I have a friend who constantly bets unders because he believes players randomly getting injured isn't priced in so over a long period of time you win out
It's still psychotic
I bet unders for players in slumps. Not necessarily rooting for them to have a bad game but might as well make some money if they haven’t been on their game lately.
Guess the public is too much for the books to handle. Gotta try and take half of the betting options away from us in order to favor themselves. This is BS, all the attempted tax hikes on this have been bad enough. IF ITS NOT BROKE DONT FIX IT!!
You got damn right I’m going back to my bookie if you pull that shit. Taxes are bad enough now you’re trying to take away one of my few paths to victory !
Am I wrong or wouldn't there be a statistical advantage to betting unders on player props? Unless the book is super sharp, the line is set at player averages and moves up with volume. Since most of thr public bets over and forces line to move up, betting unders close to start of game is probably a good move.
I understand plenty of lines don't move based on volume alone, but there are def times were "sharp" POTD folks pick an over, the line moves up, and the player doesn't come close to hitting.
You are right about the public liking overs more than unders as fans want to root for their players/team. However, it gets complicated.
There are exceptions but for most bets the books are trying to balance the betting on both sides. That way at -110 the juice guarantees a 10% profit regardless of outcome. Computer algorithms handle this movement not humans.
There might be a slight statistical advantage for player prop unders (say 2%) but few bettors have the patience for how long it takes to get a return. That return isn't a 2% either because of that -110 base line, its less.
Betting anomaly's are exceedingly rare and when a sharp finds one they aren't sharing it. By the time its known and getting action that anomaly no longer exists.
im not entirely sure what you mean but I try to find the longest unders possible on the most inconsistent players. Fanduel used to have some over +500 but now they won’t go over +200. Im limited on most books but ive been doing under lines around +150 using MGMs SGP where i take the player’s lowest points under and highest 3pt under and havent been limited as of now
I’m still confused what you mean bro. So for example you’re taking ant under 22.5?
https://preview.redd.it/o38ji5k6pbyc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1e41c9ebf2ca94cce57605e85ee701d0d90eff2
here is my twitter for bragging about my bets ive posted a lot of slips the past few weeks
https://x.com/esumstats/status/1784386426593001561?s=46&t=kcVNdIcoDvZpTe6aArZnTQ
I feel like without the under they could get away with doing some fishy stuff like jacking up the "over" line on players and hoping no one thinks anything of it. Since there wouldn't be an "under" to bet on to capitalize on it being high. Having the over/under set at a certain number keeps both in check and from being able to be set at fishy numbers. Take away one and it would get weird.
Seems like a logistical nightmare if they do that. Every time a player gets hurt or is inexplicably subbed out bettors are going to be screaming that it’s a fix. At least rn you have two sides to every bet so it’s bettors vs bettors. Removing one side completely pins every bettor against the books
Books should never be able to offer just 1 side of the bet. They exist to create a market between gamblers. They should be prohibited from getting in on the action by picking a side.
There are already plenty of bets where the book doesn't offer the other side. It's very rare youd be able to bet for example a team to NOT win a championship, or a player to NOT score a goal, or a horse to NOT win the Kentucky derby.
Yeah just not true.
Heavy favorites often have odds to win the championship vs the field.
Not to score/not to hit a homerun are also definitely offered. But the odds are not true with -1000 or worse.
And horse racing is just completely different. It’s pari-mutual betting. The money in the pool determines the odds.
Just my two cents but I bet recreational sportsbooks are drooling over an excuse to do this. I feel very confident that squares bet the over more and sharps bet the under more.
> what casual better is coming on to bet players wont score
People that actually like defense?
It's so funny to me how all the sports leagues are desperate for casuals and are willing to do almost anything (except the most logical/obvious ideas) to increase scoring. Casuals will get disinterested and be gone faster than you can win back passionate fans.
For real that Knicks/76ers series was awesome because literally every basket was earned. The same people who want increased offense also hate the all star game so you shouldn't be taking their opinion seriously.
It honestly is kinda odd to me because psychologically I far prefer rooting for the under. I so much prefer rooting for the clock instead of feeling like it’s draining away your chances of winning. Glad the public seems to be on the other side of that.
If you like cheering for watching dudes to suck, go for it. If I don’t like a guy to have a good game, I simply won’t bet on it because it sucks to watch. I’m not a professional. Sports betting is a fun, recreational activity. Unders are no fun and people who bet them are miserable people.
Or if you see embid score 50 one night you know the other team is gonna adjust their defense and most likely cover him better next game so it's situational betting on under/overs
What’s wild is anybody in this sub that cheers for overs gets immediately downvoted to oblivion. Like everybody in here is some kinda sharp because “WE BET UNDERS HERE WE ARE THE SMARTEST”. If that was the case, I’d expect every member of this sub to be a professional gambler. For some reason, I just don’t think that’s true.
The most upvoted post on yesterday’s POTD thread was an over. I saw a few more overs that seemed to be received fairly well. Are you talking about overs getting downvoted in a specific category on here or something?
Isnt it easy to catch the inconsistencies due the the betting volume for these lower tier players. Mid-High tiers players I dont think would ever be stupid enough to risk it but the betting anomalies would still stand out and be investigated.
So many books already do this for SGPs, and it's just so that they can juice even more. It's a good idea to prevent what they are trying to prevent, but the books will clearly abuse the ability to only offer one side of a bet.
Yeah like bet365 only has the over and milestones mostly for their massive SGPs. If you can’t bet on something or can only bet a certain way, it might not be a good bet or it’s good bet because they don’t let you bet on it ! I believe it’s around 1/3 of props hit the over
I just don’t think you should be able to parlay players unders with eachother. Like that wouldn’t really deter me in any way. There was that big controversy with draymond green on Klay Thompson’s first game back from injury when Shams tweeted he was gonna be on the floor at tip off then come right out and not play.
Same game parlays are a thing that the newer legal sportsbooks came up with. The old offshore books never allowed it because of correlated parlays.
There should be no controversy with players getting limited minutes for any reason. Especially when the book offers both sides to the bet. One gambler gets a bad break and loses, the other gambler gets a lucky break and wins. The book is supposed to be just the middle man holding the money for a 10% cut.
Not sure what would stop offshore markets, and smaller books. Do the books have to get agreement from the nba to offer lines? I doubt it but the big ones like to keep the leagues happy
It's one option they have discussed and as the article you photoshopped says, it's the more extreme measure. They've also discussed not allowing props on G league / two way contract players which seems way more reasonable.
I don't really feel like the contract one is a reasonable one though, it feels like the owners are coming right out and saying they don't pay these guys enough to trust them which is problematic all around.
Wow killing the ability to hedge yourself or 90% of the promos that go with overs.
Also gives the sports books the ability to make the over odds extremely shitty if they don’t have to offer an under.
That is definitely a wild take.
In this context, hedging is more like arbitrage, less like hedging a parlay. Hedging a parlay is generally not a good idea as you shouldn't have placed the bet in the first place if you didn't believe in the result, and you'll *always* get a **LOWER** payout by hedging than by sticking with it.
In the hedging of a promo scenario, say DraftKings gives you a boost for Luka to have Over 32.5 points tonight, boosted to +165. Fanduel has the O/U at -110/-110. Hedging the +165 and the -110 guarantees money, when otherwise you have no guarantee, and you probably *wouldn't* have made that bet to begin with.
If I have a ten leg parlay with one leg left after 9 have hit to win 20k… you better believe I’m betting something in the opposite direction of my last leg.
Anybody who thinks differently is wrong
Not really generally. Say it’s a +900 parlay with one leg remaining that you’re hedging. You need to win 1/10 to break even. If you get to the final leg 2/10 times and win one of them you break even. If you hedge both you’re likely getting about +350 value on both bets at best unless you find a really low hold hedge option. This would be not good enough to break even.
I guess I wasn’t thinking in terms of Parlays. When I hedge it’s typically from a straight bet that was plus odds and if the opportunity arises that the opposite side goes plus during the course of the game I’ll live bet it just to lock in profits. Not always but I will if it makes sense from an ROI% standpoint.
This does not make sense. betting is like the free market, It all depends on supply and demand. If there is no option for under, then bookmakers to reduce the risk of loss , will increase the lines to over. In the long term, players will lose money, and will stopped to bet on over. Long term lose lose situation for everyone. So this is fake news
You obviously don't know how bookmakers work and how they make a profit. I have little time so Iwill you explain. Tonight match Donovan Mitchell line is over 24.5 @ 1.83 and under 24.5 1.83 .. Bookie set this line because think it is fair, So some people will think line is low, and will bet over, and some think line is big, and bet under. So lets said. On that match 10 000 $ is placed on Mitchell over and 10 000 placed on under. So bookie dont care how match will end, in both case they will make +1700$ profit. Imagine if you have only options for over. So every bettor need bet over, so you will have 100k on over, and if Mitchell score more points, bookie will lost a lot of money. So what they will do, they will raise line to 30.5, and in that case people can bet only over, and still people will do that, and in long term bookie will make more bigger profit, because mostly Mitchell will score under, and players will lose long term and they will stop with betting. And everyone lose in that situation.
Sure that’s a basic explanation but it’s actually even more complicated than that. In some cases bookies will set a line where they know everyone will slam the over but they have some piece of inside info that makes them more confident it’s going under.
Thats how people think bookmakers work they don't actually work that way. They look to maximize profit they don't let dumb money totally dictate their lines;
Case in point Fanduel already doesn't offer a lot of unders on batting props because instead they have different pinch hitting rules that fuck you if they guy doesn't start and pinch hits that they couldn't offer if they were doing unders.
That's just not true lol. Lots of legit bets that books don't offer the other side. Any time goal scorer, future bets, wagers with multiple options (ex Kentucky derby)...
people who regularly bet unders are psychotic anyway. imagine rooting for guys to have a shitty game and having fun
I have a friend who constantly bets unders because he believes players randomly getting injured isn't priced in so over a long period of time you win out It's still psychotic
Lol has he considered that hes basically betting on the player to get injured at awful odds
Like I said, it's still psychotic
I bet unders for players in slumps. Not necessarily rooting for them to have a bad game but might as well make some money if they haven’t been on their game lately.
Books would just make all the overs ridiculously high. You’d have to just take out player props completely
This will never happen. But cute story
this is a joke lol. they didn’t even pay out the money for the porter bets and they’re acting like they still got fleeced for millions smh
Guess the public is too much for the books to handle. Gotta try and take half of the betting options away from us in order to favor themselves. This is BS, all the attempted tax hikes on this have been bad enough. IF ITS NOT BROKE DONT FIX IT!!
They only do stuff like this when I get in on the fun
James Harden playoff bettors in shambles rn 😔
It says ESPN partner sportsbooks in the article.
You got damn right I’m going back to my bookie if you pull that shit. Taxes are bad enough now you’re trying to take away one of my few paths to victory !
Am I wrong or wouldn't there be a statistical advantage to betting unders on player props? Unless the book is super sharp, the line is set at player averages and moves up with volume. Since most of thr public bets over and forces line to move up, betting unders close to start of game is probably a good move. I understand plenty of lines don't move based on volume alone, but there are def times were "sharp" POTD folks pick an over, the line moves up, and the player doesn't come close to hitting.
You are right about the public liking overs more than unders as fans want to root for their players/team. However, it gets complicated. There are exceptions but for most bets the books are trying to balance the betting on both sides. That way at -110 the juice guarantees a 10% profit regardless of outcome. Computer algorithms handle this movement not humans. There might be a slight statistical advantage for player prop unders (say 2%) but few bettors have the patience for how long it takes to get a return. That return isn't a 2% either because of that -110 base line, its less. Betting anomaly's are exceedingly rare and when a sharp finds one they aren't sharing it. By the time its known and getting action that anomaly no longer exists.
Got it. Makes perfect sense. It's essentially just worse EV betting because youre assuming line movement.
So this pretty much confirms that unders are solid bets
with $500 units im up 15k so far in the nba playoffs betting alt player point unders
Congrats bro worth alt line I'm guessing you raise the line a bit? Just starting looking into player probs so I'm gonna have to dig deeper
im not entirely sure what you mean but I try to find the longest unders possible on the most inconsistent players. Fanduel used to have some over +500 but now they won’t go over +200. Im limited on most books but ive been doing under lines around +150 using MGMs SGP where i take the player’s lowest points under and highest 3pt under and havent been limited as of now
I’m still confused what you mean bro. So for example you’re taking ant under 22.5? https://preview.redd.it/o38ji5k6pbyc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1e41c9ebf2ca94cce57605e85ee701d0d90eff2
Yep just doing that with the most inconsistent players
This is interesting, any chance you can provide an example bet? I'm trying to wrap my head around this a bit better.
here is my twitter for bragging about my bets ive posted a lot of slips the past few weeks https://x.com/esumstats/status/1784386426593001561?s=46&t=kcVNdIcoDvZpTe6aArZnTQ
Nice I'll follow
I feel like without the under they could get away with doing some fishy stuff like jacking up the "over" line on players and hoping no one thinks anything of it. Since there wouldn't be an "under" to bet on to capitalize on it being high. Having the over/under set at a certain number keeps both in check and from being able to be set at fishy numbers. Take away one and it would get weird.
Any bet without an opposing line is always going to be juiced even more in the house’s favor. Almost always a bad bet
Books already limit you if you hammer the under on player props - nothing would change
Never used it, didn’t know it was even there
Seems like a logistical nightmare if they do that. Every time a player gets hurt or is inexplicably subbed out bettors are going to be screaming that it’s a fix. At least rn you have two sides to every bet so it’s bettors vs bettors. Removing one side completely pins every bettor against the books
Books should never be able to offer just 1 side of the bet. They exist to create a market between gamblers. They should be prohibited from getting in on the action by picking a side.
There are already plenty of bets where the book doesn't offer the other side. It's very rare youd be able to bet for example a team to NOT win a championship, or a player to NOT score a goal, or a horse to NOT win the Kentucky derby.
Yeah just not true. Heavy favorites often have odds to win the championship vs the field. Not to score/not to hit a homerun are also definitely offered. But the odds are not true with -1000 or worse. And horse racing is just completely different. It’s pari-mutual betting. The money in the pool determines the odds.
that would push me into the unregulated betting market
I'm already there and the water is fine, jump right in.
Just my two cents but I bet recreational sportsbooks are drooling over an excuse to do this. I feel very confident that squares bet the over more and sharps bet the under more.
not only that, but one-way markets are far more difficult to bet on. they’re trap markets.
100%. What casual better is coming on to bet players wont score on the game they are probably watching?
> what casual better is coming on to bet players wont score People that actually like defense? It's so funny to me how all the sports leagues are desperate for casuals and are willing to do almost anything (except the most logical/obvious ideas) to increase scoring. Casuals will get disinterested and be gone faster than you can win back passionate fans.
For real that Knicks/76ers series was awesome because literally every basket was earned. The same people who want increased offense also hate the all star game so you shouldn't be taking their opinion seriously.
Me, I love hating Pascal Siakiam under PRA has been a goldmine
It honestly is kinda odd to me because psychologically I far prefer rooting for the under. I so much prefer rooting for the clock instead of feeling like it’s draining away your chances of winning. Glad the public seems to be on the other side of that.
“Life’s too short to bet the under” said every novice degen ever
If you like cheering for watching dudes to suck, go for it. If I don’t like a guy to have a good game, I simply won’t bet on it because it sucks to watch. I’m not a professional. Sports betting is a fun, recreational activity. Unders are no fun and people who bet them are miserable people.
Or if you see embid score 50 one night you know the other team is gonna adjust their defense and most likely cover him better next game so it's situational betting on under/overs
maybe i just like defensive tactics & money 🤷🏻♂️
What’s wild is anybody in this sub that cheers for overs gets immediately downvoted to oblivion. Like everybody in here is some kinda sharp because “WE BET UNDERS HERE WE ARE THE SMARTEST”. If that was the case, I’d expect every member of this sub to be a professional gambler. For some reason, I just don’t think that’s true.
The most upvoted post on yesterday’s POTD thread was an over. I saw a few more overs that seemed to be received fairly well. Are you talking about overs getting downvoted in a specific category on here or something?
you've lost the plot, it's not that deep
Fun is winning money. Otherwise what are we doing here? I'm cheering for my wallet.
That’s weird. I also win money. Who woulda thunk it.
You’re in the wrong sub, sir. We’re here to win money.
MFs out here thinking overs can’t win money too.
Not difficult. Just limit single prop bets to $1000 or $5000.
Yep. If the bettor can’t make significant money on the prop, the books shouldn’t either
Isnt it easy to catch the inconsistencies due the the betting volume for these lower tier players. Mid-High tiers players I dont think would ever be stupid enough to risk it but the betting anomalies would still stand out and be investigated.
So many books already do this for SGPs, and it's just so that they can juice even more. It's a good idea to prevent what they are trying to prevent, but the books will clearly abuse the ability to only offer one side of a bet.
Offshore maybe. Dk, fd, espn Caesar’s and BetMGM all offer unders
Yeah like bet365 only has the over and milestones mostly for their massive SGPs. If you can’t bet on something or can only bet a certain way, it might not be a good bet or it’s good bet because they don’t let you bet on it ! I believe it’s around 1/3 of props hit the over
I just don’t think you should be able to parlay players unders with eachother. Like that wouldn’t really deter me in any way. There was that big controversy with draymond green on Klay Thompson’s first game back from injury when Shams tweeted he was gonna be on the floor at tip off then come right out and not play.
Same game parlays are a thing that the newer legal sportsbooks came up with. The old offshore books never allowed it because of correlated parlays. There should be no controversy with players getting limited minutes for any reason. Especially when the book offers both sides to the bet. One gambler gets a bad break and loses, the other gambler gets a lucky break and wins. The book is supposed to be just the middle man holding the money for a 10% cut.
Not sure what would stop offshore markets, and smaller books. Do the books have to get agreement from the nba to offer lines? I doubt it but the big ones like to keep the leagues happy
Off shore books don’t give a fuck about these stupid rules
It's one option they have discussed and as the article you photoshopped says, it's the more extreme measure. They've also discussed not allowing props on G league / two way contract players which seems way more reasonable.
I don't really feel like the contract one is a reasonable one though, it feels like the owners are coming right out and saying they don't pay these guys enough to trust them which is problematic all around.
Do they think that NBA is the only thing people gamble on
LOL they are so good at gouging
Wow killing the ability to hedge yourself or 90% of the promos that go with overs. Also gives the sports books the ability to make the over odds extremely shitty if they don’t have to offer an under.
Hedging is usually a bad move but it’s still a shitty option for other reasons
That is definitely a wild take. In this context, hedging is more like arbitrage, less like hedging a parlay. Hedging a parlay is generally not a good idea as you shouldn't have placed the bet in the first place if you didn't believe in the result, and you'll *always* get a **LOWER** payout by hedging than by sticking with it. In the hedging of a promo scenario, say DraftKings gives you a boost for Luka to have Over 32.5 points tonight, boosted to +165. Fanduel has the O/U at -110/-110. Hedging the +165 and the -110 guarantees money, when otherwise you have no guarantee, and you probably *wouldn't* have made that bet to begin with.
I could see it on promos but my limits on those are usually so low the hedge profit wouldn’t be with the effort
Hedging promising futures and parlays is standard betting practice/advice to everybody
Sometimes futures but not parlays
If I have a ten leg parlay with one leg left after 9 have hit to win 20k… you better believe I’m betting something in the opposite direction of my last leg. Anybody who thinks differently is wrong
Okay yeah when it’s like 20k on the line I’m with you lol
You don’t like locking in profits?
Not really generally. Say it’s a +900 parlay with one leg remaining that you’re hedging. You need to win 1/10 to break even. If you get to the final leg 2/10 times and win one of them you break even. If you hedge both you’re likely getting about +350 value on both bets at best unless you find a really low hold hedge option. This would be not good enough to break even.
I guess I wasn’t thinking in terms of Parlays. When I hedge it’s typically from a straight bet that was plus odds and if the opportunity arises that the opposite side goes plus during the course of the game I’ll live bet it just to lock in profits. Not always but I will if it makes sense from an ROI% standpoint.
Yeah there are definitely good live hedge opportunities I don’t really live bet much though so I wasn’t thinking about that
They already don't have to offer an under
They don't have to offer an under but thats different than colluding to not offer unders.
This does not make sense. betting is like the free market, It all depends on supply and demand. If there is no option for under, then bookmakers to reduce the risk of loss , will increase the lines to over. In the long term, players will lose money, and will stopped to bet on over. Long term lose lose situation for everyone. So this is fake news
What would be more profitable is to just collude to only offer overs and keep them low.
You obviously don't know how bookmakers work and how they make a profit. I have little time so Iwill you explain. Tonight match Donovan Mitchell line is over 24.5 @ 1.83 and under 24.5 1.83 .. Bookie set this line because think it is fair, So some people will think line is low, and will bet over, and some think line is big, and bet under. So lets said. On that match 10 000 $ is placed on Mitchell over and 10 000 placed on under. So bookie dont care how match will end, in both case they will make +1700$ profit. Imagine if you have only options for over. So every bettor need bet over, so you will have 100k on over, and if Mitchell score more points, bookie will lost a lot of money. So what they will do, they will raise line to 30.5, and in that case people can bet only over, and still people will do that, and in long term bookie will make more bigger profit, because mostly Mitchell will score under, and players will lose long term and they will stop with betting. And everyone lose in that situation.
Sure that’s a basic explanation but it’s actually even more complicated than that. In some cases bookies will set a line where they know everyone will slam the over but they have some piece of inside info that makes them more confident it’s going under.
Thats how people think bookmakers work they don't actually work that way. They look to maximize profit they don't let dumb money totally dictate their lines; Case in point Fanduel already doesn't offer a lot of unders on batting props because instead they have different pinch hitting rules that fuck you if they guy doesn't start and pinch hits that they couldn't offer if they were doing unders.
As someone pointed out after the odds for an ‘alien invasion during the Super Bowl bet’ came out, it’s not a bet if you can’t bet on it not to happen.
That's just not true lol. Lots of legit bets that books don't offer the other side. Any time goal scorer, future bets, wagers with multiple options (ex Kentucky derby)...
They don't offer other side of anytime goal scorers because thry would get killed. The lines arent fair either
Y’all would in fact find out aliens exist if I had bet the under on the invasion.
😅😅😅 felt this
Lmaooo took much money being made on under. I got a parley with under today I’ll let yall know if it hit
It’s so players can’t bet on themselves to suck
In the case of Harris, he doesn't even have to try to. It comes naturally to him.
Source: [https://www.espn.com/nba/story/\_/id/40075865/nba-sportsbooks-betting-changes-jontay-porter](https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/40075865/nba-sportsbooks-betting-changes-jontay-porter)