Cover rates through Week 12

[GM]

A few stats for you for this NFL season....

Dogs and favs VERY even through 12 weeks...

ATS Records by Week (Favs-Dogs-Pushes-Pick'Ems):
Week 1: 7-8-1
Week 2: 9-7
Week 3: 6-7-1
Week 4: 6-7-1
Week 5: 5-9
Week 6: 7-7
Week 7: 5-8-1
Week 8: 8-6
Week 9: 4-9-0-1
Week 10: 8-6
Week 11: 12-3-1
Week 12: 8-8

Total: 85-85-5-1, 50.0%

.....

Home favorites cover rate by Week (Favs-Dogs-Pushes):

Week 1: 5-6-1
Week 2: 5-5
Week 3: 4-7-1
Week 4: 1-3
Week 5: 4-8
Week 6: 5-6
Week 7: 5-4-1
Week 8: 7-4
Week 9: 3-6
Week 10: 5-4
Week 11: 5-3
Week 12: 5-6

Total: 54-62-3, 46.6%

.....

Road favorites cover rate by Week (Favs-Dogs-Pushes):

Week 1: 2-2
Week 2: 4-2
Week 3: 2-0
Week 4: 5-4-1
Week 5: 1-1
Week 6: 2-1
Week 7: 0-4
Week 8: 1-2
Week 9: 1-3
Week 10: 3-2
Week 11: 7-0-1
Week 12: 3-2

Total: 31-23-2, 57.4% (but only marginally above 50% if not for that one big week)

.....

Over/Unders by Week (Overs-Unders-Pushes):

Week 1: 7-9
Week 2: 6-10
Week 3: 5-9
Week 4: 6-8
Week 5: 6-7-1
Week 6: 7-7
Week 7: 8-6
Week 8: 11-3
Week 9: 11-3
Week 10: 7-7
Week 11: 5-11
Week 12: 7-9

Total: 86-89-1, 49.1% (Seems it goes for a few weeks one way, then a few weeks the other way)

.....

Average Pts Per Game by Week:

Week 1: 38.8
Week 2: 37.8
Week 3: 39.0
Week 4: 38.6
Week 5: 46.1
Week 6: 41.7
Week 7: 41.4
Week 8: 48.6
Week 9: 47.9
Week 10: 44.4
Week 11: 38.3
Week 12: 45.1 (aided by 106 pts in one game!)

Season Average: 42.2

 

[GM]

ATS Standings (ATS records, followed by actual records in brackets):

GREEN = ATS record better than actual record by at least 2 full games
RED = ATS record worse than actual record by at least 2 full games

San Diego 9-1-1 (8-3)

New England 8-1-2 (10-1)

Pittsburgh 8-3 (10-1)
Philadelphia 8-3 (10-1)
Baltimore 8-3 (7-4)

Indianapolis 7-3-1 (8-3)

Minnesota 7-4 (7-4)
Buffalo 7-4 (5-6)

NY Jets 6-4-1 (8-3)

Jacksonville 6-5 (6-5)
Carolina 6-5 (4-7)
Arizona 6-5 (4-7)

Green Bay 5-5-1 (7-4)
Houston 5-5-1 (5-6)

Atlanta 5-6 (9-2)
NY Giants 5-6 (5-6)
Chicago 5-6 (4-7)
Detroit 5-6 (4-7)

Denver 4-5-2 (7-4)

Tampa Bay 4-6-1 (4-7)

Seattle 4-7 (6-5)
Cincinnati 4-7 (5-6)
St Louis 4-7 (5-6)
Tennessee 4-7 (4-7)
Oakland 4-7 (4-7)
Dallas 4-7 (4-7)
New Orleans 4-7 (4-7)
Cleveland 4-7 (3-8)
Washington 4-7 (3-8)
Miami 4-7 (2-9)
San Francisco 4-7 (1-10)

Kansas City 3-8 (3-8)

 

[GM]

Over/Under Records:

Indianapolis 8-3
St Louis 8-3

Houston 7-4
San Diego 7-4
Oakland 7-4
Dallas 7-4
Green Bay 7-4
Seattle 7-4

Miami 6-4-1

Buffalo 6-5
Pittsburgh 6-5
Tennessee 6-5
Kansas City 6-5
Minnesota 6-5
New Orleans 6-5
Arizona 6-5
San Francisco 6-5

New England 5-5-1

NY Jets 5-6
Baltimore 5-6
Cincinnati 5-6
Cleveland 5-6
Chicago 5-6
Detroit 5-6

Denver 4-7
Philadelphia 4-7
Carolina 4-7

Jacksonville 3-8
NY Giants 3-8
Atlanta 3-8
Tampa Bay 3-8

Washington 2-9

.....

 

[Terthebear]

Thank You GM good info!

 

[WHALER]

stats

stats

does anybody know the stats on how one would
do by sipmply picking the game winner.How often do the points matter?Last week the points mattered in the pittsburgh game and atlanta game only.otherwise dogs that covered won outright and favorites won by enough to win the bet too.

 

[GM]

11.9 % of games this year have been decided by the pts only. That's low. It's almost always in the 16 to 17% range. It may not sound like a big difference, but it means 1 game out of 8 or 9 was decided by the spread so far this year when it's usually about 1 in 6.

Favorites have won and covered 85 times.
Dogs have covered 85 times.
Dogs covered with the SPREAD ONLY 21 times, and won outright the other 64 times. So the spread still accounts for almost 25% of all dog-covers. Normally however the spread would account for about 33% of all dog covers. (Last year, 84 outright dog wins, 41 spread covers... In 2002 it was 97 outright, 50 more with the spread, etc).

 

[bombercoops]

Love the stats GM! These can come in very useful.

 

[chuckdman]

Excellent work GM!! Love the stats! Had something to read today at work instead of working

GL this week.. Ruff Ruff?

 

[redking]

So I guess if you're thinking about betting on the dog, might as well take the moneyline?!?

 

[Skanoochies]

Great stuff GM, much appreciated by all I`m sure. :clap: :clap:

 

[SlySi]

Good work!

 

[baby johnson]

gm, do i think a 100 player who bet just the ML would be ahead of a 110 okayer who just bet dogs???

jr capper

 

[GM]

gm, do i think a 100 player who bet just the ML would be ahead of a 110 okayer who just bet dogs???

jr capper

I don't know, do you think that?

This year, ya, you'd probably be up going the ML route if you had played them every single game, because there have been an unusually low # of spread covers. A lot of the outright winners have been teams getting more than 7 pts (so more than +260 I guess? I think that's roughly what +7 works out to?).

Just going by this year's stats...

If you bet every dog with the spread this year (assuming -110 for each)....

85 wins x $100 = $8500
85 losses x $110 = -$9350
Net gain/loss = -$850

Now to get to that level (-$850) betting ML's, you'd have to figure out what the average ML would have to be to offset losing instead of winning on those spread-covers. Betting on the ML you'd have 106 losses (85 + the 21 spread covers), and only 64 wins.

106 losses x $100 = -$10,600
Target = -$850 (the amount you lost above)
Total amount needed to be won by your ML bets = $9750
$9750 divided by 64 winners = $152.34
To win an average of $152.34 per win, your average ML would have to be +153.

That seems attainable. Isn't +3 usually about equal to about +160? Of course a lot of places won't even offer you a ML if the line is only +1 or +1?, so you'd have to take the point instead of the ML in those cases.

Of course all of the above assumes you do no handicapping whatsoever and bet on every single game...not to mention you would be happy losing $850 any way you could.

To actually break even using this strategy, your average ML winner would have to be +166. To make, say $2000 profit, it would have to be +197. If however the spread decides the winner at it's normal 16%-17% rate then these numbers would obviously have to be considerably higher than that.