Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
I put this post in the wrong thread:

Two people bet Team A at -2. The line moves to -4. One person then bets Team B at -4 to shoot for the 2 point middle. Then after that the line moves to -5. The other person then bets Team B to go for the 3 point middle.

Which is the best bet? Of course it's the 3 point middle. It obviously has a much higher Expected Value than the 2 point middle.

How would the EV be calculated? My guess is pro sports bettors are most likely using long term statistics to measure the EV.

There must be statistics that exist that show how often a team that is favored by 2 points wins the game by exactly 2 points, or 3 points, or 4 points or 5 points---or win by 1 point, tie, or lose the game outright.

In the Fezzik video he said if you bet a game at -2.5 then the line moves to 3.5 at game time the -3.5 bet is expected to win 50% of the time but the -2.5 bet is expected to win 60% of the time. Of course, this revolves around the key number, 3.

So how would Fezzik know that -2.5 wins 10% more of the time than -3.5?

I think he is making two assumptions

1. The -3.5 line is sharp.
2. The 10% difference is derived from statistics collected on prior games that show how well the favorites do against the spread.

If a team is favored by 3 points how often will they win the game by 2 points or less or lose the game outright.

How often will they win the game by exactly 3 points?
How often will they win the game by exactly 4 points?
How often will they win the game by 5 points, 6 points, etc.

I've heard that NFL football games are won by exactly 3 points 10% of the time. Can't say if it's true or not....but I would have to think that a game where the number is right around -3 then the chance of the game landing exactly on that 3 would be much higher.

I'll have to take a look to see if Shack has any stats that break down the win margins of teams against the spread according to the number, whether it's -3 or -7 or whatever.


You're missing the forest for the trees, mickey. But, just like account, you buried the lead as they say in the journalism business.

Don't edit this post. It says what needs to be said.

You're obviously not stupid, mickey, but this is what can happen. You don't understand the context. As I said, you're missing the forest for the trees, and you don't understand that there are forest fires. When you miss this stuff, you're really missing everything.