6 point teasers
golfer1000
Senior Member
If you can play 6 point 2 team teasers with no juice, what should you be playing to maximize odds. I'm not a teaser guy but if it's +ev with no juice, what should I be looking for? I'm referring to NFL
Comments
The simple answer is that you'd play anything that crosses both the 3 and the 7. So favorites of 7.5-8.5, and dogs of 1.5-2.5.
I understand that part of it. Was more curious if this is +ev if I cross the 3 and 7 with no juice?
Assuming that by "no juice", you mean that you're getting them at +100, then yes, they will generally be +EV.
It's massively +EV. It's probably still +EV at -110. These were a huge part of any pro's portfolio back in the day when +100 was readily available.
Also, one small note, big road favs had not fared well teased down so you may want to avoid that subset.
NO....include them.
If big road favs have not fared well then bet the home dogs straight up and forget the teasers.
Cross the 3 and 7, ignore everything else.
This has been discussed here before but why would you knowingly include a subset that has performed suboptimally since 1994? That's 20 years now at 59-32, .648 and even worse over the last five at 10-7, .588. (This year so far 3-1)
I mean if you don't know that and just use the % each numbers picks up overall that's one thing but if you have that info why wouldn't you use it to make stronger bets?
The 17 game sample is pretty insignificant, so it's tough to take much from it. Even in the 91 game sample, you've got about a 1-in-8 chance of a 71% outcome winning only 59 games. Certainly more significant than the last 5 year number, but is it enough to throw it out? Maybe the answer is "yes", but maybe it's just that those plays have seen some negative variance and not using them going forward will cost you many +EV opportunities. (Note that the road favorites, and higher totaled games to a lesser extent, are why I used words like "generally" and "the simple answer", as it's not quite as cut and dry as the other subsets)
Good discussion and I tried to word my suggestion as merely that rather than definitive advice. Perhaps my wording could have been better.
Exactly. So you've got 2 options (in the simplistic sense)...either act like that tiny sample size is significant since it's all we have, or look deeper into the underlying data and see how much value you're picking up crossing those numbers when looking at things like the % of games that end on numbers like 3 and 7 (and the prices to move off those numbers). I'd give more weight to the second option there and pretty much ignore a 17 game sample, even if it is 5 year's worth of data.
Except it's been shown that for this particular subset at least, it isn't. But, whatever, maybe it's just variance and over the next 20 years it corrects. Either way at 4-5 games a season nobody is going broke or getting rich betting none, all or some of them.
totals were 37 then, now there 47.
Good point rito, to be honest I wasn't even thinking of that. Gonna be a few years before there's enough data to know what the impact is too.
Can you rephrase the question? Not sure what you're trying to ask.
I can tell you back in the day, 3-teams at +180 was profitable, yes.