Books Worst Enemy said:But in reality, the logic posted above is severely flawed because it doesn't work that way. It is still 50/50.
My 3 CENTS...honest abe said:my two cents worth:
i don't know what the stats are on this, but how about a three game baseball series where the road team has won the first two games. you could say they are due to lose as they'll ease up, and the home team are due to win as they will be determined to avoid being swept at home.
maybe there are other cases like this.
the other way you could say teams are due are on totals and handicaps. if the colts keep covering and going over, then you know the line will be gradually increased until it is >50% likely they won't cover and the total will go under.
so in that way, yes, some teams are due.
other than that, it's like b.w.e said about flipping a coin.
Rainbow said:My 3 CENTS...
I dissagree with you 100%. never... never... never... try to make a losing team win, and never try to make a winning team lose, it might cost you 10 bets before you finally cash a bet, the San Diego Padres are due to lose a game they have won 9 in a row I hope you didnt bet againt them the last 6 games, trying to make a losing team win or trying to make a winning team lose will keep you dead BROKE...
xpanda said:Scenario:
The Colts win and cover five straight, game six rolls around. Now, they aren't 'due' to lose the game simply because they've been winning. But isn't there some logic in saying they are due to not cover? After all, the number is laid with betting amounts on each side in mind, yes? So if you can reasonably presume that the public will be on the Colts in game 6, almost reflexively, it is then safe to assume that the line might have an additional 1-2 points or so.
Would the line not be due for exploitation?