Here is how this works.....listen up. Lets assume that it happens in exactly 2 out of 3 games. You would have to lay less than -200 or get +200 or higher to make money!!!!! In your example you are laying -220 and getting +170. BOTH SIDES ARE LOSERS!!!!!! Welcome to the wonderful world of bookmaking and 50 cent lines on a -220 favorite.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STRUT888/FISHHEAD:
Why do you think it is -220......of course a team is likely to score 3 unanswered times than not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I figured that when two fairly evenly matched squads played each other, it would be rare that one team scores three times in a row without the other putting up any points.
Why do you think it is -220......of course a team is likely to score 3 unanswered times than not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I figured that when two fairly evenly matched squads played each other, it would be rare that one team scores three times in a row without the other putting up any points.
peteep- First, the 50 cent straddle on that prop is too much. Second, be careful on this one. The "no" seems like a nice plus but the "yes" should be about a -200 because the 3 scores in a row happens more often than you would think. In a game where the total is 45, there figures to be a lot of scoring making the 3 scores in a row even more of a possibility. Tough prop and not really much value either way. Pass.
I think the only time there might be an edge in that type of prop would be if you had two good defenses going up against two average or below average offenses then maybe the plus money on the "no" could be a play as scoring would be at a premium making 3 scores in a row less likely.
I think the only time there might be an edge in that type of prop would be if you had two good defenses going up against two average or below average offenses then maybe the plus money on the "no" could be a play as scoring would be at a premium making 3 scores in a row less likely.
Pancho - thanks for the stats.
Soccerbob - good point. I have a feeling this game will go under, but a "no" bet on this would make more sense on a game with two tight D's.
Thanks for the replies. At first glance I thought it was a decent bet, but obviously the odds are set as they are for a reason.
Soccerbob - good point. I have a feeling this game will go under, but a "no" bet on this would make more sense on a game with two tight D's.
Thanks for the replies. At first glance I thought it was a decent bet, but obviously the odds are set as they are for a reason.
