Ok, this will probably be a very long post, grab a snack. I promise it will be a good read and worthwhile. I'm sick at home and off work tomorrow so I've got time on my hands. May as well use the time to share some of the very little knowledge I have about this game of handicapping. 
I have been using a betting strategy for 3-4 years now that some people may not be familiar with, middling. For those who haven't heard of it, it's simply the act of betting both sides of a game at different lines, hoping that the game lands in the middle and you win both.
IE. One book has GB -3?, another has Chi +4?. You bet both. You can't lose both bets, but you can WIN both. If (as expected) GB does not win by exactly 4, you trade a win for a loss, net result, you lose juice. But if they DO win by exactly 4, you win both bets. In essence, you are getting paid 20:1 on this gamble.
This however, ISN'T how I middle games. I like to middle totals. In particular, full game totals with second-half totals. It works like this:
O/U for the game is 39?, and I bet the Over. At the half the teams have combined for 24 pts. Second half line is an O/U of 20. For the second half, I bet Under.
This leaves me with a 4?-point middle. If the total lands anywhere between 40 and 43, I win both bets. If it lands on 44, I win my initial Over, push on my 2H Under. Any other result, I win one, lose one, just lose the juice. So it's the equivalent of risking 0.1 unit to win 2 (20:1). In other words, you only have to have a total land in this range 1 time in 19 and you profit in the long run.
Now it's been my experience that I win both bets much much more often than 1 in 19. I actually hit about 1 time in 6 doing this, if I pick my spots correctly. That is, I don't do it every time I have an initial Over bet. Two rules that must be followed to make it work:
Of course doing this, you CAN and WILL kill some winning plays. If in this example, in which 24 pts were scored at the half, the teams continue to pile it on and go over 44, you'll feel kind of stupid that your 2nd half bet lost and you juiced out. But on the other hand, there are quite a few occasions where the second half play will bail you out. The teams will combine for 13 second half points, your 2H bet wins, and you're only down 0.1 unit instead of a full unit.
I'd say on average if I use this betting strategy 6 times, on good middle opportunities (4 to 10 point middles), I will:
So I am wondering why more people don't (or won't) do it. I've posted my ideas on other websites and gotten a couple of positive responses, but in general what I hear is either, "Wow, I never thought of that" (ok, understandable). Or, "Why would you go against yourself? If you thought the game was an Over to begin with, why don't you trust your instincts and stick with it?". Because the whole idea is to lock in profit and minimize risk.
At the start of the 3rd quarter you know that you have virutally nothing to lose now. You can get out of an initial play that you feel may not work out (though this isn't the primary reason I do it). Yes, it's already 50% of the way there, but you KNOW watching some games that things are going to turn at the half, the tempo will change, the defences will adjust. At the same time, you're giving yourself a chance to double your profit. It really isn't about what I initially thought at all, it's about making $$ the smartest way possible. At least it is to me.
Does anyone else out there use this strategy? Have any comments or modifications you'd make? Think I'm nuts to do this?
I have been using a betting strategy for 3-4 years now that some people may not be familiar with, middling. For those who haven't heard of it, it's simply the act of betting both sides of a game at different lines, hoping that the game lands in the middle and you win both.
IE. One book has GB -3?, another has Chi +4?. You bet both. You can't lose both bets, but you can WIN both. If (as expected) GB does not win by exactly 4, you trade a win for a loss, net result, you lose juice. But if they DO win by exactly 4, you win both bets. In essence, you are getting paid 20:1 on this gamble.
This however, ISN'T how I middle games. I like to middle totals. In particular, full game totals with second-half totals. It works like this:
O/U for the game is 39?, and I bet the Over. At the half the teams have combined for 24 pts. Second half line is an O/U of 20. For the second half, I bet Under.
This leaves me with a 4?-point middle. If the total lands anywhere between 40 and 43, I win both bets. If it lands on 44, I win my initial Over, push on my 2H Under. Any other result, I win one, lose one, just lose the juice. So it's the equivalent of risking 0.1 unit to win 2 (20:1). In other words, you only have to have a total land in this range 1 time in 19 and you profit in the long run.
Now it's been my experience that I win both bets much much more often than 1 in 19. I actually hit about 1 time in 6 doing this, if I pick my spots correctly. That is, I don't do it every time I have an initial Over bet. Two rules that must be followed to make it work:
- Your initial bet must be on it's way to winning (if you have bet Over 39?, there must be at least 20 pts scored before you make a play...likewise for Under 39?, fewer than 19 pts must have been scored for this to work. Preferrably, at least 3-4 points away from the mid-point works best);
- It must not have already won, or be extremely close to winning already (if you picked Over 39? and the teams have scored 37 at the half, you leave it alone and take your almost-sure win. Same thing if you have Under 39? and it's 6-0 at the half)
Of course doing this, you CAN and WILL kill some winning plays. If in this example, in which 24 pts were scored at the half, the teams continue to pile it on and go over 44, you'll feel kind of stupid that your 2nd half bet lost and you juiced out. But on the other hand, there are quite a few occasions where the second half play will bail you out. The teams will combine for 13 second half points, your 2H bet wins, and you're only down 0.1 unit instead of a full unit.
I'd say on average if I use this betting strategy 6 times, on good middle opportunities (4 to 10 point middles), I will:
- Win the original/lose the second half bet three times (50%);
- Lose the original/win the second half bet twice (33%);
- Win both bets 1 time (17%)
So I am wondering why more people don't (or won't) do it. I've posted my ideas on other websites and gotten a couple of positive responses, but in general what I hear is either, "Wow, I never thought of that" (ok, understandable). Or, "Why would you go against yourself? If you thought the game was an Over to begin with, why don't you trust your instincts and stick with it?". Because the whole idea is to lock in profit and minimize risk.
At the start of the 3rd quarter you know that you have virutally nothing to lose now. You can get out of an initial play that you feel may not work out (though this isn't the primary reason I do it). Yes, it's already 50% of the way there, but you KNOW watching some games that things are going to turn at the half, the tempo will change, the defences will adjust. At the same time, you're giving yourself a chance to double your profit. It really isn't about what I initially thought at all, it's about making $$ the smartest way possible. At least it is to me.
Does anyone else out there use this strategy? Have any comments or modifications you'd make? Think I'm nuts to do this?
Last edited:
