Are Basketball "Under bets" bad in the long run.

[SpursDynasty]

With the over, it is a matter if the two teams score enought points to cover. That is basically it. The only thing that could be bad for an over is if it is a blowout and it is garbage ball and the score leader milks the clock and the last two minutes has very little scoring. But blowout happen rarely and even then the over could be still covered.

However with Unders, there are factors that seem to increase the "House advantage (in a sense)". With overtime there is always a possibility it will happen. Late game fouling for easy FT's and points is anohter possibility. This is indeed what happens, so in theory, unders have more possibility of failure as do Overs in the long run.

Over is a blackjack bet.

Under is a Casino War bet (worse House advantage)

thoughts?

 

[hawkeye]

I like the unders-college teams at times have bad strecthes and don't score allot plus more emphaissi put on def in college.

 

[THE HITMAN]

Spurs........my input is (for the long run that you mentioned} that the longer run, the closer an under gets to 50/50. They don't give money away, if an under was considered a better bet on a steady basis, every sharp in town would be on them constantly. But they aren't.
I can see where you are coming from, as I like unders alot, myself. Watching the end of an NBA game can be verrrrrrry frustrsating and almost makes one wonder if it is ever anything but a crapshoot or a bad dream. Consider the 25 points that was put on the board in the final 39 seconds last week. But endings are balanced out, a lotta times the last minute is free of any action and it is all relative and figured in a team's stats & lines. Just my .02............GL