After listening to Mac sweating out last weeks Indy victory vs Oakland ( bet $1000 to win $200) while his wagering is generally pretty awful I think his logic is pretty sound. If youre that confident that a team is going to win, fuck those point spreads and just put the cash on the money line. I guess the drawback is being able to absorb those rare occasions where number 16 beats number 1 but shouldnt you in the long run come out ahead if you were to isolate 1 or 2 games a week that are generally locks? Need some of the more degenerate gamblers to explain why that would be a bad strategy. Too much risk to reward im assuming will be the answer but interested in hearing thoughts.

If it was that easy, there wouldn't be more hotels going up in Vegas.

The NFL is the hardest sport to beat, and the casinos will tell you that, by their limits. Most casinos will limit college basketball totals to $500 or $1000. They will take five and six figure bets on the NFL.

If you want to say screw the points, take the ML, you look to underdogs.

Mac broke it down to people who are in confidence pools. I have no research to back this up but generally dont the top confidence picks win almost every time? I dont bet but taking that Colts Raiders game as a for instance , that seemed like a good play and theres always a couple games a week where there are prohibitive favorites. If an underdog is getting 14 points or something like that, isnt it easier just to say, I'll take the favorite in that game by playing the money line. They have to win those games the majority of the time dont they? I wonder how often double digit dogs actually win the game outright.

I know it cant be that simplistic ( and Im sure the numbers will bear it out) but it seems that if you took the 2 biggest money lines and bet the favorites each week you'd win most of the time. I mean, do the favorites in those games actually lose most of the time straight up?

2013: 12-4 (+$415)

week 2
New England -575 W (+100)
Philadelphia -310 L (-310)
Baltimore -250 W (+100)
Houston -330 W (+100)
Indianapolis -115 L (-115)
Carolina -178 L (-178)
Atlanta -205 W (+100)
Green Bay -345 W (+100)
Kansas City -168 W (+100)
Bears -250 W (+100)
New Orleans -164 W (+100)
Detroit -115 L (-115)
Oakland -190 W (+100)
Denver -185 W (+100)
Seattle -153 W (+100)
Cincinnati -280 W (+100)

week 2: 12-4 (+$482)
2013: 24-8 (+$897)

So in 2 weeks we've out earned Macs show pot?

No, they win most of the time, but it's the amounts that make this work or not. Say a team won 9 times out of 10 and was a -1500 moneyline. 90% of the time you would risk your $1500 to win $100, but one out of the ten times, you'd lose that $1500. That would net out to a -$600 total. You simply aren't making enough to cover the one time it doesn't work. I'll run the money line for the NCAA this week and report results via a google doc link later today.

So i ran it with scores so far, and today you would be up $630 betting to win $100 for each favorite. Of course, it would also take you $447,590 to make these bets. Temple losing to Fordham cost 1375, and South Florida cost 450. Assuming some of the other in progress games go the direction they are going (UNLV loses, ASU loses, etc.) You also were somewhat close to losing 5k on NIU (they won by 10) as well as 45k on Michigan (they won by 4.)

this doesnt look too bad so far. Waiting for the one week for the wheels to come flying off.

theres always a couple games a week where there are prohibitive favorites. .