Betting ML underdogs in the tourney

[johnnyonthespot]

Does anyone have any experience or stats on what past results would have been taking all the underdogs' MLs in the first round?

Seems like if you don't take the 16s or 15s(the odds of a 15 beating a 2 two years in a row is very unlikely given that it's only happened 4 times in 17 years), with the 24 remaining games, figuring that there will be at least 7-8 upsets seems like it could potentially be real profitable, especially if a couple of those upsets end up being 14 over 3 or 13 over 4.

Could be a terrible strategy; I'm just thinking out loud.

 

[Nolan Dalla]

I was trying to track this myself, but added the caveat of ONLY PLAYING DOGS GETTING 1-12 points.

The numbers of games where 13+ dogs win is almost negligible. Not sure of the numbers over the years, but it can't have much value. Upsets tend to take place especially in the 7+ or lower range and since many of these dogs are paying 3-1, 4-1 5-1 or higher, it's a really nice payoff is you get just a couple of upsets.

My trouble with charting this to a dollar amount is that I do not have the ML prices from 1999-2001. I can guesstimate based on this years odds/ML prices (the numbers would proably correlate), but that would still purely be a guess.

I will try to have something for tomorrow on the daily report -- and hopefully some stats that show this to be a +EV play.

Thanks for bringing it up.

-- Nolan Dalla