Dogs: Play the ML or Take The Points??

[Biz]

The stupid thing about gambling is that people try to justify their mistakes by selective memory. Go back to your records and tell me how much money you have made through the years on TEASERS and you will see. Points matter only about 12% not 17% this years by the way.

MCM says points matter only 12% of the time (For all dogs regardless of the line its actually around 34%). Let's run the numbers going back 5 years, that is more than enough data and will take enough of my time.

Lets run the numbers on Dogs that cover the spread and see how many of these dogs win SU. I will also break it down in the following spread ranges: 3 points or less, 3.5 to 5.5, 6 to 7, 7.5 to 10, and 10+

DOGS UP TO +3

D and ats margin > 0 and season >= 2012 and line <= 3
SU: 202-22-2 (8.99, 90.2%) Teaser Records ATS: 226-0-0 (11.29, 100.0%) avg line: 2.3 +6: 226-0-0 (100.0%) -6: 147-63-16 (70.0%) +10: 226-0-0 (100.0%) -10: 95-121-10 (44.0%) O/U: 112-104-10 (0.50, 51.9%) avg total: 45.4 +6: 66-159-1 (29.3%) -6: 158-65-3 (70.9%) +10: 49-175-2 (21.9%) -10: 181-44-1 (80.4%)

Dogs getting a FG or less win the game 90.2% of the time. Now the ML price can range from as little as +105 to as much as +150. Lets call the average price +120. For every 100 games you are losing 10 more than you would have if you had taken the points. Your 90 wins gets you an extra .20 per win. 90 x .20 = 18 extra units. 10 losses at -1.1 is a 11 unit loss. You are losing 11 units playing the ML on games you would have covered, but picking up 18 units on the added ML price when you win. The net difference is +7 units by taking the ML. So generally speaking, taking the ML makes more sense than taking the small points and paying the juice. For those getting -105, you can add 5.5 units to the total for a 12.5 unit gain taking the ML. Away dogs were 88.7% and Home Dogs were 91.5%. Both profitable.

DOGS OF 3.5 TO 5.5

D and ats margin > 0 and season >= 2012 and 3.5 <= line <= 5.5
SU: 113-51-1 (4.30, 68.9%) Teaser Records ATS: 165-0-0 (8.56, 100.0%) avg line: 4.3 +6: 165-0-0 (100.0%) -6: 105-60-0 (63.6%) +10: 165-0-0 (100.0%) -10: 61-103-1 (37.2%) O/U: 82-80-3 (0.86, 50.6%) avg total: 45.7 +6: 59-104-2 (36.2%) -6: 108-56-1 (65.9%) +10: 44-119-2 (27.0%) -10: 123-39-3 (75.9%)

These prices ranged from 150 to 200. Let's split the difference and call it +175 and we will round the ML WP to 69%. You are losing 31 games at -1.1 for a total of 34.1 units lost playing the ML instead of taking the points. 69 wins at +.75 is 51.75 units. You win 51.75 and lose 34.1 for a net profit of 17.65 units playing dogs on the ML in this price range. Home and away had virtually the same win percentage.

DOGS OF 6 TO 7:

D and ats margin > 0 and season >= 2012 and 6 <= line <= 7
SU: 50-40-1 (4.05, 55.6%) Teaser Records ATS: 91-0-0 (10.60, 100.0%) avg line: 6.5 +6: 91-0-0 (100.0%) -6: 51-39-1 (56.7%) +10: 91-0-0 (100.0%) -10: 34-52-5 (39.5%) O/U: 45-43-3 (1.89, 51.1%) avg total: 45.6 +6: 31-59-1 (34.4%) -6: 66-25-0 (72.5%) +10: 25-65-1 (27.8%) -10: 71-19-1 (78.9%)
Rushes Rush Yds Passes Comp Pass Yds TOs Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final Team 27.9 115.4 34.3 21.2 238.0 1.1 5.4 7.7 4.9 7.5 25.8 Opp 25.5 110.0 38.1 24.2 256.2 1.9 5.0 5.8 3.9 6.7 21.7

These prices ranged from +240 on the low end up to +300. Several in the +270 range. To be conservative, lets use +260 and we will round up to 56%. You lose 44 games per 100 playing the ML. 44 x 1.1 is 48.4 lost units. You are winning 56 games at an average of a 1.6 ML bonus for a gain of 89.6 units. 89.6 units less the 48.4 you lost playing the ML is a net gain of 41.2 units if you play the ML.

DOGS OF 7.5 TO 10:

D and ats margin > 0 and season >= 2012 and 7.5 <= line <= 10
SU: 35-57-0 (0.11, 38.0%) Teaser Records ATS: 92-0-0 (8.71, 100.0%) avg line: 8.6 +6: 92-0-0 (100.0%) -6: 45-44-3 (50.6%) +10: 92-0-0 (100.0%) -10: 32-59-1 (35.2%) O/U: 37-52-3 (-2.43, 41.6%) avg total: 46.0 +6: 19-69-4 (21.6%) -6: 57-34-1 (62.6%) +10: 9-81-2 (10.0%) -10: 66-25-1 (72.5%)

Low end +300 up to +400 with most around the +330/+340 range. Conservatively lets call it +330. You lose 62 games per 100. 62 x 1.1 is 68.2 units lost. 38 games won at a bonus of +2.3 is 87.4 units. 87.4 less 68.2 is a net +19.2 units.

You get the point. Generally speaking, it is better to play dogs - at any price - on the ML than it is taking the points and laying juice. Your results may be different, because there is no guarantee that the dogs you play will win at the same rate as the overall sample size. BTW, I also ran it for the last 10 years and the numbers are almost identical.

I would suggest everyone keep a log of the dogs that they play, note the ML price, and track whether or not you would have been better off playing the ML or taking the points. Something to think about.

 

[predman]

Thanks for the post !!

 

[ShortBusDriver7]

why not play both and split your bet between spread and ML? That's what I do for dogs and sometimes I break even but it's better than an outright loss

 

[MotorCityMadman]

Great post Biz! Lots of information here. When I quoted that number it was from the thread of "ACE". Here is what I quoted "POINTS THAT MATTER 24 games out of 192. Low 12%. I have to believe that is very close to that number. I have no records but I have been following this loosely. If it would be to much to ask of you could you break it down year by year for for the last 5 years for all games? Maybe I have selective memory but the last 2 years I remember only about 16 to 17%. You also bring up another good point:

"You get the point. Generally speaking, it is better to play dogs - at any price - on the ML than it is taking the points and laying juice. Your results may be different, because there is no guarantee that the dogs you play will win at the same rate as the overall sample size. BTW, I also ran it for the last 10 years and the numbers are almost identical".

Thanks for the Info.

 

[Biz]

2016: 25.3%
2015: 31.1%
2014: 38.2%
2013: 35.9%
2012: 30.8%

This is the percentage of games that points made a difference regardless of spread.

 

[fahimusman]

MCM says points matter only 12% of the time (For all dogs regardless of the line its actually around 34%). Let's run the numbers going back 5 years, that is more than enough data and will take enough of my time.

Lets run the numbers on Dogs that cover the spread and see how many of these dogs win SU. I will also break it down in the following spread ranges: 3 points or less, 3.5 to 5.5, 6 to 7, 7.5 to 10, and 10+

DOGS UP TO +3

D and ats margin > 0 and season >= 2012 and line <= 3
SU: 202-22-2 (8.99, 90.2%) Teaser Records ATS: 226-0-0 (11.29, 100.0%) avg line: 2.3 +6: 226-0-0 (100.0%) -6: 147-63-16 (70.0%) +10: 226-0-0 (100.0%) -10: 95-121-10 (44.0%) O/U: 112-104-10 (0.50, 51.9%) avg total: 45.4 +6: 66-159-1 (29.3%) -6: 158-65-3 (70.9%) +10: 49-175-2 (21.9%) -10: 181-44-1 (80.4%)

Dogs getting a FG or less win the game 90.2% of the time. Now the ML price can range from as little as +105 to as much as +150. Lets call the average price +120. For every 100 games you are losing 10 more than you would have if you had taken the points. Your 90 wins gets you an extra .20 per win. 90 x .20 = 18 extra units. 10 losses at -1.1 is a 11 unit loss. You are losing 11 units playing the ML on games you would have covered, but picking up 18 units on the added ML price when you win. The net difference is +7 units by taking the ML. So generally speaking, taking the ML makes more sense than taking the small points and paying the juice. For those getting -105, you can add 5.5 units to the total for a 12.5 unit gain taking the ML. Away dogs were 88.7% and Home Dogs were 91.5%. Both profitable.

DOGS OF 3.5 TO 5.5

D and ats margin > 0 and season >= 2012 and 3.5 <= line <= 5.5
SU: 113-51-1 (4.30, 68.9%) Teaser Records ATS: 165-0-0 (8.56, 100.0%) avg line: 4.3 +6: 165-0-0 (100.0%) -6: 105-60-0 (63.6%) +10: 165-0-0 (100.0%) -10: 61-103-1 (37.2%) O/U: 82-80-3 (0.86, 50.6%) avg total: 45.7 +6: 59-104-2 (36.2%) -6: 108-56-1 (65.9%) +10: 44-119-2 (27.0%) -10: 123-39-3 (75.9%)

These prices ranged from 150 to 200. Let's split the difference and call it +175 and we will round the ML WP to 69%. You are losing 31 games at -1.1 for a total of 34.1 units lost playing the ML instead of taking the points. 69 wins at +.75 is 51.75 units. You win 51.75 and lose 34.1 for a net profit of 17.65 units playing dogs on the ML in this price range. Home and away had virtually the same win percentage.

DOGS OF 6 TO 7:

D and ats margin > 0 and season >= 2012 and 6 <= line <= 7
SU: 50-40-1 (4.05, 55.6%) Teaser Records ATS: 91-0-0 (10.60, 100.0%) avg line: 6.5 +6: 91-0-0 (100.0%) -6: 51-39-1 (56.7%) +10: 91-0-0 (100.0%) -10: 34-52-5 (39.5%) O/U: 45-43-3 (1.89, 51.1%) avg total: 45.6 +6: 31-59-1 (34.4%) -6: 66-25-0 (72.5%) +10: 25-65-1 (27.8%) -10: 71-19-1 (78.9%)
Rushes Rush Yds Passes Comp Pass Yds TOs Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final Team 27.9 115.4 34.3 21.2 238.0 1.1 5.4 7.7 4.9 7.5 25.8 Opp 25.5 110.0 38.1 24.2 256.2 1.9 5.0 5.8 3.9 6.7 21.7

These prices ranged from +240 on the low end up to +300. Several in the +270 range. To be conservative, lets use +260 and we will round up to 56%. You lose 44 games per 100 playing the ML. 44 x 1.1 is 48.4 lost units. You are winning 56 games at an average of a 1.6 ML bonus for a gain of 89.6 units. 89.6 units less the 48.4 you lost playing the ML is a net gain of 41.2 units if you play the ML.

DOGS OF 7.5 TO 10:

D and ats margin > 0 and season >= 2012 and 7.5 <= line <= 10
SU: 35-57-0 (0.11, 38.0%) Teaser Records ATS: 92-0-0 (8.71, 100.0%) avg line: 8.6 +6: 92-0-0 (100.0%) -6: 45-44-3 (50.6%) +10: 92-0-0 (100.0%) -10: 32-59-1 (35.2%) O/U: 37-52-3 (-2.43, 41.6%) avg total: 46.0 +6: 19-69-4 (21.6%) -6: 57-34-1 (62.6%) +10: 9-81-2 (10.0%) -10: 66-25-1 (72.5%)

Low end +300 up to +400 with most around the +330/+340 range. Conservatively lets call it +330. You lose 62 games per 100. 62 x 1.1 is 68.2 units lost. 38 games won at a bonus of +2.3 is 87.4 units. 87.4 less 68.2 is a net +19.2 units.

You get the point. Generally speaking, it is better to play dogs - at any price - on the ML than it is taking the points and laying juice. Your results may be different, because there is no guarantee that the dogs you play will win at the same rate as the overall sample size. BTW, I also ran it for the last 10 years and the numbers are almost identical.

I would suggest everyone keep a log of the dogs that they play, note the ML price, and track whether or not you would have been better off playing the ML or taking the points. Something to think about.

One of the most informative reads on NFL betting... Thanks a lot biz

 

[Biz]

Data base goes back to 1989. 33.8% of the time points matter.

D and ats margin > 0 and season >= 1989
SU: 2250-1147-10 (4.62, 66.2%) Teaser Records ATS: 3407-0-0 (10.23, 100.0%) avg line: 5.6 +6: 3407-0-0 (100.0%) -6: 2103-1150-154 (64.6%) +10: 3407-0-0 (100.0%) -10: 1352-1936-119 (41.1%) O/U: 1641-1705-61 (0.41, 49.0%) avg total: 41.6 +6: 1056-2304-47 (31.4%) -6: 2246-1107-54 (67.0%) +10: 771-2594-42 (22.9%) -10: 2615-749-43 (77.7%)

 

[wizardofodd]

I always play this way. If I play a dog, I always play ML!

If I bet $1000 on the spread, I bet $500 on the ML

 

[wizardofodd]

Data base goes back to 1989. 33.8% of the time points matter.

D and ats margin > 0 and season >= 1989
SU: 2250-1147-10 (4.62, 66.2%) Teaser Records ATS: 3407-0-0 (10.23, 100.0%) avg line: 5.6 +6: 3407-0-0 (100.0%) -6: 2103-1150-154 (64.6%) +10: 3407-0-0 (100.0%) -10: 1352-1936-119 (41.1%) O/U: 1641-1705-61 (0.41, 49.0%) avg total: 41.6 +6: 1056-2304-47 (31.4%) -6: 2246-1107-54 (67.0%) +10: 771-2594-42 (22.9%) -10: 2615-749-43 (77.7%)

Honestly, that number seems high to me at 33.8%.
Since I've been tracking and playing this way, its around 19%

 

[tool21]

Put me on the list of people that disagree with this. You're only doing the math on the winners which is showed by "Dogs that are COVERING and ..." Of course a dog of < 3 that covers is also going to win a majority. It's a highly correlated event. You would also need to add the dogs that COVER yet lose the game. Which a spread of < 3 would indicate that's about 5% adding to the loses (10% based on that database). Then there's the added juice on the ML. Most books I see don't offer 10% juice moneylines. It's more.

There is no real advantage blinding betting a dog ML instead of the spread. You would have to look for the better value between the spread and moneyline. Example, betting a 3pt (-110) dog on the ML at +110 will not yield you long term gain vs the spread. But betting that ML at +130 will.

 

[tool21]

Here's your math. At a spread of +2.5 vs taking the moneyline. Known assumption: A dog of +2.5 will win outright 45% of the time.

 

[Hambergler]

Put me on the list of people that disagree with this. You're only doing the math on the winners which is showed by "Dogs that are COVERING and ..." Of course a dog of < 3 that covers is also going to win a majority. It's a highly correlated event. You would also need to add the dogs that COVER yet lose the game. Which a spread of < 3 would indicate that's about 5% adding to the loses (10% based on that database). Then there's the added juice on the ML. Most books I see don't offer 10% juice moneylines. It's more.

There is no real advantage blinding betting a dog ML instead of the spread. You would have to look for the better value between the spread and moneyline. Example, betting a 3pt (-110) dog on the ML at +110 will not yield you long term gain vs the spread. But betting that ML at +130 will.

I'm pretty sure he is doing this already. I'm not sure if his avg prices are right but he is looking at covers vs straight up wins.

 

[Ubuksi]

Put me on the list of people that disagree with this. You're only doing the math on the winners which is showed by "Dogs that are COVERING and ..." Of course a dog of < 3 that covers is also going to win a majority. It's a highly correlated event. You would also need to add the dogs that COVER yet lose the game. Which a spread of < 3 would indicate that's about 5% adding to the loses (10% based on that database). Then there's the added juice on the ML. Most books I see don't offer 10% juice moneylines. It's more.

There is no real advantage blinding betting a dog ML instead of the spread. You would have to look for the better value between the spread and moneyline. Example, betting a 3pt (-110) dog on the ML at +110 will not yield you long term gain vs the spread. But betting that ML at +130 will.

i agree. People always bring this point up that points only matter 33% or whatever but they matter 0% of the time when a dog wins su so your percentages are skewed... what are the percentages of a favorite who wins but doesn't cover?

 

[tool21]

I think the focal point of this conversation should be the +120 with an average spread of +2.3. It's an inflated number. The correct line would be around +113 which would make 0 profit while taking the ML compared to a 10% spread. DeBunked.

 

[Mobdeeper7239]

2016: 25.3%
2015: 31.1%
2014: 38.2%
2013: 35.9%
2012: 30.8%

This is the percentage of games that points made a difference regardless of spread.

38% is fucking high. Really high. It means dogs were covering more last few years compared to this season. That's what I would take from it. I wouldn't start playing dog mls instead just because it is only 25% this year. Even 25% is still a good amount. 1 every 4 games has pts come into play. If there are 16 games that means on average 4 could come into play. That's still a lot imo.

 

[Mobdeeper7239]

Put me on the list of people that disagree with this. You're only doing the math on the winners which is showed by "Dogs that are COVERING and ..." Of course a dog of < 3 that covers is also going to win a majority. It's a highly correlated event. You would also need to add the dogs that COVER yet lose the game. Which a spread of < 3 would indicate that's about 5% adding to the loses (10% based on that database). Then there's the added juice on the ML. Most books I see don't offer 10% juice moneylines. It's more.

There is no real advantage blinding betting a dog ML instead of the spread. You would have to look for the better value between the spread and moneyline. Example, betting a 3pt (-110) dog on the ML at +110 will not yield you long term gain vs the spread. But betting that ML at +130 will.

Juice and all that is a different story. And profiting is a different story.

Not sure if your post makes sense or not to me but

Dogs that don't cover is the same thing as favorites who do cover. Dogs who win ML is same thing as points not mattering. By just focusing on dogs you can accomplish what you are looking for here if we are talking about points not mattering.

 

[Biz]

Here's your math. At a spread of +2.5 vs taking the moneyline. Known assumption: A dog of +2.5 will win outright 45% of the time.

Its around 50%

D and line = 2.5 and season >= 2000
SU: 138-136-0 (-0.82, 50.4%) Teaser Records ATS: 152-122-0 (1.68, 55.5%) avg line: 2.5 +6: 216-58-0 (78.8%) -6: 105-169-0 (38.3%) +10: 228-46-0 (83.2%) -10: 61-213-0 (22.3%) O/U: 142-128-4 (0.89, 52.6%) avg total: 42.3 +6: 90-182-2 (33.1%) -6: 184-84-6 (68.7%) +10: 63-206-5 (23.4%) -10: 213-60-1 (78.0%)

 

[Biz]

I think the focal point of this conversation should be the +120 with an average spread of +2.3. It's an inflated number. The correct line would be around +113 which would make 0 profit while taking the ML compared to a 10% spread. DeBunked.

I checked past lines on Heritage. Prices ranged from +105 to +150. Several in the +120 range. You want to split the difference and make it +115?

90 x .15 = 13.5 units. Its still a small profit.

 

[Biz]

Honestly, that number seems high to me at 33.8%.
Since I've been tracking and playing this way, its around 19%

Tracking it how? You've tracked every dog since 2000?

Its easy to access a data base. The numbers don't lie. If you want to argue that the database is faulty, thats a different debate.

These numbers clearly show that 33.8% of the time points matter. 66.2% of the time they don't.

 

[Biz]

Put me on the list of people that disagree with this. You're only doing the math on the winners which is showed by "Dogs that are COVERING and ..." Of course a dog of < 3 that covers is also going to win a majority. It's a highly correlated event. You would also need to add the dogs that COVER yet lose the game. Which a spread of < 3 would indicate that's about 5% adding to the loses (10% based on that database). Then there's the added juice on the ML. Most books I see don't offer 10% juice moneylines. It's more.

There is no real advantage blinding betting a dog ML instead of the spread. You would have to look for the better value between the spread and moneyline. Example, betting a 3pt (-110) dog on the ML at +110 will not yield you long term gain vs the spread. But betting that ML at +130 will.

Fair enough. I'll run those numbers. Dogs that cover but lose the game.

Dogs up to +3, that lost the game, have covered 8.3% of the time.

D and line <= 3 and L and season >= 2007
SU: 0-471-0 (-11.09, 0.0%) Teaser Records ATS: 36-396-39 (-8.72, 8.3%) avg line: 2.4 +6: 240-215-16 (52.7%) -6: 0-471-0 (0.0%) +10: 300-161-10 (65.1%) -10: 0-471-0 (0.0%) O/U: 240-223-8 (1.26, 51.8%) avg total: 44.0 +6: 154-314-3 (32.9%) -6: 327-134-10 (70.9%) +10: 106-359-6 (22.8%) -10: 374-92-5 (80.3%)

3.5 to 5.5 cover 24%

D and 3.5 <= line <= 5.5 and L and season >= 2007
SU: 0-413-0 (-11.65, 0.0%) Teaser Records ATS: 99-310-4 (-7.40, 24.2%) avg line: 4.3 +6: 222-183-8 (54.8%) -6: 0-413-0 (0.0%) +10: 280-131-2 (68.1%) -10: 0-413-0 (0.0%) O/U: 202-199-12 (0.43, 50.4%) avg total: 44.1 +6: 124-281-8 (30.6%) -6: 278-127-8 (68.6%) +10: 84-326-3 (20.5%) -10: 322-87-4 (78.7%)

6-7 cover 27.7%

D and 6 <= line <= 7 and L and season >= 2007
SU: 0-293-0 (-14.38, 0.0%) Teaser Records ATS: 78-204-11 (-7.82, 27.7%) avg line: 6.6 +6: 143-145-5 (49.7%) -6: 0-291-2 (0.0%) +10: 179-110-4 (61.9%) -10: 0-293-0 (0.0%) O/U: 150-138-5 (2.02, 52.1%) avg total: 44.6 +6: 107-183-3 (36.9%) -6: 210-80-3 (72.4%) +10: 79-211-3 (27.2%) -10: 235-54-4 (81.3%)

7.5 to 10 cover 38.5%

D and 7.5 <= line <= 10 and L and season >= 2007
SU: 0-325-0 (-14.80, 0.0%) Teaser Records ATS: 124-198-3 (-6.07, 38.5%) avg line: 8.7 +6: 181-140-4 (56.4%) -6: 22-296-7 (6.9%) +10: 215-104-6 (67.4%) -10: 0-325-0 (0.0%) O/U: 153-164-8 (-0.06, 48.3%) avg total: 44.0 +6: 90-228-7 (28.3%) -6: 225-97-3 (69.9%) +10: 55-265-5 (17.2%) -10: 262-61-2 (81.1%)

Dogs of 10.5+ cover 40.8%

D and 10.5 <= line and L and season >= 2007
SU: 0-214-0 (-16.93, 0.0%) Teaser Records ATS: 87-126-1 (-3.84, 40.8%) avg line: 13.1 +6: 124-83-7 (59.9%) -6: 50-160-4 (23.8%) +10: 152-58-4 (72.4%) -10: 15-194-5 (7.2%) O/U: 111-101-2 (0.88, 52.4%) avg total: 44.3 +6: 76-138-0 (35.5%) -6: 149-61-4 (71.0%) +10: 51-157-6 (24.5%) -10: 170-40-4 (81.0%)