Betting Talk

Can this system lose?

hotbustophotbustop Senior Member
edited September 2016 in Sports Betting
Just curious as I am sure I am not the 1st to think of this, but what if you simply bet every NFL team until they covered with the intent to make a profit of $100/team. So in week 1 you would bet both sides of the game. Yes I realize you lose the juice so you are at -160. But you have also cleared a profit of $100 on 16 of the 32 teams. So into week 2 you risk to win $210 on the 16 teams that are 0-1 vs the number etc.
I realize as a given team starts out 0-12 say against the # this can get quite expensive but has any team ever gone 0-16 vs the #? And the last thing Vegas would want, is a team so bad that the public is just pounding the other side each week and cashing. I think this system actually uses Vegas against itself.
AT the end of the season you would show a profit of $100/team or whatever the amount is you want to win.

Would love to hear your thoughts about this. Like I said, I know I am not inventing something new here. Just curious what people think.

Comments

  • jmanjman Senior Member
    edited September 2016
    Why even bother betting both sides of the games week 1? Why not just start week 2 with the teams that didn't cover? You'd save quite a bit in juice.
  • bcl4bcl4 Senior Member
    edited September 2016
    LOL, vegasdave is that you?
  • bumpobumpo Senior Member
    edited September 2016
    Nothing could go wrong here. Have you done the math? I'm assuming you would Martingale the losing bets. In week 2 betting 210 to net 100. Week 3, 441 to net 100. If you have an 0-15 team, I believe you'd be risking around 675k to win $100. I'd look for a different system.
  • TommyLTommyL Super Moderator
    edited September 2016
    bumpo wrote: »
    Nothing could go wrong here. Have you done the math? I'm assuming you would Martingale the losing bets. In week 2 betting 210 to net 100. Week 3, 441 to net 100. If you have an 0-15 team, I believe you'd be risking around 675k to win $100. I'd look for a different system.

    Actually, it's even worse than that. Here is what you're risking each week on a team if they keep losing...

    Week 1 - 110
    Week 2 - 231
    Week 3 - 485
    Week 4 - 1019
    Week 5 - 2139
    Week 6 - 4493
    Week 7 - 9434
    Week 8 - 19812
    Week 9 - 41605
    Week 10 - 87371
    Week 11 - 183479
    Week 12 - 385305
    Week 13 - 809141
    Week 14 - 1699196

    So you're down about three and a quarter million dollars if a team does start 0-14, while trying to get back $100. And with the OP's comment of "I realize as a given team starts out 0-12 say against the # this can get quite expensive", we're talking "expensive" to the tune of 735k.
  • BetThemDogsBetThemDogs Senior Member
    edited September 2016
    TommyL wrote: »
    Actually, it's even worse than that. Here is what you're risking each week on a team if they keep losing...

    Week 1 - 110
    Week 2 - 231
    Week 3 - 485
    Week 4 - 1019
    Week 5 - 2139
    Week 6 - 4493
    Week 7 - 9434
    Week 8 - 19812
    Week 9 - 41605
    Week 10 - 87371
    Week 11 - 183479
    Week 12 - 385305
    Week 13 - 809141
    Week 14 - 1699196

    So you're down about three and a quarter million dollars if a team does start 0-14, while trying to get back $100. And with the OP's comment of "I realize as a given team starts out 0-12 say against the # this can get quite expensive", we're talking "expensive" to the tune of 735k.

    And, of course, this is in the theoretical world. In real life, you'd quickly find no where to bet.

    I'm sure Vegas old timers can remember the gals at the Hilton that made it to week 12 or 13 I think it was-- the Gold Coast wouldn't take their bet anymore, so either the Nugget or Binions jumped in and got a ton of free pub---- and, oh by the way, picked up the cash when the gals lost.
  • hotbustophotbustop Senior Member
    edited September 2016
    Thanks for the feedback. It's interesting in that I don't since the 16 game schedule was put into place any team has been 0-16. Even using $10 bets you still clear $320/year. Thanks guys, been a member a long time and haven't posted much recently but always stop by to see who is.

    All the Best! Good luck this year.
  • richhhhrichhhh Junior Member
    edited September 2016
    hotbustop wrote: »
    Thanks for the feedback. It's interesting in that I don't since the 16 game schedule was put into place any team has been 0-16. Even using $10 bets you still clear $320/year. Thanks guys, been a member a long time and haven't posted much recently but always stop by to see who is.

    All the Best! Good luck this year.


    Detroit lost all games in 2008 if I remember correctly. Also if your referring to betting against the spread and not actual winning vs losing types bets which your post did not mention the idea that this has not happen yet is not surprising. Generally spreads are 50/50 probability's more less and while i am not sure any team has ever lost against the spread every game in a season or not the odds of it happening are around 131,000/1 which means there is just not enough seasons to make anything out of the idea " it has not happen yet "
  • bcl4bcl4 Senior Member
    edited September 2016
    richhhh wrote: »
    odds of it happening are around 131,000/1

    Teams play 16 games in a season, not 17....
  • richhhhrichhhh Junior Member
    edited September 2016
    bcl4 wrote: »
    Teams play 16 games in a season, not 17....


    Unless they make the playoffs losing all their games:laughing: Yeah looks like I made a mistake. Still point is valid.
  • bcl4bcl4 Senior Member
    edited September 2016
    hotbustop wrote: »
    Thanks for the feedback. It's interesting in that I don't since the 16 game schedule was put into place any team has been 0-16. Even using $10 bets you still clear $320/year.

    Still not sure if you're understanding this. BetThemDogs touched on it above. Say a team starts 0-8 ATS, which has definitely happened recently. In game 9 you need to bet over 40k on them to win your $100. Do you know anywhere you can bet 40k on a game? I certainly don't. Even if you're in Vegas and a book would accept it, you'd need to put down 40k up front. Are you able to do that? How bout 85k or 180k? This is a simply a martingale strategy, and it's always a bad idea.
  • BennyProfaneBennyProfane Senior Member
    edited September 2016
    bcl4 wrote: »
    This is a simply a martingale strategy, and it's always a bad idea.

    Yeah
  • hotbustophotbustop Senior Member
    edited September 2016
    Yes I was referring to the spread. And yes I get it. Was curious to get feedback. I appreciate the feedback. Thanks guys and good luck to all of you!
  • TortugaTortuga Moderator
    edited September 2016
    If you had an infinite amount of money and could find a sportsbook with no limits, then this would work. But why bother if you have an infinite amount of money? :o
Sign In or Register to comment.