NFL System Teasing 1983-2004 - Page 2

MasterShakes · #11 08-11-2005, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason they're called teasers.

The real problem is when you go 1 for 2 and lose the entire bet, whereas you would have just lost the vig if you when 1 and 1 on 2 regular wagers.

I don't do teasers anymore. I just take the side I would have wanted to tease. A bookie friend of mine has told me that teasers and parlays is where people get killed.

Plenty of games do not fall within 6 points of the spread. The spread is just to get even money bet both ways. Not a prediction of where the final score should fall.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously don't get the point of what you're saying here. Are you saying that if teasers and parlays are beaten randomly, they're losers? Of course they are. Are you saying the system above doesn't work? If 22 years worth of data isn't enough to prove that it does, what is?

homedog · #12 08-11-2005, 03:58 PM

You say that individual teaser opportunitues went 67.8% in the 2001-2004 time span, and yet despite being right on 2 out 3 games this system still lost money for people teasing them. Thus I am curious to see what percent of those same teased games you'd have won if you hadn't teased them but rather just took the regular line whenever this teasing opportunity showed itself.

sublime · #13 08-11-2005, 03:59 PM

There were a couple times when 8 teams qualified for the less selective (both home and visitor) system. This means 28 teasers. 28 full units on 8 games would not be wise.

yes, but .25 of a unit on each teaser would be [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

sublime · #14 08-11-2005, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You say that individual teaser opportunitues went 67.8% in the 2001-2004 time span, and yet despite being right on 2 out 3 games this system still lost money for people teasing them. Thus I am curious to see what percent of those same teased games you'd have won if you hadn't teased them but rather just took the regular line whenever this teasing opportunity showed itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point is simple:

if you can tease two teams, cross the 3 and 7 AND get +100 you will make money.

MasterShakes · #15 08-11-2005, 04:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You say that individual teaser opportunitues went 67.8% in the 2001-2004 time span, and yet despite being right on 2 out 3 games this system still lost money for people teasing them. Thus I am curious to see what percent of those same teased games you'd have won if you hadn't teased them but rather just took the regular line whenever this teasing opportunity showed itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason the system lost money from 2001-2004 is that it needs 70.7% winners on individual games just to break even at even money. It only produced 67.8% winners.

The reason the system has always won money overall is that over 22 years, it won 72.47% of the time on individual games, giving you a 6% advantage over the house when receiving +100 odds on these teasers, which is now widely available.

Everything else you're saying is extremely vague. Yeah, a lot of times the teased +6 points doesn't make a difference. In fact, the majority of the time it doesn't make a difference. However, it's the times that it does make a difference that makes the difference.

Further, if you only play this system on home teams, you win 57.7% of the time. That's a huge advantage over the house.

I'll be posting within a few days (maybe even today) to show how parlays can be beaten at the odds offered by various sportsbooks online.

homedog · #16 08-11-2005, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The reason the system lost money from 2001-2004 is that it needs 70.7% winners on individual games just to break even at even money. It only produced 67.8% winners.

The reason the system has always won money overall is that over 22 years, it won 72.47% of the time on individual games, giving you a 6% advantage over the house when receiving +100 odds on these teasers, which is now widely available.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to put more value on recent history than what has happened over the past 22 years. The NFL has changed so much due to expansion, free agency, etc. Teams change so much year to year that no one is shocked when a losing team suddenly turns it around and makes a Super Bowl run. Thus handicapping has changed as well.

I think the recent New England dynasty is the exception not the norm. The any given Sunday theory is truer than ever.

My point is that just cause this system has worked well pre 2000, doesn't lead me to believe it will continue to prosper.

I used to do teasers all the time in the 90's. I stay away from them now because there seems to be more chaos in the NFL than back in the day. But that's just my opinion.

humdinger · #17 08-12-2005, 06:19 PM

I was reading this thread with great interest. Today, there are a handful of NFLX games that meet the criteria (except for the hometeam bit....).

A book of mine has -110 two team teasers, which is obviously undesirable.

For example, if I bet two teams teased 6.5 points for $100, I'll win $91.

however, for three-team teasers, also teased at 6.5 points, the $100 will win $180.

Please correct me if I botched my math here, but isn't that even better than a two teamer at EVEN MONEY? That is, betting $100 to win $100. Then, that third team pays like it comes in at 80% even though in reality it'll come in closer to 70%.

Do I have fuzzy thinking going on here? I don't know what three teamers usually pay, but this seems like a bigger edge.

hd

MasterShakes · #18 08-12-2005, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was reading this thread with great interest. Today, there are a handful of NFLX games that meet the criteria (except for the hometeam bit....).

A book of mine has -110 two team teasers, which is obviously undesirable.

For example, if I bet two teams teased 6.5 points for $100, I'll win $91.

however, for three-team teasers, also teased at 6.5 points, the $100 will win $180.

Please correct me if I botched my math here, but isn't that even better than a two teamer at EVEN MONEY? That is, betting $100 to win $100. Then, that third team pays like it comes in at 80% even though in reality it'll come in closer to 70%.

Do I have fuzzy thinking going on here? I don't know what three teamers usually pay, but this seems like a bigger edge.

hd

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The data above comes from the regular season only. Take this as you will. That doesn't mean that it has no significance in the pre-season. I haven't tested it, but it could have even more significance in the pre-season.

2) Get another book that offers them at +100. There is no excuse for paying more than you have to.

3) I have not tested 6.5-point, 7-point, or teasers with more teams. I'm confident that you would see similar results, but I have not tested them, nor do I know what your advantage would be over the house. With more points, you're dealing with slightly different parameters (i.e., you'll be playing up to 9.5 points and down to 1 point with the 7 points).

Long/short advice: Get a book with +100 2-team, 6-point teasers and bet these when both teams are at home in the regular season.

humdinger · #19 08-12-2005, 06:52 PM

I'm sorry, I meant 6 pt. teasers, not 6.5. My bad.

Can you look at my math....doesn't the threeteamer provide a better value?

Thanks,

hd

MasterShakes · #20 08-12-2005, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I meant 6 pt. teasers, not 6.5. My bad.

Can you look at my math....doesn't the threeteamer provide a better value?

Thanks,

hd

[/ QUOTE ]

Very slightly, it's easier to gain an advantage over the house when teasing two teams at 6 at +100 than when teasing 3 teams at 6 points at +180. Your break even win rate on individual games needs to be 70.7% rather than 70.9%. You're likely not making a bad bet if you're gaining the 3 and the 7 with 3 teams. Just expect a lot more variance (i.e., short-term swings negative and positive).