I'm posting this on my daily page tomorrow, but wanted to paste it here because this is where the question first came up. Johnny brought up this earlier today and I wanted to contribute this information, which may give us some excellent values.
The subject came up about playing moneyline dogs -- figuring there were some good values if a slew of upsets takes place in the first round (which does happen with some frequency). I tracked this myself, and came up with the following.
The number of games where dogs getting 20+ points win outright is non-existent. Dogs getting 20+ are 0-17 SU since 1999 (I ran the numbers myself against the closing line). Don't waste your money on them.
Interestingly, the biggest upset during the last three years was last year (2001), when Hampton upset Iowa in the first round as an 18-point dog.
The best bet is (not surprisingly) the +2-5.5 point dogs. In fact, these small dogs were a remarkable 14-16 SU since 1999. Consider they were getting back prices ranging from +130 to +175 and you can see this was a tremendous bargain. Only drawback is a possible nightmare year as occurred in 1999 -- when the +2-5.5 dogs went a scary 1-7 SU. Dogs in this category were 6-5 SU in 2000 and 7-4 SU in 2001. This appears to be the best bet on the board!
Forget about playing dogs in the +6-10.5 range. They were just 4-15 SU, slightly worse than break-even when you consider the average price is +260 to +280 not wuite enough to overcome the longshot chances of a win.
Dogs in the +11.5 to 15 range were just 1-17 SU. These teams have proven to be a horrible moneyline bet. Also forget about +15.5 to 20 point dogs. Other than the Hampton win last year, that's it.
Recapping the years 1999 through 2001:
DOGS GETTING: W-L SU Average Dog Price Net per $100
+2 - 5 points 14-16 +150 + $500
+5.5 -10 points 4-15 +280 - $380
+10.5 -15 points 1-17 +600 - $1100
+15.5 - 20 points 1-4 +1600 +1200
****statistically irrelevant in my opinion
20+ points 0-17 N/A - $1700
Note that my trouble with charting this to an exact dollar amount is that I do not have the ML prices from 1999-2001. I guesstimated the ML odds based on this years odds/ML prices (the numbers would probably correlate very closely), but this is still a guess.
I suggest ML plays only on the dogs getting +2.5 to 5 points.
This means I'm adding:
TULSA +165 vs. MARQUETTE
WESTERN KENTUCKY +15 vs. STANFORD
PEPPERDINE +175 vs. WAKE FOREST
Note: I like Wake Forest -4 in this game, but will hedge the play with a ML bet on Pepperdine at this price.
Hope this helps,
-- Nolan Dalla
The subject came up about playing moneyline dogs -- figuring there were some good values if a slew of upsets takes place in the first round (which does happen with some frequency). I tracked this myself, and came up with the following.
The number of games where dogs getting 20+ points win outright is non-existent. Dogs getting 20+ are 0-17 SU since 1999 (I ran the numbers myself against the closing line). Don't waste your money on them.
Interestingly, the biggest upset during the last three years was last year (2001), when Hampton upset Iowa in the first round as an 18-point dog.
The best bet is (not surprisingly) the +2-5.5 point dogs. In fact, these small dogs were a remarkable 14-16 SU since 1999. Consider they were getting back prices ranging from +130 to +175 and you can see this was a tremendous bargain. Only drawback is a possible nightmare year as occurred in 1999 -- when the +2-5.5 dogs went a scary 1-7 SU. Dogs in this category were 6-5 SU in 2000 and 7-4 SU in 2001. This appears to be the best bet on the board!
Forget about playing dogs in the +6-10.5 range. They were just 4-15 SU, slightly worse than break-even when you consider the average price is +260 to +280 not wuite enough to overcome the longshot chances of a win.
Dogs in the +11.5 to 15 range were just 1-17 SU. These teams have proven to be a horrible moneyline bet. Also forget about +15.5 to 20 point dogs. Other than the Hampton win last year, that's it.
Recapping the years 1999 through 2001:
DOGS GETTING: W-L SU Average Dog Price Net per $100
+2 - 5 points 14-16 +150 + $500
+5.5 -10 points 4-15 +280 - $380
+10.5 -15 points 1-17 +600 - $1100
+15.5 - 20 points 1-4 +1600 +1200
****statistically irrelevant in my opinion
20+ points 0-17 N/A - $1700
Note that my trouble with charting this to an exact dollar amount is that I do not have the ML prices from 1999-2001. I guesstimated the ML odds based on this years odds/ML prices (the numbers would probably correlate very closely), but this is still a guess.
I suggest ML plays only on the dogs getting +2.5 to 5 points.
This means I'm adding:
TULSA +165 vs. MARQUETTE
WESTERN KENTUCKY +15 vs. STANFORD
PEPPERDINE +175 vs. WAKE FOREST
Note: I like Wake Forest -4 in this game, but will hedge the play with a ML bet on Pepperdine at this price.
Hope this helps,
-- Nolan Dalla
