[the shadow]

nfl 136-123
nba 322-301
nhl 387-342
ncaaf 397-361
ncaab 765-722
mlb 1217-1087 (results thru 01-22-10)

Against a 5 cent line you make 142 units+-
Playing over 6000 games and showing profit.
A large sample.
When will this trend end?
Or will it????

[Dunder]

As long as the ´public´has a bias towards overs, smart bettors should lean towards unders.
I don´t bet blind in the way that you propose, however.

[durito]

There is no profit there.

[Bluehorseshoe]

What about when you're laying juice on Hockey and Baseball totals? They're all not -105.

[revnecro1273]

most places don't offer 5 cent lines all the time...and like the above posters said...the juice varies greatly in baseball and in hockey

[roasthawg]

I definitely play a few more unders than I do overs but playing every single under blindly is at -105 odds is most likely gonna be a losing proposition long term.

[the shadow]

Sorry guys, it should read 10 cent line not 5.
Pinnacle for example.
Anyways, why is every major sport going under?
I've seen years where the over is the play(steroid era)
Is there that many over bettors where the books are an average of a 1/2-1 point off on all sports

[mintybetmachine]

an exchange like matchbook or betfair could help here

interesting concept though

[the shadow]

If my math is correct, i beleive all sports show profit at -105.
Which leads me to beleive that 6000 games are way to little of a sample size.
Perhaps 60,000 games would be more accuate.
But thats another topic!

[THEGREAT30]

Finding the 5 cent lines is the biggest obstacle to this theory. Some people only play unders in certain sports which make sense, but you still must do your homework, not just picking wildly.

[Wrecktangle]

My modeling typically shows the value is on the unders and dogs so yeah, I believe these numbers. Unfortunately you can get stretches of time where the overs come in like clockwork. Had a stretch in the NBA this season as a matter of fact.

[Justin7]

Where did you get those mlb numbers?

[JohnAnthony]

Originally Posted by durito

There is no profit there.

Enlighten me.

Where did you get those mlb numbers?

Are they off Justin?

[durito]

All the profit comes from nhl and mlb totals from which you cant assume -110/-110

[blix177]

Last year MLB over/under contest I joined in the last 10 or 12 days. Every single game I bet the under the ended the season rank 3.

[reno cool]

I did poorly betting unders in combination early in the season. mlb

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by JohnAnthony

Are they off Justin?

I speculate that they are. If MLB unders were that golden last year, I think I would have heard about it. That's why I would like his source.

[blix177]

Last 10-12 days of MLB under hit 66ish percent of the time.

[rake922]

Thanks for the tip bro

[therber2]

Originally Posted by Justin7

I speculate that they are. If MLB unders were that golden last year, I think I would have heard about it. That's why I would like his source.

Justin, I remember seeing this trend in baseball all the time last season. It was a pretty big issue/abnormality. You might want to go back and check if you are curious. I think his numbers are correct.

[Glitch]

interesting stuff- i lean the under automatically more often than not

game information aside and just considering the number.

[DOMINATER]

doing the same thing all the time will never end up with a plus result it is impossible

[the shadow]

Justin,the mlb numbers are from covers.com
24 teams went under,5 teams went over,1 push.
I can only assume they are correct.

[Ruifgalmeida]

I think under is normaly the best play for me, but you can not go and bet on the under randomly you will have a lot o losing weeks and months, I normaly study two or tree games a day on nhl and rarely in nba(only when I find a good tip).

[the shadow]

Ruif,iagree. I just backtracked the last 5 years in all major sports and it was basically 50-50.
The only sport that made any real cash was hockey. 53 teams over,90 under last 5 years.(around 6000 games)
Who knows, that may change the next 5 years.
I guess that even 6000 games arn't enough to determine if your on to something.
At least we answered the question for those curious about sample size!!

[dkp]

It would be interesting - which means I don't have the time to do it but it would be interesting - to see how these numbers turn out at various break points, i.e. what are the nba numbers for games posted at 230 or more? What are the cba numbers for games at 160 or more?

I think where most people get in trouble is on these "obvious" games where they chase the number no matter how high it gets....

[LT Profits]

Originally Posted by Justin7

I speculate that they are. If MLB unders were that golden last year, I think I would have heard about it. That's why I would like his source.

His MLB numbers are perfect for 2009 Regular Season.

That said, I still suspect playing all the Unders blindly lost money, or at best showed just a minimal profit. The ratio of Unders to Overs is only 1.12.

[SHADYLANKY]

I'm just using a today as an example but if there were 3 NBA games and you liked the under in all 3. Is it always better to bet 1 unit 3 times on the under or would there be a reason to bet the grand pepperoni prop for the day under for 3 units. Let's assume all -110 lines for this example. I know all 3 games could go under by 1 point and you win the same. But if one game goes under by 20 and the other 2 go over by 5 you would lose -1.2 units straight betting but would win 3 units on the grand pepperoni. I know the the opposite can happen and you would win 0.9 units vs lose 3.3. I understand line shopping could swing the favor for the 3 1 units bet and the prop bet is sort of like a parlay with higher variance. I guess maybe more of what I'm getting at is IF over the course of the last 400 NBA games the under goes under by an average of 8 points but the overs go over on average by 5 would there be any value in the prop bet. Just an example and I understand it would be a small sample.

[statnerds]

there is no golden goose. there is no situation where betting blindly will prove profitable (except for 1 in the NFL and 1 in NCAAF).

Statfox is the best and easy to use. can check data on MLB in seconds. teams that went Over for the season...

2008 - 12
2007-15
2006- 19
2005- 9
2004-13
2003-14

but has been mentioned, juice on totals in NHL and MLB can be 20 or 30 cents on any given day.

the one stat i would love to see is how the Under does in the NBA when there are 4 games or less scheduled

[hugh4310]

Great stuff guys thanks for the info!

[ericc]

Originally Posted by the shadow

nfl 136-123 nba 322-301 nhl 387-342 ncaaf 397-361 ncaab 765-722 mlb 1217-1087 (results thru 01-22-10) Against a 5 cent line you make 142 units+- Playing over 6000 games and showing profit. A large sample. When will this trend end? Or will it????

I'm surprised no one thought of this before.

[Ruifgalmeida]

this would be a good system but bookies are not stupid they are good making the unders/over lines, you just can not bet blind you need strong analisis and know the mecanic of the teams you are beting on, nothing gets done without hard work

[u21c3f6]

The analysis is incomplete as mentioned by several previous posters. You don't have the average odds of your winners and losers. You cannot assume -105 for all the Unders.

Joe.

[Ian]

Are these numbers against opening or closing lines? If they're against opening lines, it's possible that the market adjusted for bias before the lines closed.

[roasthawg]

Originally Posted by Ian

Are these numbers against opening or closing lines? If they're against opening lines, it's possible that the market adjusted for bias before the lines closed.

I'm sure they're against closers as that info is generally a little easier to get. 6,000 games is a small sample... I'd say the Under does indeed hit over 50% of the time in all sports but nowhere near 52.5% longterm.