When the spread is 1 to 12.5...

[BooksWorstEnemy]

When the spread in college football is 1 to 12.5, the favorite will win the game 72% of the time SU.

I would love to start playing the money line on favorites.

What is a factor that could be used to increase the straight up win percentage of mild favorites? For example, are first year coaches more likely to lose as a mild favorite than veteran coaches? Or are SR quarterbacks more likely to win as a mild favorite than younger quarterbacks?

Anyone have any good advice on this puzzle?

Thanks,
Books Worst Enemy

 

[AlwaysKeen]

I usually don't mess with the moneyline unless I bet the underdog...otherwise you have to parlay favorites...and there's a ton of upsets in college footbal...GL though...

 

[drB]

Interesting stat but maybe too broad.
I'd be particularly interested in favorites in the 7.5-12.5 range as
a seperate subset for exactly the purposes pag11 mentions- you need to try
to combine them in parlays.
Thanks for the reseach.

drB

 

[Dawoofdaddy]

Interesting stat but maybe too broad.
I'd be particularly interested in favorites in the 7.5-12.5 range as
a seperate subset for exactly the purposes pag11 mentions- you need to try
to combine them in parlays.
Thanks for the reseach.

drB

Agreed that 7.5 - 12.5 is a better example to use.

8 - 14 pt ncaaf home dogs have been helpful to my bankroll.

 

[AlwaysKeen]

I believe that DD Home Dogs hit at almost 68% last year...

 

[jaffers]

not sure what you are getting at here but i am guessing you got that number from reading some random website becasue i can gurantee you didn't go back and compute that 72% figure and if you did i would be interested how many years you looked back.

at any rate ,"the logical approach", claims that over the last 18 seasons the average spread on a college football game was slightly over 12 points. So if you believe that the favorite has a 72% chance of winning this game outright then the underdog must have an 18% of winning. Not sure about this but if you bet on something with an 18% chance of winning don't you need a +455 or better moneyline for this to have any value?

also it seems to me when the spread increases to around that 13, 14, 15, mark in college football the moneylines start to vanish leaving you to bet only spread wagers.

perhaps i am way off in what you were trying to say at the start of this thread? but the bottom line of what i am trying to say is your'e research or whomever's research you found means little to me as it is broader than walter hudson

<TABLE cellPadding=2 width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top> </TD><TD vAlign=top>5. </TD><TD>Walter Hudson (1944? - 1991) of Hempstead, NY (born in Brooklyn, NY); 5 ft 10 in, measured at 1197 lbs (though the industrial scale broke in the process of weighing him). His chest was measured at 106 inches, his waist at 110. Hudson was discovered by the press in 1987, when he became wedged in the door of his bedroom and had to be cut free by rescue workers. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<CENTER>

<HR>​

</CENTER>

 

[jaffers]

apolly gieeze

is actually 28% that underdog would win but bottomline +257 would offer value if you were betting moneyline.. still are talking about betting favs? in 321 college football games this year... good luck i will ignore your posts this season if that is the case.

 

[BooksWorstEnemy]

Jaffers,

The point spread can be translated into a winning percentage. As the point spread increases, the likelihood of an upset decreases. But I think you understand that. The actual percentage, be it 72% or 66% or whatever, is irrelevent.

All I'm trying to figure out is how can I ensure decreased upset potential. I think I am on to something but I have to back test it before the season starts.

The problem with betting favorites on the money line is you have to have a lot of bankroll. I don't think a favorite money line player can stay under 2% per play and expect to make any meaningful money as a percentage of total bankroll at the end of the season. But some books will count the risk towards rollover requirements and maybe a player could earn some bonuses.

Later,
Books Worst Enemy

 

[ruyfm76]

:monsters-

 

[joegaffney]

I play Mline when spread is 1-4 pts

 

[jaffers]

book's worst,

the problem though with taking all favorites 1-12.5 is that this is nealry half of all college football games. there cannot be value in doing that. i try to do alot of research on different trends and such during the offseason and look for value in plays during the upcoming year. I have a few folders started with 100's of games in them. Every game that fits into the trend i am looking going back to 1992 til' current. I anaylze the results of these games and see if anything continues to happen within each specific trend. Some are quite convincing others have little value to me at this point. I, however, cannot see any type of value in taking the moneyline favorite in half of this year's college football games. Doing that couldn't help your bankroll.

Now, maybe if you looked at all home teams favored from 1-2.5, or 1-3, or something like that you might be in much better position at the end of the year. I just think yo0u need some stricter parameters on your data.

good luck,
jaffers

 

[t.t.luciano]

IF YOU LOOKING FOR GOOD ODDS JUST PARLAY A FEW GOOD FAVORITE AFTER YOU KNOW THE STATS OF THE GAME. I GUEST


THE BEST WAY STRAIGHT BETS ONLY!!!

NOTE: IF YOU BET DOGS BE SURE YOU KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE FAVORITE (INJURIES, WEATHER CONDITIONS,FIELD (TURF OR GRASS),AND THEN THE LINE UP)
:digit: GET THE INFO BY THE WEB...

 

[BooksWorstEnemy]

Jeffers,

I am not planning to bet every favorit in the NCAA every Saturday. I was just hoping to find a filter that would allow me to bet a few every Saturday, maybe one or two plays week. Like I say, I think I am on to something but I have to back test it first.

In my quest to find a good plan for playing favorites, I think I have stumbled onto an even more lucrative system to bet dogs on the money line. Probably about 15 plays per season, on average. I have to back test it further to know anything, though.

Later,
Books Worst Enemy