Took St. Joe's on the Money line and lost. Had I taken the points, it is a nice dinner tonight at Lawry's Prime Rib on La Cienega. I simply can't take these money line beats with the underdogs when they lose, but cover the points. Am I making the right choice to never take money line dogs again?
You should have a chart to evaluate which is better, the ML or the spread at various vigs.
A good back of the envelope way is to use 8 cents for each 1/2 point (not 100% correct, but good enough).
So
+3, -110
+2.5, -102
+2, +106
+1.5, +114
+1 +122
+1/2 +130
Conclusion +130 ML and +3, -110 are pretty equivalent mathematically. I'd bet the +3 to reduce variance.
Caveat: The above analysis will only work for a 1-4 point dog. And it is off by a few pennies. But close enough.
With free 1/2, reduced vigs, etc. it is VERY rare for an offshore bettor to get a ML that is better than a game line, but it does happen on some games, particarly +1.5 and +2 games.
A good back of the envelope way is to use 8 cents for each 1/2 point (not 100% correct, but good enough).
So
+3, -110
+2.5, -102
+2, +106
+1.5, +114
+1 +122
+1/2 +130
Conclusion +130 ML and +3, -110 are pretty equivalent mathematically. I'd bet the +3 to reduce variance.
Caveat: The above analysis will only work for a 1-4 point dog. And it is off by a few pennies. But close enough.
With free 1/2, reduced vigs, etc. it is VERY rare for an offshore bettor to get a ML that is better than a game line, but it does happen on some games, particarly +1.5 and +2 games.
Interesting, Fezzik - since I was wasting some time today, I was watching some books, and I can guarantee you that I saw Joe's ML at +145 at CRIS and +150 at Pinnacle when they both had OSU -3 ... I think Skybook had -3-115 when they were offering around +150 or +155 ... perhaps not the norm but it did happen, which means in your analysis you should bet the ML instead of the spread
I split it up. Take the points for maybe 80-85 % of bet, and maybe 15% on ML. I also may divide it furthur by betting first half, and later the second half. It gives more options.
I hate losing a game that is winning handily at halftime. Money line dogs can pay very nicely, but those dogs must be expected to lose greater than 50% of the time.
I'll gladly take +200, and hit 40 % Patience is required,
Doug
I hate losing a game that is winning handily at halftime. Money line dogs can pay very nicely, but those dogs must be expected to lose greater than 50% of the time.
I'll gladly take +200, and hit 40 % Patience is required,
Doug
I also had St. Joe's on the ML and I have no regrets. My reason for taking the ML was that the best spread line on offer was +3.5 -107 and the best ML was +155. The ML was simply the better deal.
Of course there can be rational justification for taking a worse EV on the spread, and that is if your expected utility is higher that way. If the bet is important to you emotionally, there is a certain amount of utility in the non-monetary aspects of winning, so the spread could very well be the utility-maxmizing decision for you.
Remember that nobody can give you accurate advice without knowing your utility function. If you don't know how to estimate your utility function then just go with your gut instincts. Chances are you are maximizing your utility subconsciously and don't need any advice anyway.
Of course there can be rational justification for taking a worse EV on the spread, and that is if your expected utility is higher that way. If the bet is important to you emotionally, there is a certain amount of utility in the non-monetary aspects of winning, so the spread could very well be the utility-maxmizing decision for you.
Remember that nobody can give you accurate advice without knowing your utility function. If you don't know how to estimate your utility function then just go with your gut instincts. Chances are you are maximizing your utility subconsciously and don't need any advice anyway.
