Disproving a sports betting cliche

Luke Riddle · #1 10-08-2005, 03:06 PM

If someone says to you,"Don't bet an underdog unless you think that team can win outright." What would be your response?

I don't think it is bad advice on a very simple level. I mean it is not a bad rule of thumb for the less sophisticated bettor. But it is a very old cliche and I think it can be disproved mathematically. I just don't know how to do it. Anybody have any idea as to what I am trying to accomplish here?

#2 10-08-2005, 03:22 PM

If it's an NFL line of 3 or fewer, then I agree with the cliche. Otherwise no, but it's not a terrible way of analyzing a game all things considered.

MyTurn2Raise · #3 10-08-2005, 03:41 PM

Just think of Arizona St v USC last week

Very few thought ASU had a chance at beating USC, but many saw value at +18 and reaped the benefits.

craig r · #4 10-08-2005, 05:40 PM

Do you have any data that would show that small dogs cover more than big dogs in the NFL (or NBA for that matter)? Intuitively it would seem that they would, since they aren't a huge underdog and would beat the "better" team more often than not. By "small dog" I mean +3 or lower. For NBA I would say +3 as well (maybe +4, I know nothing about Basketball). My understanding is that betting on small dogs is more profitable than betting on larger dogs.

craig

#5 10-08-2005, 05:51 PM

NFL dogs of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3 are 458-570 SU over the last 13 years. All others are 580-1475. I don't have figures on each class' betting value though.

craig r · #6 10-08-2005, 07:07 PM

Thanks!

craig

#7 10-08-2005, 07:27 PM

no prob