Coast2Coast wrote:
I think it's because underdogs are covering at a 60% rate and many dogs have won outright. Most recreational bettors bet mostly favorites. Most media people pick mostly favorites to win games. So when dogs cover at a decent rate, you hear the bettors and media people who are having losing years complain how hard it is to pick winners.
You aren't hearing professional gamblers say this. Most are having pretty solid years because most pros play mostly underdogs. And dogs are covering in the NFL at a 60% rate through five weeks.
NFL covers against closing line
Week 1: 9 Favorites,6 Dogs, 1 Push
Week 2: 6F, 10D
Week 3: 5F, 10D
Week 4: 4F, 9D
Week 5: 5F, 9D
Season to date: 29 Favorites, 44 Dogs, 1 Push
Dogs covering at 60.3%
This actually is a lot like many years in the 70s, 80s and 90s, when dogs typically covered at a higher rate (53-55% vs. 45-47 for favorites). In those years, the pros did well and the public got killed. We haven't had a year like this with such a high rate of dog covers in more than a decade or so, so the bettors and media people with short memories or who didn't bet a decade or more ago don't have the historical reference. To the contrary, there have been a few years in the last ten in which favorites covered at a very high rate and most years the spread between favorites and dogs was close. So perhaps bettors got to thinking the NFL was a 50/50 sport to beat because favorites were covering a slight majority of games. Long-term (over several decades) it has not been that way. Some gamblers maybe don't have the historical reference to know that or have forgotten because there has not been a strong dog year like this in a decade or more.
So then the question is, why are there more dog covers this year? I don't think it's "parity" per se. But I'd need a lot more data than I have to support my hypothesis -- that there is greater variance in performance from week to week than there used to be in the league. As someone who keeps power ratings on teams, this has been an interesting year for variance in week-to-week power ratings. Teams will play to a certain number one week and then play way above it or below it the next. Is that "parity" or is it that athletes and teams are much more uneven in their performance from week to week than in previous years?
As a note here, I do not expect dogs to continue to cover at a 60% rate for the rest of the season. 56% one way or the other for an entire season is rare, so I expect as numbers get sharper, we will see the dog cover rate move back down.
Thanks Coast! Excellent explanation.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
