I wrote this column last season. I have noticed plenty of people touting teasers as possible plays early in the season and I have to say that it disturbs me. Whether you agree or disagree, I'd love to get feedback on some of your opinions on teasers as well. Good luck.
THE ULTIMATE SUCKER BET
by Nick Douglas
I challenge any serious NFL handicapper to produce for me a documented record on teasers that makes money and betters their record on straight NFL plays. It may happen over the course of a few weeks or maybe even a season, but it won't happen long term and here is why.
Teasers are a bad bet, period. They are bad mathematically and to make matters worse, they prey on the worst attributes of the gambler by dangling a sweet red apple witha poisonous pulp.
The standard NFL bet is a -110 wager, or 1.91. That means a winning NFL bet returns you 91% of your investment, while a losing bet returns you 0%. A -110, two team, six point teaser is a -262 bet, or 1.382. That means over the long haul, if each play coincides with each other teaser play at absolute randomness, each teaser hit will return you 38.2% of your investment, while each losing teaser side or total will return you 0%.
Even if one team teasers were allowed, this would be a bad bet. Let us accept that with an additional six points, the average NFL bet would hit at 67%. Taking 38.2 * 67, we get $2,559 in positive money from a 38.2% return on investment hitting at a 67% clip. On the other hand, we take a $3,300 loss from the 33% of the games that lose. That means if we played 100 games risking $100 each ($10,000 total wagered), we would lose $741, for an average return on investment of -7.4% mathematically (for those who don't know, -4.5% is the average return on investment assuming a 50% winning percentage on standard side or total plays).
It is now proven that teasers are a bad bet mathematically. There is no question about that. But in reality teasers present a far uglier picture than a staggering *64%* increase in the house edge.
Teasers cannot be played as straight bets. They must be parlayed. You cannot simply take 6 points and bet a single game at -262. The games must be parlayed. While parlaying games poses no theoretical mathematical disadvantage, any experienced gambler will tell you the danger of parlays. Letting the fortunes of one strong play rest on another is risky at best. For side/total correlated parlays, I endorse this tactic in small numbers on select occasions. There will sometimes be a game in which the style of play by a team will favor an over or an under, and therefore parlaying the two plays gives the player a distinct advantage. In shorter terms, if one hits, the other is likely to hit. That is the exception to the rule. In general parlays hurt the player.
All of the mathematical disadvantages of teasers are obvious, but what really troubles me about them is the way it lets books prey into the weakness of the player. I believe that the most damaging temptation for a handicapper is the allure of easy money. By easy money I mean a bet that looks too good to be true.
With a teaser, the player has the opportunity to whiddle down any play giving up to 7 points down to a virtual pickem or maybe even a slight dog. In the players mind, they are now getting a strong favorite who needs only to win the game outright to cash the ticket. That scenario is the quintessential example of easy money. Anyone can pick straight up winners, right? The hard part is allowing for the line.
There are a myriad of ways this hurts the player. First of all, the goal of the teams you are betting on is to win, not to cover seven points. By teasing the game down, you are paying greater odds but your opponents goal is the same. They want to win. A seven point underdog does not care if they lose by 5 or 15, a loss is a loss. So now you are essentially paying -262 for seven meaningless points that could have been had for -110.
Teasers give meaningless points to underdogs, too. A dog that loses by 3 is no happier than a dog that loses by 8. They are trying to win the game. Your bet gives you a slight mathematical advantage, but it does not make the team you are betting on any more likely to perform in the acceptable range for you to cash a winning ticket.
I am well aware that the six points are actually not always meaningless and that many times they can turn winning wagers to losing ones. But my goal is to win over the LONG TERM. A month or three months of losses are troubling, but as long as I make money over the course of my lifetime, I am happy with my handicapping. Over the long term, teasers give more of an advantage to the house mathematically and psychologically.
I know many of you will still play teasers so my piece of advice to you is to meticulously track your results and compare them to your results on straight bets. Choose your teasers carefully and play very few of them to minimize the added house advantage. I have noticed a large increase in teaser plays on this site and I believe it was due to fletcher and Nolan Dalla having success betting teasers a year ago. I urge you all to consider the hard facts about teasers and play them more conservatively so that we can all have profitable NFL seasons.
THE ULTIMATE SUCKER BET
by Nick Douglas
I challenge any serious NFL handicapper to produce for me a documented record on teasers that makes money and betters their record on straight NFL plays. It may happen over the course of a few weeks or maybe even a season, but it won't happen long term and here is why.
Teasers are a bad bet, period. They are bad mathematically and to make matters worse, they prey on the worst attributes of the gambler by dangling a sweet red apple witha poisonous pulp.
The standard NFL bet is a -110 wager, or 1.91. That means a winning NFL bet returns you 91% of your investment, while a losing bet returns you 0%. A -110, two team, six point teaser is a -262 bet, or 1.382. That means over the long haul, if each play coincides with each other teaser play at absolute randomness, each teaser hit will return you 38.2% of your investment, while each losing teaser side or total will return you 0%.
Even if one team teasers were allowed, this would be a bad bet. Let us accept that with an additional six points, the average NFL bet would hit at 67%. Taking 38.2 * 67, we get $2,559 in positive money from a 38.2% return on investment hitting at a 67% clip. On the other hand, we take a $3,300 loss from the 33% of the games that lose. That means if we played 100 games risking $100 each ($10,000 total wagered), we would lose $741, for an average return on investment of -7.4% mathematically (for those who don't know, -4.5% is the average return on investment assuming a 50% winning percentage on standard side or total plays).
It is now proven that teasers are a bad bet mathematically. There is no question about that. But in reality teasers present a far uglier picture than a staggering *64%* increase in the house edge.
Teasers cannot be played as straight bets. They must be parlayed. You cannot simply take 6 points and bet a single game at -262. The games must be parlayed. While parlaying games poses no theoretical mathematical disadvantage, any experienced gambler will tell you the danger of parlays. Letting the fortunes of one strong play rest on another is risky at best. For side/total correlated parlays, I endorse this tactic in small numbers on select occasions. There will sometimes be a game in which the style of play by a team will favor an over or an under, and therefore parlaying the two plays gives the player a distinct advantage. In shorter terms, if one hits, the other is likely to hit. That is the exception to the rule. In general parlays hurt the player.
All of the mathematical disadvantages of teasers are obvious, but what really troubles me about them is the way it lets books prey into the weakness of the player. I believe that the most damaging temptation for a handicapper is the allure of easy money. By easy money I mean a bet that looks too good to be true.
With a teaser, the player has the opportunity to whiddle down any play giving up to 7 points down to a virtual pickem or maybe even a slight dog. In the players mind, they are now getting a strong favorite who needs only to win the game outright to cash the ticket. That scenario is the quintessential example of easy money. Anyone can pick straight up winners, right? The hard part is allowing for the line.
There are a myriad of ways this hurts the player. First of all, the goal of the teams you are betting on is to win, not to cover seven points. By teasing the game down, you are paying greater odds but your opponents goal is the same. They want to win. A seven point underdog does not care if they lose by 5 or 15, a loss is a loss. So now you are essentially paying -262 for seven meaningless points that could have been had for -110.
Teasers give meaningless points to underdogs, too. A dog that loses by 3 is no happier than a dog that loses by 8. They are trying to win the game. Your bet gives you a slight mathematical advantage, but it does not make the team you are betting on any more likely to perform in the acceptable range for you to cash a winning ticket.
I am well aware that the six points are actually not always meaningless and that many times they can turn winning wagers to losing ones. But my goal is to win over the LONG TERM. A month or three months of losses are troubling, but as long as I make money over the course of my lifetime, I am happy with my handicapping. Over the long term, teasers give more of an advantage to the house mathematically and psychologically.
I know many of you will still play teasers so my piece of advice to you is to meticulously track your results and compare them to your results on straight bets. Choose your teasers carefully and play very few of them to minimize the added house advantage. I have noticed a large increase in teaser plays on this site and I believe it was due to fletcher and Nolan Dalla having success betting teasers a year ago. I urge you all to consider the hard facts about teasers and play them more conservatively so that we can all have profitable NFL seasons.
