A general rule of thumb for NFL betting I go by is to only use 2-5% of my bankroll for each bet. In this example, it would allow us to make $60-$150 wagers on each game we bet. You can use 2% for your. Now you have a choice: bet on 1 coin toss for a chance to double your $10 to $20 or bet on 2 concurrent coin tosses for a chance to quadruple your money. Your chances of winning the double concurrent coin toss are 25% or 1 in 4. You would have a better chance to keep your $10 prize and just spin again on the basic game.
- Best Way To Make Money Betting On Football
- Best Way To Win Money Betting On Football
- How To Win Money Gambling On Football
- Best Way To Win Money Betting On Football Games
When most people think about betting sides in football their thought process starts and ends with the point spread. That’s unquestionably the most common and popular way to bet on the winner of a football team, but it’s not the only way. The moneyline is thought by many people to be just the way to bet on baseball, hockey, and tennis, but there is a moneyline set for every NFL game and most college games. I would never suggest that the moneyline should be bet instead of the point spread in football. The moneyline is definitely something that even casual football bettors understand, though, so that they can use it if it makes sense and gives them a better chance for profit. Simply, the moneyline is a very powerful tool to have in your football betting toolbox.
The biggest reason why people shy away from the moneyline is probably that they don’t understand them. They are really quite simple once you figure them out, though. The biggest thing to remember, and expert sports handicappers know this, is that unlike the point spread all you have to do is figure out which team is going to win. It doesn’t matter how much they win by – if you bet on a team on the moneyline and they win then so do you. In order to balance out the action – to get about as much money bet on the underdogs as the favorites – sports books charge different prices for the favorites and underdogs. The easiest was to understand this is with an example. If the Patriots were slight favorites over the Jets in a game then the moneyline odds might have the Patriots at -130 and the Jets at +120. That means that you would have to bet $130 to make a profit of $100 on the Patriots. You could obviously bet any amount you wanted on them, and the payoff would be calculated at the same proportion. Because the Jets are the underdog and therefore at least theoretically less likely to win you are rewarded more for betting on them – the +120 means that you would make a profit of $120 for every $100 bet. Because you have to bet considerably more to make a $100 profit at -350 than you do at -130 the team at -350 would be a significantly bigger favorite. On the other side, a team at +350 would be a much bigger underdog than a team at +120.
Here are five situations where smart sports bettors might consider using a moneyline bet instead of a point spread bet in football:
When betting on a slight underdog – Let’s say that you are betting on an underdog that is getting less than a field goal on the point spread. It’s certainly possible that the extra point or two you have in your favor are going to be relevant in the final score, but chances are good that you are betting on a slight underdog in a case like this not because you think that they are only going to lose by one point, but because you think that they have a good chance of winning the game outright. If you didn’t think that then your bet wouldn’t make much sense. In a case like that the moneyline make more sense than the point spread. You are going to lose on the moneyline if the team does win by one or two points (if the point spread is 2.5), so there is more risk involved. In exchange for taking on that slight extra risk, though, you have a chance at a nicer payoff. The point spread would generally be priced at -110, but the moneyline for the same team would be somewhere in the neighborhood of +120 (there is no direct relationship between point spreads and moneylines, so the best you can do is estimate). That’s a significant difference in potential payoff, and would certainly be attractive if you thought there was a good chance that the underdog was going to win outright.
When betting on a heavy underdog – If you have bet football for a while then you know that sometimes there are situations where you feel confident that a heavy underdog is not only going to cover a big spread, but has a very good chance of winning the game outright. Let’s say a NFL team is a 10.5 point underdog in a game, but you like their chances. If you bet them against the spread and they win outright then you get paid off at -110, so your $100 bet makes a profit of about $91. The moneyline on a 10.5 point underdog would be about +450, so that same $100 bet would generate a profit of about $450. You don’t have to be right very often to generate a better long term profit on the moneyline than against the spread. The trick, of course, is that the bet only makes sense if you think there is a good chance of an upset win. If not then you are just gambling, and smart bettors don’t gamble.
When you are parlaying – If you parlay three teams against the spread then you are paid off at fixed odds if you are right. Those odds are set by the sports books and are always significantly lower than the actual risk involved. For example, when you are betting a three team parlay there are eight possible outcomes – WWW, LLL, WLL, LWL, LLW, WWL, WLW, and LWW. Only one of those outcomes – WWW – would cause you to win your parlay bet. That means, then, that on the long term you would need odds of 7/1 to just break even, and better than that to make a profit. Most sports books pay off on three teams parlays at 6/1, or at best 6.5/1, though. That means that even if you can pick winners at the expected rate – harder than it seems – you are going to lose money over the long term. That’s called a negative expectation, and smart bettors hate negative expectations. Moneyline parlays don’t pay off at a fixed rate. Instead, the potential payout is essentially calculated by multiplying the odds of the games you are betting on together. If you were parlaying three games at +110 then the payoff would be exactly the same as if you bet on the first game, took all of your winnings and bet that on the second football game, and took all of the winnings from the that game and let it all ride on the third game. In other words, moneyline parlays payoff at true odds, and that’s always more attractive than negative expectations. That doesn’t necessarily mean that moneyline parlays are a good idea, but they aren’t as bad of an idea as point spread parlays usually are.
More sports handicapping articles :
David Sumpter, a professor of Applied Mathematics, has shown how soccer can be dissected and broken down into numbers, patterns and shapes in his book Soccermatics. Having already developed a betting model, he has now written a two-part article for Pinnacle, exploring the notion of a magical betting formula and how mathematics can be used to get an edge in betting.
There is an urban legend of mathematical modelling of soccer matches. It is the legend of the mathematical genius, the Einstein of gambling, who has worked out the formula for beating the bookmakers and winning money. If only, the legend goes, you can find the tips that this person can provide, the source of the magic equation, you can become rich beyond your wildest dreams.
After I published the book Soccermatics last year, a few people seemed to believe I might hold the magical equation. I would get messages on Twitter and emails to my work address asking me if I could help them with tips and advice. I was a professor of mathematics who had studied soccer, maybe I knew the secret?
A simple way to find value in the betting market
In one section of the book, I did manage to beat the bookies. But it wasn’t because I found a magical formula that predicts who will win soccer matches.
The basis of my model was far from complicated. It didn’t come from me working out the strength of the teams based on past performance, advanced metrics, expected goals or anything else.
The way I did it was much simpler. I looked at the odds and found a very small but significant bias in how they were set. Bookmakers and bettors hadn’t paid enough attention to predicting the draw in soccer.
Maybe it is because of the popularity of the Over/Under markets. Maybe it is because bettors don’t like betting on a draw. But, whatever the explanation, it turned out that draws in the Premier League were not properly priced.
- Read: How to beat the bookies in the Over/Under market.
Below is a plot of the real frequency of draws in four seasons of the Premier League (2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15) and the prediction of draws implied by the bookmaker’s odds.
This figure is created by taking the odds provided by four leading bookmakers (including Pinnacle), converting odds to implied probabilities and then looking at the difference between the probability of a home win and an away win.
It turns out that when two well-matched teams meet (i.e. the probability of a home win is only slightly bigger than the probability of away win) then draws are under-priced (circles above red line). When matches are skewed so there is a strong a favourite (i.e. the probability of one team or the other winning is larger than the other) then draws are over-priced (circles below red line).
Want it made simpler? If two teams are about as good as each other then the draw could be a value bet. If one team is much stronger than the other, don’t bet on the draw (betting on the favourite is normally the smartest move in this case).
Testing out the theory of under-priced draws
That was what I found by plotting the odds. I then took that observation and made some money from it. Below are profits for this model for the 2015/16 season.
I tripled my money over the season. Well, actually I didn’t bet throughout the season. But I had doubled my money by Christmas.
Soccermatics came out in May 2016, just as the Premier League was coming to a close. I monitored how it went for my model the season after. Here is the result.
Not so good. There was a small profit to be made in the first few weeks, but then it flatlined for the rest of the season. Not losing money is a small achievement in itself, where the odds are in the bookmaker’s favour, but obviously making money is the objective for most bettors.
Lessons learn from using my model
There are four lessons to be learnt from my model.
Firstly, I didn’t make money by creating a magic formula. Although I did write down a single equation that I then used to decide my bets (it is footnote 17 for chapter 12 in the book if you don’t want to read the rest of it) this equation came from an analysis of the odds.
The basis of my model was far from complicated. It didn’t come from me working out the strength of the teams based on past performance, advanced metrics, expected goals or anything else. It came from a small error in how the odds were being set.
If you want to create your own model of sporting outcomes you need to use the odds as the starting point.
Secondly, I wasn’t just lucky. The original model was consistent with the previous four years of bookmaker’s odds. I downloaded my odds from Oddsportal and then double-checked my model against those on football-data.co.uk. I then made a prediction and applied it to the next year and it continued to work.
There is a lot of randomness in betting and it is possible to win for quite a long period of time with luck alone. But this was a long-term trend that was profitable.
Thirdly, nothing lasts forever. In moments of self-aggrandising I like to think that my book led to a market correction. Maybe the traders at Pinnacle and other bookmakers read my book and thought “we’ve been pricing draws wrong. See those odds for Liverpool at home against Manchester United at the weekend….move the draw odds up by 0.1.” That’s all it takes and my small margin disappears.
This is just one explanation, though. Another is that managers realised that in those big matches between equally good teams they should go for the three points (this is also something I look at in the book). There are other explanations too. The fact is, I will never know for sure, but the odds bias I found has gone.
My fourth and final conclusion is: I am a total idiot. I spent three months developing a betting model. I found a way to win. But instead of placing all my free capital on the model, I published a book with the secret in it, only to see the profits disappear.
Yes, I got paid for writing the book. Yes, I have enjoyed talking about soccer and engaging in the analytics community, but the money would have been nice too.
Best Way To Make Money Betting On Football
- How to bet on soccer: The ultimate soccer betting guide.
Best Way To Win Money Betting On Football
There is no secret equation for predicting the outcome of soccer matches. Not an equation that ignores the odds, in any case. If you want to create your own model of sporting outcomes you need to use the odds as the starting point.
Wisdom of the crowd tells us that the betting market can be hard to beat, but sometimes it makes a few small mistakes. It is these you have to look for.
How To Win Money Gambling On Football
In part two of this article I will see if I can find one of those cracks using a combination of an expected goals model and potential biases in recent odds.
Best Way To Win Money Betting On Football Games
If you want to learn more about David Sumpter's work you can follow @Soccermatics on Twitter.
Coments are closed