Tweet
Pay,
Keep track of all the + 200 underdogs for the entire year who are supposed to win at a .333 clip. The math isn't going to come out to the actual play or be very close because the line has juice and is based on how the players bet the game. So any progression that attempts to use these #'s is not going to be very accurate especially to the 8th level. The only way to really try to project progression theories is to apply it to actual play over a large sampling of at least 500 to 1000 events.
The line would probably look like 240/200 but the likelihood of the dog winning would only be only be about 31% or +222. Is there such a thing as a + 200 dog at home being better than a + 200 dog on the road? Math & probabilities say no - what do the actual results say?
[This message has been edited by bucky (edited 07-13-2000).]
Keep track of all the + 200 underdogs for the entire year who are supposed to win at a .333 clip. The math isn't going to come out to the actual play or be very close because the line has juice and is based on how the players bet the game. So any progression that attempts to use these #'s is not going to be very accurate especially to the 8th level. The only way to really try to project progression theories is to apply it to actual play over a large sampling of at least 500 to 1000 events.
The line would probably look like 240/200 but the likelihood of the dog winning would only be only be about 31% or +222. Is there such a thing as a + 200 dog at home being better than a + 200 dog on the road? Math & probabilities say no - what do the actual results say?
[This message has been edited by bucky (edited 07-13-2000).]
Comment