Alright, game 1s of round 1 is in the books. Now, I've mentioned this before, but I'll take a moment to explain why I'm doing this thread. I've typed this all up, and upon proofreading it, I come off sounding a lot like you-know-who. My apologies in advance...
Obviously, the focus is on the 2H spread (and totals, if you want to somehow track that on your own). 2H lines are hard to track during the regular season with so many games and halftimes everyday, but I thought we could see how a small sample size of the playoffs would work. Instead of watching a game and pouring over stats deciding on a 2H play, I use simple logic. It can best be summed up as "what happens in the 1st half tends to happen in the 2nd half". The one caveat to this rule is that if the game is close, and the 2H line is equal to the game line, then it's a no play. So, not all games will fit this "logic". But from what I've seen and played personally, this will produce more winners than losers.
Another viewpoint on this is to not get caught up in the line with the common thinking of "the favorite only has to win the game for me to win" or conversely "I'm catching 20 points with the underdog now instead of the 5 pre-game". Remember, what happens tends to continue. Please remember there are instances where this will not work, but it should win over the long run, and that's what I hope to show.
To further explain, if you look at the 8 games so far, look at the pre-game line, halftime score, and then halftime line. Of the 8, 2 (Dallas/SA & Philadelphia/Orlando) would be no plays since the halftime line equated to the full game line. One of the remaining 6 did not hold true to form (Utah/LAL). In that game, Utah did come back, covered the 2H line easily, and had a chance to cover the full game line. Of the remaining 5, the team that was up at half continued in the 2nd half. I'll break down each game separately, and show a common thought the general public betting would think at halftime, and the betting result.
Boston just has to win the game and they will cover the 2H line. Boston -7.5 = LOSS
Instead of Detroit +12, I can now get them at +15. Detroit +2.5 = LOSS
Damnit, Portland is down 18 at half. There's no way I can see them losing by 10 points at home! Portland -7.5 = LOSS
Crap, Miami and DWade are down by 20. They'll come back, there's no way they would lose by 17 points or more. Miami -3.5 = LOSS
New Orleans is keeping it close, and now I can get them at +9.5 for the game. There's no way they lose by double digits! New Orleans +1.5 = LOSS
Why do I mention this? Because that was how I used to think when I bet 2nd halves. And I lost, and I lost, and I continued to lose my bankroll and my ass. Only when I was able to step back, not bet the 2H, and watch for patterns did I notice this. Blowouts happen in many sports, and so do wins by huge underdogs. When I noticed that, that's when I came up with this. I'm going to steal a term from Sportsnut, but he sees handicapping as a psychological game between you and the oddsmaker. If you are able to beat them at it, then that's how you can make a nice profit. And that's what I hope this shows.
Again, I don't want to come off as this way is the best, this is foolproof, there's no way this can lose. It is not all those things. Nothing is perfect, and I'm sure I'll have a few detractors with constructive criticism (e.g. small sample size, differing opening/closing lines, etc.). Conversely, there are also examples where getting the better line at halftime with the underdog or favorite will win as opposed to the pre-game line. And sometimes I buck the system myself. Overall, though, it's produced winners in my experience.
So, that's how I see things. It is what it is - an objective way to look at 2H in-game betting, without the prejudice of what you've seen on TV or in the stats. Feel free to ask for clarification here, or on PM. Figured I could at least contribute more to the forum than my Seinfeld jokes.
