PRO COMPUTER GAMBLER
Senators vs. Rangers
Play: Senators +145
Nothing qualifies. I have a lean towards fading the Rangers, but the Raw numbers have a slight positivie edge for them so I'm personally passing.
Consider:
The Rangers are 14-19 (+37.9% roi to fade) since Nov 08, 2016 as a home favorite
Also:
One thing we really like to stay away from is playing on a team that took quite a few less shots on goal than their last opponent or in comparison to the league average or their own team average. In their last game, the Rangers got a cool 4-1 win over the Senators putting up only 3 more shots on goal than the Senators.
Believe it or not, I used to actually play hockey...I was a goalie....and it just seemed to me that if you shot any puck at me, I'd usually block it. The times I missed it, I was usually shaking my head blaming myself. That is, I felt that the team that won was usually just the more energetic team that took more shots on goal because more shots on goals means a high possibility of actual goals occurring. Just like gambling....it takes years of betting and thousands of bets for most professional bettors to have any real success.
So what happens when a team shot very few shots on goal and ended up winning and scoring a lot?
Here's what history says:
Since 2006, teams that won averaged 9.18 shots on goals per goal scored (13957 samples).
Since 2006, teams that won averaged 30.07 shots on goals per win (13957 samples).
Since 2006, teams that won averaged 3.8 goals per game.
So let's see what happened for bettors backing a team that won in circumstances out of the norm: let's say: fewer than average shots taken along with more goals scored than average for a regular win:
Since 2006, teams that just won a game scoring 3 or more goals, but took fewer than average shots on goals (in wins [30.07]) were 2680-2756 SU 49.3% -267.15 units lost to play, but only -18.3 units to fade.
It seems we're onto something.
Let's dig in more and try to trim outliers and see what the truer record is in that overly robust sample:
Same situation:
*Team off of a win where they scored more goals than average.
*They also had fewer shots on goal than average.
Rest would skew this so just eliminate the basic one: the team isn't on a zero rest back to back game (average rest for a team in NHL is 1 day.
Bingo!
The record is now:
2236-2251 49.8% SU -268.74 units and +$3,632 to fade!
Next we could eliminate margins out of the norm for wins (average is 1-3 goals so lets stick to that range):
Profit doubles:
1940-1987 +61.24 units to fade
Bottom line: You can refine this and refine it more, but today we have a pretty reasonable lean AGAINST the Rangers.....NOT expecting a high win percent outcome, but rather a long term ROI grind.....using the simple idea of fading a team off of a win with characteristics that lend to a somewhat proven theory here that a big win with few shots on goal might now be all that. Go with the Senators today on the +1 Puckline or on their moneyline for some Beer money!
Bruce Marshall
Jazz at Warriors
Pick: Over
These teams had to do almost everything to stay "under" in Game One, including an icy 16 for 58 three-point shooting. Though Utah prefers a slower pace, the Jazz can shoot straighter in Game Two, and the Warriors took their foot off of the pedal late in the opener which kept that one barely "under" on Tuesday. Not likely to see the same "totals" scenario tonight.