Hooligans Sportsbook

Bowl 1H Under system

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    31 Replies •
  • Views 1,583 Views
Follow
Ah, I was wondering if that's what you were saying.

Well, yeah, I obviously agree with that assessment. With the only nitpick being that saying that an EV of -5 is twice as much as an EV of -10 is slightly confusing. It made it sound like you were talking positive values.
 
reno cool
:clueless: you're missing the point here.
of course the theory is that the "market is incorrectly pricing" All handicapping theory is based on that
Click to expand...
He's talking about taking every 1H under, blindly. CRIS takes $3K on NCAAF 1H totals (probably more for bowl games; I don't know). Not a giant amount, but we're not talking about Swedish Handball lines here. There is absolutely no way a market of that size is so inefficient that you could sustainably make money blindly betting every game.
 
MrX
Ah, I was wondering if that's what you were saying.

Well, yeah, I obviously agree with that assessment. With the only nitpick being that saying that an EV of -5 is twice as much as an EV of -10 is slightly confusing. It made it sound like you were talking positive values.
Click to expand...
Sorry, yeah. I was trying to point him toward an improved bottom line in the nicest way possible.
 
reno cool
:clueless: you're missing the point here.
of course the theory is that the "market is incorrectly pricing" All handicapping theory is based on that
Click to expand...

And of course that's what I was ready to completely dismiss, since the talk and the thread that was linked were referencing the past two years of bowl results, which is a major sample-size issue, to put it lightly.

However, in peeking into that thread a little bit, someone mentioned records going back to 2000 showing strong bowl results for unders.
 
Gilmartin
He's talking about taking every 1H under, blindly. CRIS takes $3K on NCAAF 1H totals (probably more for bowl games; I don't know). Not a giant amount, but we're not talking about Swedish Handball lines here. There is absolutely no way a market of that size is so inefficient that you could sustainably make money blindly betting every game.
Click to expand...

I tend to strongly agree with this statement, but not quite as strongly as to say "absolutely no way." These are games with a ton of public interest. One has to look no further than the superbowl to see some wildly inefficient market prices with huge limits. I wouldn't say it's absolutely impossible for the market on these big bowl games to inefficient enough.
 
Gilmartin
He's talking about taking every 1H under, blindly. CRIS takes $3K on NCAAF 1H totals (probably more for bowl games; I don't know). Not a giant amount, but we're not talking about Swedish Handball lines here. There is absolutely no way a market of that size is so inefficient that you could sustainably make money blindly betting every game.
Click to expand...

the theory implies that 2nd half unders are undervalued in cases where 1st half overs came in. (and possibly 1st half unders themselves) Not the most unreasonable theory in the world. It is not a question of whether you pay more vig for placing more bets.
 
reno cool
the theory implies that 2nd half unders are undervalued in cases where 1st half overs came in. (and possibly 1st half unders themselves) Not the most unreasonable theory in the world. It is not a question of whether you pay more vig for placing more bets.
Click to expand...

More than possibly, or there would be no reason at all to play the first half unders. If that alone were the theory, you would simply wait for first half overs to come in, and then bet the 2nd half unders.
 
MrX
I tend to strongly agree with this statement, but not quite as strongly as to say "absolutely no way." These are games with a ton of public interest. One has to look no further than the superbowl to see some wildly inefficient market prices with huge limits. I wouldn't say it's absolutely impossible for the market on these big bowl games to inefficient enough.
Click to expand...
Fair enough; a bit of hyperbole on my part, I suppose. Even if the entire NCAAF half total market is inefficient in the case of bowl games, it is one of those "works until it doesn't" types of things. Your sole metric of success would be profit and loss; if you assume the entire market is inefficient, you couldn't use something like value vs the closing line to determine whether or not you still had an edge. Preaching to the choir, I realize.

Can we even know if Super Bowl lines are efficient or not? The sample size is what, at best, 20 games? There are historical Vegas lines from before that, sure, but the market (if you could even call it a market) was so different back then, I'm not sure it would be valid to include.
 
reno cool
the theory implies that 2nd half unders are undervalued in cases where 1st half overs came in. (and possibly 1st half unders themselves) Not the most unreasonable theory in the world. It is not a question of whether you pay more vig for placing more bets.
Click to expand...
Because I view them as coinflip bets, that's exactly what it is. Just my opinion, obv.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.