QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Moneyline versus Pointspread Wagering"



Nolan,

Is there a certain equation you use or that can be used to determine

if you're getting better value from the moneyline or the point-spread?

Thanks, Joel



REPLY: I do not use an "equation" when weighing the prospects of a moneyline wager against making a straight bet (taking or laying points). I'm sure there are math gurus out there who use formulas for maximizing value potential on this question, which would be more applicable to baseball (since most betting revolves around moneyline wagering). But I have no knowledge of such an equation and frankly, that is not my area of expertise. Naturally as a handicapper, I would like to see more data on this subject (if it exists) in order to maximize a return on investment(s) But to answer your question directly --- as for right now, I do not rely on any math fundamentals in procedural handicapping.

Trying to decide which wager to make (moneyline versus pointspread) requires a combination of common sense, experience, and determining your own level of aversion to risk. Obviously, playing underdogs in moneyline wagering can be hazardous to your bankroll (and sanity -- especially, when inevitable bad streaks occur when all the favorites are covering and you are betting 'dogs, which happens at least a time or two every season). To illustrate my thought process when contemplating this issue, let's look on a very small scale. See my record on NBA moneyline wagers so far this year. I've won only 2 of 5 wagers. Yet, I've made back 9 percent of the total that's been invested (+135 on $1500 to be exact -- or +45 on $500, given a base unit of $100..Note: All of my moneyline wagers were underdogs). This might not seem like a lot of profit, but remember, we are playing the percentages. Nothing more. Nothing less. If just one game went the other way and won, I could be up as much as 240 percent on the investment. If one more of the games had lost, I could be down as much as 75 percent. I expect that it's rare you will go 1 in 5 when taking what I call "live underdogs." I expect the ROI to be much closer to where I am now -- which is 40 percent, clearly a high- enough percentage to return a profit. Of course, there are many moneyline betters with a far greater record and ROI than I have -- my own record was used merely to illustrate a point about maximizing earnings.

Although I do not post moneyline recommendations very often (either in the NBA or NFL), I do a lot of moneyline wagering on my own -- particularly in the NFL. These are usually gametime decisions for me, which is why I do not post these in advance very often). An example was the September 24, 2000 game between the Kansas City Chiefs and Denver Broncos. Denver was an 8-point favorite at home. Earlier in the week, I recommended the Chiefs as a BEST BET. At gametime, I noticed the Chiefs were getting back a whopping +250 on the moneyline (at the Las Vegas Club downtown which is where I saw the best moneyline price -- other books had the Chiefs in the +220-230 range). When I saw that, I made two wagers. One on the Chiefs getting 8 points and another on the Chiefs to win outright at +250. I expected the Kansas City +8 ticket would hedge the other ticket, just in case Denver won by less than 8 points. I should also note that Gus Frerotte was getting his first start for the Broncos in that game, which made me really like the Chiefs at the 5-2 price (to win outright). Hence, that decision was easy. Two tickets were purchased. Kansas City won the game 23-22 and I cashed both tickets for a huge payoff (basically a 7-2 payoff) on the initial investment.

Of course, it doesn't always work out this way. You will sometimes LOSE both wagers when the unexpected happens. Many more times you will get a "push" (actually a 5 percent loss on the losing ticket) based on a split.. But, if you can hit a fair number of these moneyline underdogs, the ROI is very nice indeed. Some handicappers insist this is the way to make money betting baseball (playing undervalued road teams that have a reasonably chance to win). I agree with this philosophy. In fact, I think this real the real basis of profiting from baseball. In other words, I'll never lay -200. Never. I dont' care who is pitching -- or who is playing. Give me a team playing .530 ball with a decent pitcher on the mound that's a +150 underdog any day. It's even better if the road team lost in the first game of the current stand.

In the NBA, I tend to make moneyline wagers when I see a live road dog that is equal in talent or perhaps even superior to the home team, but is getting a price at +140 or higher (this varies). In the NBA, home teams win about 60 percent of the time, which is why the home teams are almost always inflated. So, you have to get a price (theoretically) at greater than +120 to have an advantage. +140 is a bigger advantage. +160 is a gift. Assuming that both teams are indeed, equal in talent and motivation -- anything beyond about +160 is pure gravy.

Take, two games for example:

Earlier this month, Dallas was playing at New York. The Mavericks were listed at +145. Dallas had a better overall record and were a proven road winner. I thought this game was close to a toss-up, even though New York was favored by 4 points. I made a wager on Dallas +4 (based on low-scoring Knicks games which made this just as good as +5 or +6 in a standard NBA game). I also bet Dallas at the moneyline price of +145. This was a bit of a hedge. Dallas was clearly the play getting points. And they were a nice bargain on the moneyline. The game went into overtime and Dallas ended up losing by 3. So, my net loss was a small (5 percent of the total investment). But, I clearly had the right side on both tickets. Case in point: If this situation were to play out 100 times, I am certain I would walk away with a substantial profit.

The second example where I took a different approach on the moneyline/pointspread was last week's game between Houston and Minnesota. Houston was a staggering +195 underdog to the T'Wolves. I thought this was odd, since both teams were reasonably close in W-L records, and Houston was playing better at the time. I didn't even bother with the points because the game was expected to be high scoring. I figured if Houston was going to cover, they would probably have just as good a chance to win outright (whereas in the example above, New York has a tendency to play and win close games at home). I placed a double bet on the Rockets at the +195 price, and skipped the urge to take the points. See why? It came down to past performance and an assessment of the teams. This one was easy. Houston won outright by 7.

So, as these two examples demonstrate, I split the two games. But I made +95 from the wagers because one of the dogs won.

My final point is -- there is no mathematical formula I am aware of that can determine which is the wager with the higher EV. If such a formula does exist, I expect the results wold probably be inconsistent over a long period. The determination to bet a side or moneyline must be made by applying handicapping fundamentals and weighing the probabilities against the lines and odds that are posted.

-- Nolan Dalla