NBA Monday - 03/26

[rjp]

YTD: 22-14 (+6.18 units)

Milwaukee Bucks +12 (-109)
Memphis Grizzlies +16 (-105)

If you're keeping track, don't ever lay 10 points at home.

:happy:

[rjp]

Sweep :beerbang:

[Horatio]

Nice Analysis

Keep up the good work....like the approach.:beerbang:

[ncsucharlie]

brilliant! I love reading that stuff when the mathematical cappers start throwing percentages and numbers!

Thanks for the info, never thought about it long term like that.

[rjp]

I think I kind of willed that one in for myself.

Atlanta Hawks +9.5 (-110)

[rjp]

Thanks fellas.

Portland Trail Blazers +9.5 (-108)

Can't seem to get a +9.5 with ATL, but if I do I'm going to take it.

[tactics]

thanks for the insight! gl tonight

[PhillyFan3]

good info RJP ... gl tonight bud

[rjp]

Let me clarify what I'm saying:

I'll make a play against -110 odds if I feel I have a 55% (or better) probability of winning.

What I'm saying, however, is that I don't ever expect to win more than 60% of the time against point spreads, so I set a maximum expectation of 60% whenever I calculate the probability of winning a given bet. For example, if I calculate the odds to be 63% for a given point spread, I'll adjust this to 60%, as I don't expect to win more than 60% of the time.

Let me use tonight's Milwaukee game as an example. Lets say you figure Houston wins the game 85% of the time, and you're able to get +11.5 points with Milwaukee. Using historical margin of victory data, the probability of Milwaukee covering 11.5 points is 66.18%. At this point, however, I adjust this expectation down to 60%, because I don't realistically expect to win 66.18% of the time (Houston might win 100% of the time, the data distribution isn't perfect, etc.).

Hope that makes sense, and the same holds true for home teams at 8.5 or more points.

The only problem I've ever found with these type of underdogs is the psychological aspect. Bettors hate to lose, much less lose big. Take Seattle last night. Great value at 8.5 points, but they lost by 40. It happens, and everything that could go wrong for them did (plus a little more). This puts a big burdon on most bettors minds, but if you look past that and realize the odds were in your favor then a 30 point ATS loss is the same as a 1 point ATS loss.

I tried to cover a lot in this post, so if you need me to clarify something let me know. :gulp:

[Stifler's Mom]

So what you are saying there is that you don't make plays that you don't calculate to have a long term winning probability of 60%, so you have a relatively large margin of error, right?

The reason I find this interesting is because if it is true, I have been missing out on alot of winners. I tend to play almost all HOME teams, and ignore away teams, more specifically LARGE away dogs. If i don't like the home team, I normally move on....unless I have a really good reason to play on the away team.

I tend to mostly play on home teams who are dogged that I think should be favored, or ones who are small faves that I think should win relatively comfortably.

That, and I try to jump on lines that look "way off", on the assumption that the books know what they're doing.

Same concept though, trying to give myself as much margin for error as possible....just using what I think are bad lines that come about as a result of public perception to get myself into situations where I should hit enough to comfortably profit over the course of a season.

[rjp]

Yup. If you can get +10.5 for a team on the road, then even if you figure the home team never loses, then you still figure to win 55% of the time.

One thing to note when I calculate probabilities: I limit myself to a 60% expectation. I can't say I can realistically expect to win any set of wagers 60% or more of the time, so this limitation keeps expectations in line with reality.

:thumbs:

[Stifler's Mom]

So you're saying it's a winning proposition to take any and all away teams getting +10 or more?

If so, I'll ride along. I don't need much of an excuse to play on dogs, lol, and if it's proven profitable for a decent amount of time, that's good enough for me :beerbang: