Hi everyone,
This has been a nice little discussion - obviously I can see some think it's a joke and don't agree - but it's ok to disagree w/ me if you don't believe it works. My main point is this - don't overthink yourself and don't approach betting NFL as seeing Indy favored by 9.5 and just thinking "wow they should really beat Denver easily by 10 or more this weekend" - try to understand why the line might be set at Indy -9.5. Usually if you see 80% of the public betting this and line keeps hanging around that it's good to take the underdog. Now I'm not saying year in and out to just take every underdog every week of the year. I did point out home dogs because they have done very well. If you consistently look to side w/ the minority - and this is often the side of the underdog you will make money - plain and simple. Most people that disagree with me probably prefer to play the favorites or just don't want to believe that there is an easier and better way to play the NFL games. I know what I bring home at the end of every year and in the long run - and the point of this thread was to share that to help others who may not be doing as well change their thinking to become a long run winner. Some people are stubborn and refuse to believe there are better ways to bet the NFL. Nobody has to take the advice, but I thought I'd share what has worked for me and will continue to work.
Now regarding 2005 - i wanted to address this - yes I believe faves covered in the 58-60% range that year and it was the highest rate if you simply bet every favorite in the last 20 years...i remember last year digging into historical data and i believe only 3 of the last 20 years the faves hit at a higher percent had you bet every single one. So that means 17 of the last 20 years if you bet every underdog that you would have covered at a higher rate than the favorites. Now I do encourage playing underdogs selectively. Someone brought up that at end of 1 year, or two years or 3 years that dogs and faves cover equally - this is not true. This post also is dealing with SIDES and not TOTALS. I know it's hard for some to believe that "all you have to do is bet underdogs" - but it truely works - if you selectively play high percentage dog plays each week. The highest percentage historically have been HOME DOGS - this is a fact. Now I think that's pretty powerful that over a large sample of 20 years that the dogs have dominated 17 of the 20 years ATS...and this is just if you bet EVERY underdog. Those years where underdogs cover 53% and favorites 47% don't look to be that impressive, but if you can become seletive and spot a good live dog you should be able to win in that 55-57% range...
Now there will be years - possibly even this year - or in the future where you'll have a year like 2005 where favorites cover and joe public cleans up - i liken this to the stock market - in the history about 1 in every 4 years is a losing year for the market - and 3 of 4 years the market goes up...now I invest heavily in the stock market as well and some years are just tough to make money - same as those years where the favorites cover high % happen then you'll probably lose if you play mostly dogs...but in the sports market in 3 of the last 20 years faves covered more - those would have been bad years using my approach, but you more than make up for the losing years w/ all the winning years where dogs dominate...
Anyways discussions like these are good - it sure beats some of the bashing that occurs from time to time - we should all be looking to share what works if you are successful at betting sports & try to help each other out - if I've helped even one individual to change their thinking and become a winner, then this post was worthwhile...as always i wish you the best in whatever you play...
This has been a nice little discussion - obviously I can see some think it's a joke and don't agree - but it's ok to disagree w/ me if you don't believe it works. My main point is this - don't overthink yourself and don't approach betting NFL as seeing Indy favored by 9.5 and just thinking "wow they should really beat Denver easily by 10 or more this weekend" - try to understand why the line might be set at Indy -9.5. Usually if you see 80% of the public betting this and line keeps hanging around that it's good to take the underdog. Now I'm not saying year in and out to just take every underdog every week of the year. I did point out home dogs because they have done very well. If you consistently look to side w/ the minority - and this is often the side of the underdog you will make money - plain and simple. Most people that disagree with me probably prefer to play the favorites or just don't want to believe that there is an easier and better way to play the NFL games. I know what I bring home at the end of every year and in the long run - and the point of this thread was to share that to help others who may not be doing as well change their thinking to become a long run winner. Some people are stubborn and refuse to believe there are better ways to bet the NFL. Nobody has to take the advice, but I thought I'd share what has worked for me and will continue to work.
Now regarding 2005 - i wanted to address this - yes I believe faves covered in the 58-60% range that year and it was the highest rate if you simply bet every favorite in the last 20 years...i remember last year digging into historical data and i believe only 3 of the last 20 years the faves hit at a higher percent had you bet every single one. So that means 17 of the last 20 years if you bet every underdog that you would have covered at a higher rate than the favorites. Now I do encourage playing underdogs selectively. Someone brought up that at end of 1 year, or two years or 3 years that dogs and faves cover equally - this is not true. This post also is dealing with SIDES and not TOTALS. I know it's hard for some to believe that "all you have to do is bet underdogs" - but it truely works - if you selectively play high percentage dog plays each week. The highest percentage historically have been HOME DOGS - this is a fact. Now I think that's pretty powerful that over a large sample of 20 years that the dogs have dominated 17 of the 20 years ATS...and this is just if you bet EVERY underdog. Those years where underdogs cover 53% and favorites 47% don't look to be that impressive, but if you can become seletive and spot a good live dog you should be able to win in that 55-57% range...
Now there will be years - possibly even this year - or in the future where you'll have a year like 2005 where favorites cover and joe public cleans up - i liken this to the stock market - in the history about 1 in every 4 years is a losing year for the market - and 3 of 4 years the market goes up...now I invest heavily in the stock market as well and some years are just tough to make money - same as those years where the favorites cover high % happen then you'll probably lose if you play mostly dogs...but in the sports market in 3 of the last 20 years faves covered more - those would have been bad years using my approach, but you more than make up for the losing years w/ all the winning years where dogs dominate...
Anyways discussions like these are good - it sure beats some of the bashing that occurs from time to time - we should all be looking to share what works if you are successful at betting sports & try to help each other out - if I've helped even one individual to change their thinking and become a winner, then this post was worthwhile...as always i wish you the best in whatever you play...
