A sports gambling theory

Like all systems, it probably wouldn't work, but I want to run it by my fellow degenerates here:

In the NBA and NFL, point spreads are pretty much tied to the money line. A pick 'em game generates two -110 money lines, a 6-point spread generates a pretty much fixed moneyline for each team, and so on.

But what I've noticed is that the moneylines don't appear to adjust for the over/under, and I'm wondering if that might be really exploitable:

As an example, Golden State is favored by 6 1/2 tonight, and the moneyline reflects that. However, the moneyline for a 215 O/U game at 6 1/2 appears to be the same as it would be for a 185 game. I think that's the case, at least. I'd have to track it over a longer period of time.

Anyway, mathematically speaking, 6 1/2 on a 215 O/U should favor the underdog on the moneyline, because that 6 1/2 is smaller than 6 1/2 would be on a 185-190 O/U. And if there's a small O/U, 185-190, then that would seem to favor the favorite on the moneyline, since 6 1/2 would really equate to a larger spread, i.e. a larger chance of winning.

Does this make any sense?

Thoughts?

 

Bet $1,000 on every game and report back in a week.

 

A week wouldn't be a big enough sample size.

DoctorQuant, does this make sense to you? If they aren't taking the O/U into account when setting the money line, then there's a lot of value available, assuming that Vegas is good at setting point spreads, which we know they are.

 

Don't play over/unders. Problem solved.

 

I'm not saying to play O/U's.

I'm saying that Vegas doesn't adjust the moneyline to reflect a low or high O/U. A 6-point spread at a 185 O/U is quite different than a 6-point spread at a 220 O/U. The favorite has a better chance of winning at the low O/U, because 6 is a wider margin of victory in a lower scoring game.

 

I understand what you're saying. I just don't necessarily agree. I think you might be reading into it a bit too much.

 

In what way, though? Assuming I'm right, that they don't make that adjustment, then it seems like there has to be value in those low and high O/U games. For example, Indiana over Golden State tonight (high O/U) and Orlando over Denver (low O/U).

 

Where I get tripped up is that, according to the math, you should always bet against a high-scoring, awesome team like Golden State, straight-up. Can that be true?

 

Dick, do you really think Vegas oddsmakers don't plan for every eventuality? Unless you're playing craps, you're never getting odds in gambling.

 

They don't seem to adjust the moneyline based on the O/U.

They're human beings. They're fallible. Smart people have exploited their inefficiencies before, and they'll do it again.

 

Maybe because it doesn't matter.