|Subject: By the way, regarding your aside
|[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Date Posted: 21:04:09 10/04/18 Thu
In reply to:
's message, "Appropriate Relationship Between Betting Spread and Win Probability" on 18:20:03 10/04/18 Thu
Your thought process on Princeton/Columbia is interesting, and totally the opposite of what my gut reaction would be.
If I saw a line move from P -11 to P -13 with no change in the O/U, my instinct would be to bet either Columbia +13, or the over. The logic there being: if the book thought that Princeton + Columbia + 11 = 60 was appropriate, then adding two to the line means the likelihood of the total remaining under 60 is diminished, thus creating opportunity on the "over" bet. And similarly, with a static O/U, there's less "room" for Princeton to cover the higher spread within the total of 60, thus signaling that taking the points is an opportunity.
Feel free to tell me why my logic is flawed. And obviously, it is, because you did just the opposite and won both bets. Lucky for me, I don't have access to Ivy lines at the site where I have an account.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: By the way, regarding your aside
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 21:32:52 10/04/18 Thu
Thank you very much for providing that interesting research on the relationship between the point spread and the win probability. I love reading that kind of analysis, just love it.
On the Princeton-Columbia game, I think that your gut reaction to the point spread moving but the O/U total staying static is, all else the same ("ceteris paribus" as I recall from college), the logical and appropriate reaction.
I was not arbitraging between the spread and the total as much as I was expressing a view of the game itself. I didn't know how much credit to give the Princeton offense for posting eye-popping numbers against its first two non-conference opponents.
I knew that Columbia had a very good run defense. I liked Princeton -13 a lot, but I was afraid of a 28-21 kind of score if the Columbia defense showed up as stout as in its non-conference games.
The one thing that I had a firm opinion about was that, if the game got into a high scoring shootout, Columbia could not cover because their starting quarterback would probably not play and their best offensive player Wainright definitely would not play.
So I put together the two-legged trade to try to isolate my belief that Columbia could not cover if the game was high-scoring.
As you may recall if you watched the telecast, the game started out with the Columbia returner taking the opening kick-off down the sideline to the Princeton seven-yard-line. I had suggested my two-legged bet to two friends to co-invest. As Columbia returner streaked past the coverage and the Princeton kicker made a lame, half-hearted attempt to shove him out of bounds, I thought to myself, "My friends think I'm an idiot."
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5|
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2017 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.