NFL - Week # 3 - Suggestions

[Math Demon]

At least he didn't listen to Mr Tthree. That guy did pretty bad this week. LOL At least the first advice got him a BR to play with. Early season football is a tough one for me. I usually don't even bother. There is great value in the lines if you can spot them but I was better at betting the teams after enough stats than finding the value in new teams that haven't had the public adjust to the changes from last year. In this age of NFL parody teams change a lot from 1 year to the next.

Thanks for your advice over the years, Tthree!


It's been said that the lines are specifically designed in order to fool the most number of people. Besides, the game is so volatile ... missing a FG or PAT, intercepting a tipped pass, losing a fumble, having an injury to a key player, an inopportune penalty, or a missed penalty call, missing 4th-and-inches, etc ... any of the dozens of little things can swing the result of your bet from a win to a loss.

I find that the hardest things to get right is the total points. The linemakers have much more experience and more data than most sports bettors.
__

A few things to which I haven't paid attention is team stats, injuries, home tendencies as well as better lines. All in due time, I guess. I just hope my free trial BR last long enough for me to get through the "baby steps."

[Three]

What is your BR and rollover met for your play results through week 3?

[Nyne]

I'm sorry, Nyne! I don't I understand what you were saying here in this post.

I understood your other post about betting everything on a high variance bet on the $100 freeplay. Your thinking, I believe, was:

1. if the $100 freeplay bet was NOT used, it will be lost anyway.

This only means we should make SOME kind of bet, but says nothing about what kind it should be. Based on my understanding of your posts, it sounded like the $100 was not cashable, and if you lose, no harm no foul, if you win, you collect the proceeds of the bet but not the $100 starting stake. When you won the $264, I was assuming that bet was +264 and the $100 is gone, rather than +164 and you kept the $100. Based on what you say, it sounds like this was inaccurate. That changes the math somewhat but not necessarily the outcome. There is no longer a loss rebate aspect to the $100 starting stake, but there is still a loss rebate equivalence to the rollover requirement, which I'll explain in a minute.

2. if only a portion of the $100 was used, 12x$100 or $1200 will still be the rollover req't, so the $100 should be used for wagering.

I don't disagree with this, but it was more of an assumption for me than a conclusion.

3. if the $100 freeplay bet was LOST, no harm, no foul. I did NOT have any money on sportsbook anyway. Same case if I lost. And no more effort needs to be done.

4. So it all boils down to the bets available. With a $100 freeplay being limited to one NFL Thursday night game, I was limited to bet spread (-110, 100 to win 91), totals (-110), betting the underdog to win, Tampa Bay (+235, 100 to win 135), or a 2-part parlay of ATL-6, Over 46 (2.64, 100 to win 164). I chose that last option (with 25% theoretical chance of winning), although the EV was less than the spread bet.

OK so, for the first bet, we had a few choices, each with different probabilities of winning and each with different payouts. In all cases, if we win, we will need to complete $1200 in additional betting. Assuming we will just complete the bets with multiple small bets, we expect to lose $1200*5% completing the wagering requirement, which means each winning initial bet has an additional cost of $60 before we can cash out. If we assume the spread bets and the O/U bets have a 50% chance of winning, and if we assume a parlay of those 2 has a 25% chance of winning, we get the following:

Betting against the spread or O/U: EV = 0.5 * (191 - 60) + 0.5 * 0 = $65.50
Parlay: EV = 0.25 * (264 - 60) + 0.75 * 0 = $51

If these payoff odds are correct, and the $100 starting stake is cashable after it has been wagered and the wagering requirement completed (I included the $100 in the payoff for a win), then the lower variance bets would have been a better choice, however from the screenshot you posted in this thread, it look like my initial assumptions were correct and you bet $100 in funny money at +264 for a $264 win, at which point the $100 goes away. +264 makes a lot more sense for a parlay than +164, as +164 would have a house edge of 34% vs. 9% if the odds were +264. So redoing the numbers with the parlay at +264 and the $100 going away after the bet, you do get some loss rebate effect from the $100 in funny money, in addition to the loss rebate equivalence of the eliminated wagering requirement on a loss. Here are the numbers if the $100 is funny money and the parlay pays +264:

Betting against the spread or O/U: EV = 0.5 * (91 - 60) + 0.5 * 0 = $15.50
Parlay: EV = 0.25 * (264 - 60) + 0.75 * 0 = $51

Now the parlay is the clear choice. I didn't include the moneyline bets, prop bets, etc. but you can do the same math on those bets.

I looked at the stats and figured that ATL was playing at home, in a dome, ATL QB Ryan was playing well, TB QB was struggling, Devin Hester was a new addition ... I figured I had way more that 50% chance to win the ATL-6, way more than 50% for totals over 46.

I don't know the first thing about handicapping, but if you have some insight into the true probability of winning (rather than assuming 50%), you can adjust the equations accordingly. I'd caution that you probably don't want to move the probabilities much past 55-58%. Even the best handicappers aren't picking winners too much more than that.


OK, moving on to after the first bet won...

This weekend, with very limited knowledge of NFL betting (or following NFL teams, for that matter), I started with $264 balance and $1200 rollover req't.

The plan was to place 9-10 $26 bets and some really long-shot parlays.

OK so broadly speaking, your 2 options here were to make a lot of small bets to grind out the wager requirement, or bet it all on 1 bet.

Option 1: The house edge on the longshot bets may be a bit higher, so for spreading the bets around to grind out the WR, you should probably stick to the -110 bets, which have just under a 5% edge (betting both sides would be a loss of $10 on $220 in action, ignoring ties). Ultimately, if you are going to grind out the WR regardless, the EV of this play is simply $1200 * HE, so you just want to play the lowest edge bets you can. If you have handicapping abilities, obviously that helps, but I would approach this with the assumption that I know nothing about handicapping, so I'd choose the bets with the lowest vig and hope for the best, betting as many games as possible to reduce variance. Still though, the cost of this option is about -5% * $1200 = -$60.

Option 2: If we again load up all of the money on a parlay where we win 2.64:1 25% of the time, we will complete $264 of the WR, and if we win we will have $934 of wagering remaining (cost = 5% * $934 = $46.70) and we will have $960.96 in the account. So the math looks like this:

Option 1: EV = $264 - $1200 * 5% = $204
Option 2: EV = 0.25 * ($960.96 - $46.70) + 0.75 * $0 = $228.56

Option 2 has a higher EV because 75% of the time, you save the $46.70 cost of completing the last $934 of wagering. This is why I recommended making a single longshot bet again after the first bet won. It's worth noting that if this bet had won, the best move would be to make many small -110 type bets to complete the remaining wagering. This is because you can't bet enough now to lose everything and eliminate the wagering requirement because betting it all WILL complete the wagering requirement, so there's no more loss rebate equivalence after 2 wins. So you should minimize variance and get the wagering done so you can cash out.

So putting it all together, since you have a 25% chance of winning the initial bet, the overall play was worth $51 if you bet the parlay and then choose option 1, or worth $57 if you bet the parlay and then choose option 2. Again, this is all with no attempt at handicapping at all.

Anyway, I increased the balance from $264 to $278 with 20% of the rollover satisfied. Hopefully, I get better at this. And if I get much more consistent at this, I would start putting in some non-trivial funds.

Given this, I would still suggest betting the full amount on a single bet. If I added right, you have $941 in wagering left and $278 in your account, so a loss would get you a rebate of 5%*($941-$278)=$33.15 in avoided cost. It remains to be seen whether a longshot is best or not, but clearly you still should bet it all on 1 bet. The idea is regardless of how you bet the money (1 bet or many), if you bet $278, you will still have $663 in wagering required, so if you don't bust out, you will still spend $33.15 in vig to get the money cashed out. If you can go from paying that amount 100% of the time (making many small bets that effectively guarantee you will complete the wagering requirement) to paying that amount some lesser percent of the time (25% for the parlay, 50% for the ATS or O/U bets) and otherwise paying $0, then you are reducing your average cost of getting your money out. Often you will lose everything and cash out nothing of course, but your EV is best when you lose often and win a lot infrequently, and only incur the cost of completing the wagering requirement infrequently.

From where you are now, you get the following EVs from a -110 bet with 50% chance of winning and for a parlay paying +264 with a 25% chance of winning:

Betting against the spread or O/U: EV = 0.5 * (530.98 - 33.15) + 0.5 * 0 = $248.92
Parlay: EV = 0.25 * (1011.92 - 33.15) + 0.75 * 0 = $244.69

In this case, the higher house edge of the parlay (9%) vs the other bets (4.5%) costs you more on the $278 bet than you save by paying the $33.15 25% less often (50% vs. 25%), so you might as well make a lower edge and lower variance bet. But you are definitely better off if you bet it all on a single bet than if you spread it around to many bets.



One last point and I'll shut up. Even though I advised betting the parlay at +264 with a 25% chance of winning for the first bet, which is good for a funny money bet since funny money is it's own loss rebate, once the funny money is gone, you are better off to bet a side or total on 2 consecutive games than to bet a parlay on a single game, since winning at 0.91:1 gives you just about the same final balance ($100 turns into $364.81 vs. $364 on the parlay). 2 consecutive bets actually nets you a few cents more, but more importantly, it also clears another $191 of your betting requirement, saving you ~$9 in future vig. If you play another similar bonus in the future, be sure to include all possible betting sequences when you calculate the EV of each option. It's likely that your best option after the first bet will be to bet everything on whatever bet has the lowest house edge, then each time you win, bet it all again on a similar bet until your balance exceeds your remaining wagering requirement, then bet small to grind out the remainder of the WR.

Hopefully I haven't completely lost you. As I said, I'm not a sportsbettor, but the principles at play work for other types of bonuses as well, which I do have more experience with.

[Math Demon]

What is your BR and rollover met for your play results through week 3?

LOL! I have NO bankroll for sports betting since it was not something I had time for. Not to mention that I hardly know the basics. I only found out about the "Round Robin" bet last night.

But Tuesday last week, a poker site I use gave me a $100 freeplay which I had bet on ATL-6, Totals over 46.5 which turned it into $264. This weekend, it turned into $278 (I wasted $15 on long-shots and another $15 on CIN-CAR-DAL parlay). $253 of the $1200 rollover is already done.
__

There is a site (which I probably shouldn't name) offering 50% signing bonus with 5x rollover req't (10% reloads with 3x). If I see a game with -105 on both for the opposing sides, I may just dump the contents of one account to the other in order to get rid of one rollover req't. If I get 60% accuracy, I'll start with 2k then maybe 10k max.
__

97% of bettors are betting SD-JAX total over 44.5. I'm thinking total points maybe in the 30's. What's your opinion?

[Math Demon]

Option 1: The house edge on the longshot bets may be a bit higher

Thanks very much, Nyne, for your detailed explanations. Thanks also for the patience you have shown to me and other people who can't seem to comprehend.

I saw your answer yesterday, and I wanted to read and understand your post before responding. Unfortunately, I'm still trying to understand all of it. Honestly, up to this point... "I was just guessing at numbers and figures; pulling the puzzles apart ..."
__

Anyway... now I understand that parlays are a no-no for beginners and people who don't know enough about the game (and I'm guilty on both counts). But once you get to 11 out of 21, you start to breakeven. And at 11 out of 20, or 12 out of 20, you're into pretty good EV.

		50.00%	<== 10-10		52.38%	<== 11-10		55.00%	<== 11-9		60.00%	<== 12-8
parlay	payout	prob	EV		prob	EV		prob	EV		prob	EV
1	0.91	0.5000	-0.045		0.5238	0.000		0.5500	0.050		0.6000	0.145
2	2.64	0.2500	-0.090		0.2744	-0.001		0.3025	0.101		0.3600	0.310
3	6.00	0.1250	-0.125		0.1437	0.006		0.1664	0.165		0.2160	0.512
4	12.28	0.0625	-0.170		0.0753	0.000		0.0915	0.215		0.1296	0.721
5	24.35	0.0313	-0.208		0.0394	0.000		0.0503	0.276		0.0778	0.971
6	47.41	0.0156	-0.244		0.0207	0.000		0.0277	0.340		0.0467	1.259
7	91.41	0.0078	-0.278		0.0108	0.000		0.0152	0.407		0.0280	1.587
8	175.00	0.0039	-0.313		0.0057	-0.003		0.0084	0.474		0.0168	1.956
9	335.00	0.0020	-0.344		0.0030	-0.003		0.0046	0.547		0.0101	2.386
10	642.00	0.0010	-0.372		0.0016	0.000		0.0025	0.629		0.0060	2.888

[Nyne]

If you think you have handicapping skills, the same math applies but obviously the frequencies will be different. Personally, I'd run it assuming no handicapping edge because I have no skills in that department.

Each time I see this thread, I wonder why it is in the disadvantage forum. This is a legitimate discussion of how to maximize the value of a free bet. It's no less about advantage play than JG's Beyond Coupons.

[Bodarc]

I have been following and I wondered the same thing.

[Math Demon]

... I only found out about the "Round Robin" bet last night.

Poor money management through parlays and "Round Robins" have decimated the bankroll, having lost $63 (of $278) due to one game. Unfortunately, the bets were placed on 09-24 AM, before insights on parlays and RR were gathered.
__

NFL 2014 will probably be treated as the "preseason" to gain more experience for the NFL 2015 season. Any balance after Sunday will be re-allocated on straight bets towards the 188 remaining games. If weekly WL rate > 52%, additional funds will be used.
__


So far:
Week # 3: 9-4 (69%)
W (ATL-6, ATL over 46.5, DAL-1.5, SD to win, NO-10, CIN-6.5, IND-7, CHI to win, CHI over 45), or 11-4 (SD+2.5, CHI+2.5)
L (CAR-3*, HOU+1.5*, NE-14, GB to win)

* = http://www.nfl.com/videos/kansas-cit...Week-3-victory
__

Week # 4: 1-1 (50%)
W (WAS over 45.5) - agreeing with 70% of bettors
L (WAS-3.5*) - agreeing with 56% of bettors

* = revised selection criteria, NYG should have been favored by 5 points

[Math Demon]

Week # 3: 9-4 (69%)
W (ATL-6, ATL over 46.5, DAL-1.5, SD to win, NO-10, CIN-6.5, IND-7, CHI to win, CHI over 45), or 11-4 (SD+2.5, CHI+2.5)
L (CAR-3*, HOU+1.5*, NE-14, GB to win)

* = http://www.nfl.com/videos/kansas-city-chiefs/0ap3000000398870/Most-surprising-Week-3-victory

Rookie started getting cocky. Completely "revamped" selection criteria. Apparently ... in the wrong direction!

Result was a bloodbath, too many to list. For example, PHI, CHI, NYJ, and BUF to win, ATL-3, CHI+1.5, MIA under 40, etc. This week, a horrible 3-16!

Bankroll was down 75% from Week 3. Already had a minimal bet on DAL+140 made on Tuesday. Decided to go all-in with DAL+130; and either get to 60%BR... or get rid of initial $1200 rollover reqt, and maybe get another $100 freeplay on Thursday, or get a 50% deposit bonus.

Cowgirls won and BR back to 60%. May go all-in again on NE-KC MNF game, depending on the results of detailed statistical analysis this time (instead of Rookie Voodoo analysis).

[Three]

Glad you hit the Hail Mary pass. I had the games I liked listed on Sharky's pick of the week. It was my first week of picks this year. I had been posting the prediction of a rating system but these were the first picks I made. I went 5-1 so far with 1 more remaining. many were just made like the over on the Steeler/Bucs game, the over on the Chargers/Jags game and the over on the Cowboys/Saints game. The Lions over the Jets was a comfortable win and the Ravens won easily. Only the Saints were my dismal losing pick. Those 3 squeakers could have just as easily gone the other way so I am not sure I should feel great about my picks.

Tonight I went against the grain and picked New England. The consensus seems to be the Chiefs at home but I don't see. it. The Pats lost the opener to Miami in Miami. The Dolphins won last year at home against the Pats to split the two division rivalry games in 2013. The Pats beat A Peterson less Vikings handily and beat the Raiders only by 7 in a game they seemed to be happy to turn over to their defense to hold onto rather than run up the score as they did in years past. Why? New England has the number 2 overall D so far this year. The number 1 pass D and the number 11 run D by yards/game (tied for 11-12 in yards/att). It seems that the Chiefs will have to try to beat them on the ground. The Chiefs and Pats are ranked 30 and 31 for passing yards/game so far this year. The Chiefs are number 11 rushing while the Pats are number 22 rushing O. The Chiefs drop to 17th in yards/att. A very important stat that NE always dominates is turnovers. They are first at +6 the Chiefs are last at -5.

The other important stat is TD to Interception ratio. The Pats D has allowed 3 passing TDs and intercepted 6 times. The Chiefs O has 4 passing TDs and threw 3 interceptions. While the Chiefs D has allowed 6 passing TDs and have no interceptions. Wile the Pats O has 3 passing TDs and thrown no interceptions. I believe what we are seeing this year is great offensive teams trying to rely more on their D. After year after year of the great D beating the big O in the Super Bowl punctuated by one of the best O's ever being totally shut down by a great D the teams with great offenses are trying to put more emphasis on their defense. The Broncos clearly made that move in the off season and the Pats always had a good D is making them more a part of the plan to win the game. Instead of going for a big lead and playing a prevent D the entire second half, they are trying to tailor their game plan toward a balanced team attack. Offense to move and control the ball as required against an opponent in order to get the lead and eat the clock. Defense playing strong the entire game being better rested from the more balanced offensive attack keeping them off the field for longer periods of time. If I am right you will see closer games for the Pats and Broncos. In other words the Pats will win but by smaller margins.

At Pats -2.5 you have a great bet. I would lean toward the under but it is too early to be certain that the Pats will not run up the score as they have in previous years. It may be opponent driven with some situational considerations. Despite the Chiefs strong showing last year playing a schedule given the worst team record the year before the Chiefs aren't that good a team and aren't as good as they were last year. I think the Pats are better than last year but have simply changed their game plan to try to win a Super Bowl rather than win the Division title and fall short of that goal. The Pats regularly struggled to beat the Ravens in the Post Season due to the Ravens Big D. The Pats O wasn't strong enough to beat other big O in Denver. Denver got humiliated in the Super Bowl by the Seahawks dominating D. They need to be able to shut down big O as well as score points against a weak D to win the Big One and they know it now. Watch the season they try to hone that D into a D to be feared rather than a D that gives up lots of junk yardage, a D that will win the game when the O can't win it alone.

The last Sper Bowl winners:
2013-14: Seahawks. good O great D and a balanced team for any situation.
2012-13: Ravens. Strong O for whatever situation arises and great D.
2011-12: Giants. Great D. dependable O.
2010-11: Packers. Great O and strong D.

You have to go back to 2009 to get a dominating offense with not much D:
2009-10: Saints number 1 ranked offense with 25th ranked D. (post season D ranked 9 out of 12 post season teams).

The formula for winning the Super Bowl includes a great D and at least 2 teams have altered their game plan to rely more heavily on the D to win the game once they have a lead late than for the O to keep outscoring their opponent. Clock management and ball control from the O (no turnovers) and stops from the D that don't give up points.

[Three]

I guess the teams didn't get my memo last night. LOL

That went about as opposite to what I said as it can get. Maybe the Pats just suck this year.

Brady couldn't run his audibles due to crowd noise and the Pats D was just horrible. The Pats turned the ball over on 2 interceptions. The first 2 interceptions for KC this year. And Brady fumbled the ball away once. The Pats couldn't stop the run and had a hard time with the pass as well. At this point the Pats look like they will have their hands full making the playoffs. It was a pitiful performance.

So much for all the stuff I wrote yesterday. I know the Broncos tried to develop a defense they could rely on but the Pats always had a good D that gave up lots of garbage stats late in the game. They have been at the top for giveaway/takeaway turnover stats for years. Perhaps their window is closing fast. I feel like I sure read things wrong but time will tell. I just can't believe the offense went downhill that fast and the defense fell apart at the same time. The Pats have always been impressive for their depth. Losing key players just had others step up. Now with their full roster they are at best mediocre. You look at their schedule and they don't have any easy games left (I never call a division rivalry games easy). Well one thing they have going for them is 7 of their next 12 games are home games. They have always enjoyed a strong home field advantage.

The Lions, Bengals , Chargers and Texans are the teams that have looked balanced, well rounded so far (versatile, balanced, situational offense with a strong defense). I suspect the Broncos, Ravens, Seahawks and 49ers will also make that list but it is still too early to put them there. The Cardinals need to be looked at closer since their games are never televised around here. Their defense has done a great job keeping opponents scores low but the O hasn't needed to run up a score to win. We will see how they do at Mile High this week in the thin air.

[Math Demon]

That went about as opposite to what I said as it can get.

I'm so new at this, but I already realize that I tend to preconceive or predict the results of a game. There's conflicting stats and figures everywhere, and I tend to resolve any conflicts by viewing it through the lens of my preconception.

Of course there are things that are just totally unexpected. For example, last weekend, who expected winless TB (blown out by ATL 56-14) to win over PIT? Or ATL to lose to MIN by 13 points? Who expected PHI's high-powered offense to go scoreless. PHI had a blocked punt TD, interception return TD, and punt return TD, and yet still lost, because their whole offense didn't show up.
__

Once I start viewing the stats, figures, and other factors like injuries objectively, I should do better. Hopefully, that comes with experience.