Better value: Indy -6.5 (-150) or Indy -3.5 (-185)

[harold_bush]

I realize both of these are probably stupid plays, but let's ignore that for a second. I buy points (a sickness I realize), and want to get Indy under a TD. To buy the -8 line down to -6.5 I'll have to pay -150. Once I realized I was paying -150 I started looking at the alternative lines, and one is Indy -3.5 paying -185.

What is the better "value" between those two?

Thanks.

[vsherrel]

Id tease it to -2, and pair it with Minn+10 for an even pay out.
Both those numbers seem pretty steep. They could easily win by just a FG.

[BettorsChat]

Depends how much you're putting on it. I would probably take the -3.5 since I think Indy will win the game, but not sure by how much.

[harold_bush]

Id tease it to -2, and pair it with Minn+10 for an even pay out.
Both those numbers seem pretty steep. They could easily win by just a FG.

Yeah, I've done that......well with Indy and New Orleans, but I wanted something straight out in case New Orleans doesn't do what I think they will.

[flarendep1]

Yeah, I've done that......well with Indy and New Orleans, but I wanted something straight out in case New Orleans doesn't do what I think they will.

Harold,

Just me but I am not sure I would not take the 6- instead of paying that heavy juice.

I have a feeling this game will be similar to the game with the Ravens. Jets will not be able to score on the speed of Indys defense in the dome. Peyton is too good to blitz.

[mavskidd02]

If you're going to do this, and going to do it a lot, then over the long haul, laying an extra .35 to get 3 points isn't that bad at all (it would seem). As 3 points off the original line would cost you A LOT more than .35. However, in my math, I may be wrong. But the better value seems to be -3.5.

PK, definitely knows this a little better than I.

[wayne1218]

If you're going to do this, and going to do it a lot, then over the long haul, laying an extra .35 to get 3 points isn't that bad at all (it would seem). As 3 points off the original line would cost you A LOT more than .35. However, in my math, I may be wrong. But the better value seems to be -3.5.

PK, definitely knows this a little better than I.

I agree. My books are all 10% for every half point. If you can get 3.5 points for only 35% more, you are doing well!

[harold_bush]

I agree. My books are all 10% for every half point. If you can get 3.5 points for only 35% more, you are doing well!

Yeah, BJ is the same......10% per half point, but for the bigger games they have alternate lines, usually at 3.5, 7.5, 10.5, etc. and for some reason they don't line up juice wise to buying the same amount of points.

[screwtape]

the price on -3.5 -185 should be closer to aprox. -200 compared with -6.5-50 being aprox. around -40. if you did this on a regular basis i suppose u could expect a marginal profit on the 3.5. -6.5-50 would be pure suicide.

[jcindaville]

I would lay the spread for - 110, I dont think this game is going to be close

[CashMoney]

I realize both of these are probably stupid plays, but let's ignore that for a second. I buy points (a sickness I realize), and want to get Indy under a TD. To buy the -8 line down to -6.5 I'll have to pay -150. Once I realized I was paying -150 I started looking at the alternative lines, and one is Indy -3.5 paying -185.

What is the better "value" between those two?

Thanks.

thats the best way to do it if i were dippin it!!

[MarkLemke]

thats the best way to do it if i were dippin it!!

not sure if this answered anything...


the better "value" is to buy down to -3.5, but i'm not sure you'll really need it...maybe try an alternate line upwards to like colts -11.5 (+160)...that might be the best hit...

[spreadman]

i bet the spreads wont come into play.. just pick the winna

[spreadman]

check this out...

Since 1970, in Conference Championship games where the point spread is less than 10 points, the winning team is a perfect 65-0-2 against the spread

[poskid]

If you're going to do this, and going to do it a lot, then over the long haul, laying an extra .35 to get 3 points isn't that bad at all (it would seem). As 3 points off the original line would cost you A LOT more than .35. However, in my math, I may be wrong. But the better value seems to be -3.5.

PK, definitely knows this a little better than I.

Alright I'll take a stab here. Using break even scores versus actual equity is less time consuming. Soooo....If we are buying points to -6.5 for a break even cost of 7.6% or we have the opportunity to buy to -3.5 points for a break even cost of 12.5%. Your ratio then becomes

5.1% loss per point for -6.5
2.8% loss per point for -3.5

Unfortunately this is only a simplistic viewpoint of the actual problem. To be honest if we really want a true idea of what the actual value of each play is we would need to group the possible outcomes by frequency chart. However this gives you a reasonable idea of the cost/savings in each bet. -3.5 is likely the better bet because it contains the least amount of projected lost equity per point however it may not be due to the grouping of likely outcomes of -4, -5, -6. I cant really tell if it would reduce varience from the information given that would require the frequency chart.

BOL

PK