for you numbers/odds guys

[ChrisGo]

What is the odds for a nba game to land on exactly the total? It seems to happen often. Ex. spurs/seattle landing on 199.

 

[farbror]

I think I have read 2% somewhere....

 

[bilbal]

Since 10/28/2003, I came up with:

Overs: 3648
Unders: 3672
Pushes: 90

Total: 7410
% Push: 1.21%

Closing numbers are sure to vary, but I hope this helps!

 

[Reload]

That sounds about right.

 

[Borat Sagdiyev]

Actually it may have been acheived using flawed logic. You should remove from your calculations any totals that had a hook on them. 204.5, 187.5 etc. Since you can't land on that number. It is my assumption that you included them into the numbers for overs and unders. I think it should be higher. What is the standard deviation from that mean.

 

[ChrisGo]

very good point borat, is there is way to figure on just the opening numbers that don't have a hook.

 

[farbror]

Since 10/28/2003, I came up with:

Overs: 3648
Unders: 3672
Pushes: 90

Total: 7410
% Push: 1.21%

Closing numbers are sure to vary, but I hope this helps!

Very interesting!.....and far off from the 2% I have been told. Thanx for sharing.

 

[Pancho Sanza]

Very interesting!.....and far off from the 2% I have been told. Thanx for sharing.

He's using hooks, wrong way to do it.

About 2.6 %, of course it varies as the total is higher, less chance of landing.

 

[ChrisGo]

I have come up with a great promo for a book out there. Say if you push on a NBA total you win the vig for that bet. They are only putting thereself at a very small risk, but alot of people would eat that kinda stuff up. Say you bet 500 on a over, but if you push you still win 50.

 

[bilbal]

Eliminating games lined with a hook removes 45% of a pool that contains 92% of (what I consider to be) statistically valid games (games that if you added or subtracted a half a point from the total still would not have fallen on the total). This is why I count hooks in my calculations, doomed as I may be?

 

[Borat Sagdiyev]

Ahhhhh. Not sure what you mean. But anyway, if it has a hook it cant land on it so it should not be included in the calculation so the result should be a percentage point or two higher. What I gathered from your response was that you included it anyway. If the total is 185.5 it cant land on that numer. Do you understand what I mean? I dont have the energy right now to figure it out.

Eliminating games lined with a hook removes 45% of a pool that contains 92% of (what I consider to be) statistically valid games (games that if you added or subtracted a half a point from the total still would not have fallen on the total). This is why I count hooks in my calculations, doomed as I may be?

 

[Bucky]

So, eliminate games with a hook and rerun the query without them. If you have enough data you are getting something realistic. Pinnacle seems to think a hook is worth 4 cents. (buying or selling) That sounds like they believe a push has a liklihood of 2.5%

:smokesmal :smokesmal :smokesmal

 

[THE HITMAN]

Actually it may have been acheived using flawed logic. You should remove from your calculations any totals that had a hook on them. 204.5, 187.5 etc. Since you can't land on that number. It is my assumption that you included them into the numbers for overs and unders. I think it should be higher. What is the standard deviation from that mean.

Yeh, Ali G. Good point. When I use Pinny for totals, I usually sell a half point or a point to eliminate my vig, sometimes even getting on the plus side. It works nicely for me, I would go weeks sometimes before it ever cost me a game. I started to keep stats on it last year, but got too tired to keep it up after I saw it was working positively.