Dogs still crushing the NFL

[Valuist]

102-67-4 ATS (60%) of all games.

37 dogs have covered but not won (over 21%). So much for you win you cover.....not this year.

 

[doubleon11]

those #s are incredible. Any idea what % of dogs covered last year in NFL? DO you think this trend will continue in the nfl this year?

 

[GM]

I have slightly different numbers, but very close. There have been 176 games in the NFL this year.

I've got dogs up 101-71-4. 34 spread covers by dogs that lost outright, and 67 outright dog wins. Numbers could be different because of games where one team opened as a dog and closed as the favorite. In such cases I consider the favorite to be the team that closed as the fav, not opened.

This is the perfect argument for those people who say "just pick the winner of the game and don't worry about the spread". Seeing as dogs have won outright almost as often as favorites have COVERED, those 34 spread covers tilt it HUGE in favor of dogs. An exceptionally good year for dogs.

Historically the spread comes into effect about 17% of the time, so this year it's a bit higher than usual.

Past year's stats (my numbers, yours may differ, includes playoffs):

(Figures go: Dogs-Favs-Pushes-Pick 'Ems)

2001: 126-118-12-3 (51.6% dogs). 87 outright dog wins, 39 spread covers (15.2%).
2000: 131-119-6-3 (52.4% dogs). 91 outright dog wins, 40 spread covers (15.6%).
1999: 131-115-9-4 (53.3% dogs). 85 outright dog wins, 46 spread covers (18.0%).

 

[pt1gard]

empty

empty

put it elsewhere

 

[TheShrimp]

I've got dogs up 101-71-4. 34 spread covers by dogs that lost outright, and 67 outright dog wins. Numbers could be different because of games where one team opened as a dog and closed as the favorite. In such cases I consider the favorite to be the team that closed as the fav, not opened.

This is the perfect argument for those people who say "just pick the winner of the game and don't worry about the spread". Seeing as dogs have won outright almost as often as favorites have COVERED, those 34 spread covers tilt it HUGE in favor of dogs.

[snipped a bunch]
I don't think you can really say this without considering the odds on dogs winning outright.

If you bet 1.1 units on every dog with the spread, you'd be (101 - 78.1 = +22.9). [78.1 = 71*1.1]

Let's say dogs were +190 ML on average. If, instead, you bet 1.1 units (same risk) on every dog at +190, you'd be (140 - 115.5 = +24.5). [140 = 67*1.9*1.1 and 115.5 = 105*1.1]

Now, the question is +190 a reasonable "average". Certainly one could go back and figure it all out. The averages for all the dog ML's this week is +197 (from active SIA lines). Of course, it's more common for lower priced dogs to pull the upset so the average might not be so high. I shaded it down to +190, just to show that's kind of a "balancing point". If the true average were much higher or lower, we'd see a swing on way or the other.

I'm not sure what the actual average is, but the point is that "just picking the winner" would get you about as close as picking ATS if you played all dogs.

We've also had several BIG upsets this year with ML's over +300: NYG ov STL, DALL ov STL, HOU ov DALL, HOU ov JAX, IND ov PHI, I even got PHI ov SF at +280. It takes missing a LOT of games to make up for that kind of cash. Almost every one of those games was a 10 point spread, which are usually about +350 to +390.

 

[Buck]

Was wondering what the subset is of home dogs ats? Could either one of you help? The real interesting one would be defensive home dogs, depending on your definition of defensive.

 

[GM]

Home dogs ATS:

This year: 34-24-2 (58.6%)
2001: 42-36-6 (53.8%)
2000: 38-38-2 (50%)
1999: 46-35-6 (56.8%)

Overall: 160-133-16 (54.6%)

Road dogs ATS:

This year: 67-47-2 (58.8%)
2001: 83-82-6 (50.3%)
2000: 93-80-4 (53.8%)
1999: 85-80-2 (51.5%)

Overall: 328-289-14 (53.2%)

Defensive home dogs...my stats have no way of tracking that.

 

[Valuist]

I took the numbers from Wagerline. They have a section where you can check league trends for the last week, month, season etc. Our numbers are close enough to draw the same conclusion.

 

[GM]

I don't know if it means anything, but...

I don't know if it means anything, but...

A little something I just discovered. I was under the impression that things leveled out as the season wore on. Turns out that may be the case. Checked out the final 5 weeks of each of the past 3 seasons to see how favs/dogs performed.

2001: Favorites were one game over .500 ATS for Weeks 13-17.
2000: Favorites were two games over .500 ATS for Wks 13-17.
1999: Favorites were one game over .500 ATS for " " ".

So despite all of the above years having an edge to the dogs, that edge was built entirely in Weeks 12 and prior. Interesting.

Not that there weren't extremes in the final 5 weeks. In '01 Favs went 4-10-1 in Week 16...but there was a 7-4-3-1 week before that (the "1" is a Pick Em game, which I keep track of separately), and a 9-6 week after. And in '00 Favs went 5-10 in Week 16...but 9-6 the week before and the week after. In '99 there was no week better than 8-6-1 or worse than 6-8-1 in the final 5 weeks.

Really don't know if this is meaningful or just a statistical fluke, but it HAS happened 3 years in a row now.

 

[Skinar]

One thing I read from this analysis is that Vegas understands the mind of the average bettor and most of the recreational bettors are going to bet on favorites, so it would make sense that the lines are skewed higher than they should be. In most years the same thing can be said for unders - most recreational bettors prefer the OVER, they just like watching points pile up, and we all know how nerve wracking a really close UNDER bet can be, but we also all probably know that historically there are more unders than overs.

One other question that enters my mind now is, with the proliferation of online sportsbooks there are a LOT more people betting on sports than ever before. Is it possible that this influx of new money has caused even more skewing of the lines towards the favorites? Could it be that this trend will apply to college hoops this year as well? Does anyone have any numbers on college football this year?

I distinctly remember when I first began betting on dogs and unders, I thought there was no way I would win because it was just ingrained in my mind that favorites were SUPPOSED to win and cover and that a lot of points were SUPPOSED to be scored.

 

[GM]

Re: More bettors. No, I don't think the line is skewed higher than it was in the past. Maybe it's just me, but I think the average bettor is getting better educated about things like this. Of course there are always going to be people who just take favs and overs, but more and more I run into people who are at least a little tuned into the fact dogs are the way to go. With the internet and so much info out there, I think there is more of a tendency for people to bet on dogs. But I could be wrong.

Re: Stress of an Under. You know, it's funny...I've always preferred Under bets to Over bets, but again, maybe I'm just different. The exception has been this year...I've taken WAY more Overs this year than I ever have in the past, and it's kind of a weird feeling. I think I need to go back to my old ways. Anyways, I find the Overs a lot more stressful. I always find myself counting how many more points I need, and it just seems like neither team can score, and the clock is going tick, tick, tick. Much harder on the nerves to me. With Unders, lots of punts and both teams staying between the 30's is just a great feeling! If an O/U for a game is, say, 40...well, going over 40 pts usually takes about 6 or 7 scoring plays. Most of the time the teams aren't scoring and I feel more at ease.

 

[TheShrimp]

I really don't know about the "average bettor", GM. I got a buddy who bets through a local where he works. Every week we talk about what we play. I can think back to him taking points about twice this year.

And every week, he'll tell me about games that everyone where he works is all over, and it's always a fave. Usually a Goldman fave. This week, its atlanta.

He has no understanding of what it really means to lay points.

Of course even if lines were shaded, they can only be shaded so much before sharps just pound the crap out of them.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Good discussion. It will be interesting to see if this continues this year and into future years.

TheShrimp

 

[IE]

Valuist, a situation that i have used for the last while this season for the underdogs seems to be not letting up....maybe today, who knows...

i put it up on IE's page.

good luck and happy thanksgiving.

IE

 

[GENO]

good info guys