Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I’m gonna build my own spreadsheet. I placed all the bets last night not very highstakes.

I know a guy that places bets everytime he's in Iowa
not allowed in Minnesooota

many bets but the stakes are usually $2 or $3

I'm an anti-time-paradox philosopher.  I believe that time travel is possible, but anything you do in the past is already incorporated into your future, so the timeline remains consistent no matter what.

Thanks for the article @Cincydawg and everyone for these thoughts on the theory of betting the dog.  

Based on @Cincydawg 's article it appears that betting the underdog on the moneyline is the smart play because the underdogs don't actually cover while losing very often.  

The problem I always run into when looking at these ideas is that the percentages are so slim that it just isn't worth the risk.  

Somewhere above, it suggested a 4.1% ROI but then noted that one particular year (I think 2020) was REALLY bad for underdogs.  

According to Google there are 47 bowl games this year.  Ok, if you bet $100 on each underdog that would be $4,700 bet and an ROI of 4.1% suggests that you should end up with $4,892.70 on average.  

The vig is 10% but only applies to the losers.  Based on that, you need to win 25/47 just to get above water and that only puts you up $80 which is an ROI of just 1.7%.  Hitting on extra games helps obviously but losing extra games hurts.  Within a range close to breaking even you have:

• 22-25 results in a loss of $550 or 11.70%
• 23-24 results in a loss of $340 or 7.23%
• 24-23 results in a loss of $130 or 2.77%
• 25-22 results in a gain of $80 or 1.70%
• 26-21 results in a gain of $290 or 6.17%
• 27-20 results in a gain of $500 or 10.64%

The percentages are actually worse though because I calculated that based on the $4,700 that you bet but in order to bet $4,700 you are actually risking $5,170 because each loser costs $110.  If you figure based on the $5,170 at risk, your ROI for going 27-20 is only 9.67%.  


It just isn't enough money to be worth the risk.  Based on the article, the average for 47 games would be to go either 25-22 or 26-21 so you'd make <$300.  Even if you put a thousand on each game you'd only be making an average of about $2,100.  Try convincing your wife to put $50 Grand on the line in an effort to make $2,100.  

No, because the almanac was from 1985 so it is no longer viable.

It was from 2015, and covered the years 1950-2000.

Thanks for the article @Cincydawg and everyone for these thoughts on the theory of betting the dog. 

Based on @Cincydawg 's article it appears that betting the underdog on the moneyline is the smart play because the underdogs don't actually cover while losing very often. 

The problem I always run into when looking at these ideas is that the percentages are so slim that it just isn't worth the risk. 

Somewhere above, it suggested a 4.1% ROI but then noted that one particular year (I think 2020) was REALLY bad for underdogs. 

According to Google there are 47 bowl games this year.  Ok, if you bet $100 on each underdog that would be $4,700 bet and an ROI of 4.1% suggests that you should end up with $4,892.70 on average. 

The vig is 10% but only applies to the losers.  Based on that, you need to win 25/47 just to get above water and that only puts you up $80 which is an ROI of just 1.7%.  Hitting on extra games helps obviously but losing extra games hurts.  Within a range close to breaking even you have:

• 22-25 results in a loss of $550 or 11.70%
• 23-24 results in a loss of $340 or 7.23%
• 24-23 results in a loss of $130 or 2.77%
• 25-22 results in a gain of $80 or 1.70%
• 26-21 results in a gain of $290 or 6.17%
• 27-20 results in a gain of $500 or 10.64%

The percentages are actually worse though because I calculated that based on the $4,700 that you bet but in order to bet $4,700 you are actually risking $5,170 because each loser costs $110.  If you figure based on the $5,170 at risk, your ROI for going 27-20 is only 9.67%. 


It just isn't enough money to be worth the risk.  Based on the article, the average for 47 games would be to go either 25-22 or 26-21 so you'd make <$300.  Even if you put a thousand on each game you'd only be making an average of about $2,100.  Try convincing your wife to put $50 Grand on the line in an effort to make $2,100. 

Was looking for a new tax man........found him!

It's the same way with investing advice and tricks.  If I knew a way to beat the markets significantly, I wouldn't be sharing it.  There are some excellent books on investing of course, but they all go into the hard work involved.  The Howard Marks letters are worth reading I think, "The most important thing."

Bing Videos

It's akin to reading "The Art of War" and thinking you'd be a great general.

It's the same way with investing advice and tricks.  If I knew a way to beat the markets significantly, I wouldn't be sharing it.  There are some excellent books on investing of course, but they all go into the hard work involved.  The Howard Marks letters are worth reading I think, "The most important thing."

Ed Zachary.  There are no technical market analyses that ensure positive returns in a meaningful enough way to get rich.  Anyone trying to sell you some, is a scam artist.  If anyone really did know how to do it, they wouldn't be telling others.