80% + win rate betting money lines...accurate?

[TakeIt]

there is a poster on this forum who claims an 80%+ success rate betting money lines. he further states, "I can hit > 80% on money lines and I just love these idiots who hit 55% on the spread and they claim that this means more than my record on money lines. Idiots."

hmmmm.

so let's examine:

we'll look at both scenarios and check the result after betting 1000 games.

after wagering on 1000 games, betting one unit to win one unit, at a 55% success rate you'd be up 55 units. (550-(450*1.1))

after betting 1000 games on the money line you would have to know the average price that you're laying. assuming (right or wrong) that you never lay more than, say, 8 to 1, then on average you're laying about 4 to 1. let's be generous and say it's only 3 to one.

so after 1000 games laying an average of 3 units to win one unit you win 800 units and lose 600 units (800-(200*3)) for a net profit of 200 units.

not bad. so far ML= +200U: Spread= +55U.

that leaves one critical question to be answered. is the 80%+ win rate for betting money lines accurate?

because if it's not, and if it's off by just off a small amount take a look at the math.

at a 75% win rate after 1000 games you'd break even (750-(250*3)) = 0

and at a 70% win rate after 1000 games you'd be down 200 units (700-(300*3)) = -200U.

in other words, you must hit 76% (at an average lay of 3 to 1) to show a profit (+40U), and if your average lay is 4 to 1 then you must hit 81% to show a 50 unit profit.

is it accurate? is it worth the risk? is it better than betting on spreads? am i an idiot or a crackhead? you be the judge.

[Romanov]

Nice crackhead

[monkeyking]

If all your assumptions are correct: that this person truly wins 80% long term, that the average truly is laying 3 to 1, and that he is truly disciplined enough to lay the same amount on each game, then yes, it's totally worth it. Odds are one or more of those assumptions isn't true.

[kcDdegenerate]

moneylines on faves largers than -175 is just stupid...Pats were -400 today

[8ArIvd5]

Another possibility is some of those plays are getting 3:1.I thin it's possible for someone to beat the ml, but if you can hit at that percentage, I'd imagine you'd be sharp enough to hit the spread at 60%.

[lakerboy]

playing dogs on moneylines is the only way to go.

[suicidekings]

For NBA, I feel like the MLs associated with 2 & 3 possession wins are the defining limits on how worthwhile it is to play the ML. A 3 possession win (spread of 6.5 or greater) corresponds to a ML of around -300, so I'd say it's never worthwhile to play anything steeper than that because beyond that point you're receiving diminishing returns for the greater amount paid (Do you think your team is going to win comfortably or not?).

That being said, when I play the favourite on the ML I almost never exceed a price of around -175 (corresponding to the threshold between a 1-2 possession win, 3.5pts) and it's almost exclusively added live in-game to augment an existing play on the spread or because I expect the dog to play a lot better than the large spread suggests, resulting in a cheap live line at some point. (ie: today I had Spurs -6.5 (-106) and was able to add Spurs ML (-104) early in the 2Q when Denver led by 10pts).