, the bankroll disappears completely

 

[sickgambler 0]

Sure if 2 teams score a lot of points for 10 straight games, the total will be a tad higher as the linesmakers will adjust it for the way they think the players will lean on.. So in essence, a 50-50 might really be 51-49 or even 52-48. But that's not what this topic is all about. Posters are saying that just because 10 games went over in a row, that the next one should go under because it's due.

This is ludicrous.. Even if 16 games went over in a row, there is no rule saying that these teams cannot go over again.. Things don't even out over 10 games.. I'd say hundreds of thousands of games that they'll even out...

I remember Oakland last year (and I can name you 46 other times) winning 11 in a row and everyone saying, bet against them, NO WAY they will keep winning like this, they are due. And they just kept on winning, and winning and at 16 in a row, the players kept raising their plays and Oak kept winning until it hit 20 in a row and all the DUE BETTORS took a bath..

Now if due existed, why didn't Oak lose after 8 or 9 wins in a row?

 

[TheGeneral+ 0]

Tablarasa,

Thanks for the replies.

What if I said there were 5 games tonight.

#1 was over for the last 3
#2 was over for the last 4
#3 was over for the last 5
#4 was over for the last 6
#5 was over for the last 9

And no team in the league had went over the total 10 straight for a decade.

See any options there?

 

[Tablarasa 0]

Sick, that was the "due" returning on that Orioles streak of 23 loses in a row maybe?

The real danger in streaks in baseball so far as betting is being a late follower on the streak, after lines are being pumped due to it, and risking losing several units without the early and possibly cheaper gains backing up the risk.

Betting on winning streaks and against teams in losing streaks(in baseball) is actually a fairly easy handicapping method that is often marginally profitable, when done with complete discipline and over the course of the entire season.

 

[TheGeneral+ 0]

For the record, I have never tracked any baseball and have no idea where is an ideal start to fade or ride a trend in bases.

 

[Tablarasa 0]

General,

Lets presume (arbitrarily to some extent) that a streak of 3 overs in a row was not unusual for any given team.

Likewise, lets presume that a streak of 5 overs is uncommon, but not something that happens every season.

If I was betting purely based on statistically probability, I would bet every single one of the games you mentioned under.

However, the performance of teams is not related directly to statistical probably.
Barring any special knowledge regarding any of those games as to why a bet in either direction would be a smart thing, I would rather follow the trend than bet against it. The only question is at what point you think something is a "real" trend. If 3 doesnt qualify because its not that uncommon, 5 probably does because its uncommon, and 9 certainly does because 10 is a exceedingly rare occurence.

 

[BigGamesOnly 0]

There is a similar discussion in another forum on this board regarding contrarian betting, that is betting against trends. I think these have some value.

If a team goes 9 games in a row OVER, the public is more likely to bet the OVER. Therefore the books are going to adjust the line higher to get the public to look at betting UNDER and the team has a higher chance of going under than before.

I realize that is rather simplistic but I hope it explains my position.

 

[TheGeneral+ 0]

Tablarasa,

I think we are seeing some possibilities here. I do understand your case 100% as I have been tracking some trends for several years now.

You are using some nice logic, but as well, showing an open mind.