Would you bet on an underdog to cover if you don't think the team will win?

[quantumleap]

We have a discussion going in the NBA forum about Atlanta vs. Miami in tonight's game. There are a couple posters who say you shouldn't bet on an underdog if you don't think the underdog can win outright. I have Atlanta +12.

Now I've seen plenty of +12, even +30 teams I think can cover the spread that I don't think can win the game. Would you pass up a bet to cover using the sole factor of not thinking they can win?

 

[SportSavant]

of course there are times this happen....

people who took San FranCisco last week in the NFL didnt necessarilly feel they would win the game outright,

but certainly,

come within the point spread being more than a 52% shot......

 

[Heatwave]

All the time, but mosty in college, as in the NBA, on any given night, even the heaviest dog has a 5% of winning the game. The Miami ML is -1000, meaning that Atlanta has about a 10% chance of winning.


In college sports, there are numerous times when you would take a +20 or so. You may think that they have no chance of winning outright, but they actually do, even though the chances are miniscule.

I think Middle Tennessee hangs within +17 tonight with Louisville, but I highly doubt they win.


HW

 

[Ego74]

my 2 cents...

Usually if you're playing a dog of +10 or less, you should be doing it believeing they can win the game SU (thus as small play on the ML also)

When you start getting into the 15 to 20 point doggies, you're thinking that Team A (the dog) can "hang with" Team B (you see value in the line)

 

[quantumleap]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

 

[Insiders]

Of course.
I do it all the time, like in the NFL when the chalk is -3.5 or 4 that leaves room for the doggie to get beat by the field goal. It does happen.

 

[TANG]

Apparently I Would I Bet I Am A Puerto Rico Marguez Moron And Lost

 

[oldmanTED]

Bet on dogs all the time not necessarily believing they will win outright. If you believed they would win outright, you would be better off betting the moneyline every time you bet a dog.

 

[Caesar]

the nba and nfl are different animals. i hardly play an nba game on the moneyline yet in the nfl it is quite common.

for example if a pointspread in the nfl is less than seven and im on the dog, i will do everything i can to get the best moneyline possible. utilizing exchanges and rogue shops i can usually get an overlay with pinnacles price on the favorite.

if you discount pointspreads of 7 or more, the points become almost meaningless and i pick who i think is going to win the game.

so in my example the chargers could have been a play at 7.5 but when it hit 6.5 my only option was colts -6.5 or charger moneyline but considering +300 was available earlier i would have been real pissed at myself for letting it slip away so knowing which way the line is headed is obviously very important

the only exception to the rule is low totaled games (less than 37) where i have been known to take a +3.5 with teams that have trouble in the redzone and i expect a field goal type game.

i dont see any correlation to my nfl strategy and the nba

 

[JudgeWapner]

Most certainly.

 

[VaultedTreehouse]

my 2 cents...

Usually if you're playing a dog of +10 or less, you should be doing it believeing they can win the game SU (thus as small play on the ML also)

When you start getting into the 15 to 20 point doggies, you're thinking that Team A (the dog) can "hang with" Team B (you see value in the line)

Just about right.