SWAG
SWAG
Starting from the assumption that each of the pre-teaser spreads was dead on (each team in each game had exactly the same chances of winning and losing vs. the spread), the teaser payoff would have been 47.4-1 (at -110). The question, it seems to me, is how much probability of winning you picked up for each team in exchange for the reduction in odds down to 4-1.
NC State (S Carolina) You picked up the 3 point win, the win and the 3 point loss. In the NFL, those are seen as critical numbers, but not quite so much in NCAA. Still, the teaser helps you a lot here and my GUESS is that this component is now about a 75% winner.
Tulsa (@Tulane) You picked up the 14 and 10 point wins and picked up a push on the 7 point win. I don?t see the teaser being worth nearly as much on this game as on NC State, and place it at about a 60% winner.
Illinois (Mizzou) you picked up the 7 and 3 point wins and the win. A little of the teaser is wasted on the 0 and the -.5, but this still looks to me to be much better than the Tulsa teaser, but not quite as good as the NC State pick, so I?ll say 70% winner.
Wake Forest (Baylor) You picked up the 3 point loss and the push on the 7 point loss. Since these teams were seen as even prior to the teaser, I personally think this is a big improvement as you will win in a lot of the O/T scenarios that Pick ?em implies. I put this at a 75% winner.
Minny (@Syracuse) you picked up the 3 point win and the win here ? you already had the 7 point win and the 0 and +.5 are useless. I guess 70%.
Stanford (@ Wash St) you picked up the 14 and 10 point wins. Much as in the Tulsa teaser, I don?t personally value that range nearly as much as the -8 to +8 range. I?m going with the same estimate of 60% for this part.
<table><table border cellpadding=8><tr><th>Team</th><th>Starting Spread</th><th>Win %</th><th>New Spread</th><th>Estimated Win %</th></th><tr><td>NC State</td><td>-3.5</td><td>.5</td><td>+3.5</td><td>.75</td></tr><tr><td>Tulsa</td><td>-14</td><td>.5</td><td>-7</td><td>.60</td></tr><tr><td>Illinois</td><td>-7</td><td>.5</td><td>pk</td><td>.70</td></tr><tr><td>Wake Forest</td><td>pk</td><td>.5</td><td>+7</td><td>.75</td></tr><tr><td>Minnesota</td><td>-6.5</td><td>.5</td><td>+.5</td><td>.70</td></tr><tr><td>Stanford</td><td>-16.5</td><td>.5</td><td>-9.5</td><td>.60</td></tr></table>
Based on these (my) guesses as to the new chances of winning each leg, the probability of winning all legs is (.75)(.75)(.70)(.70)(.60)(.60)≈ 10%. This means that my price would be 9-1 for break even, so I would not make this bet. HOWEVER, that doesn?t mean it?s not a good bet.
I think most folks will agree that teasing some spreads is more advantageous than others. There is a lot of questionably relevant data on this regarding NFL and essentially none regarding NCAA football. My estimations simply reflect my own unsupported opinions of which spreads are more important and what their value might be.
For what it?s worth, if you think that the probabilities for each of the 6 teased games 76.5% or better, you have a break-even bet or better. But remember, the payouts are presumably based on what books feel are worst-case scenarios (for them). That is, based on the bettor moving the probability from 50% to ~76.5% on each game, so you're going to have a HARD time getting the win percentages much over that level very often. That's why I used 75% for my "best" improvements.
