by Hollywood Sports
Sunday, Apr 30, 2023When the Milwaukee Bucks got upset for the second-straight time to the Miami Heat in Game Four of the Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, it sure seemed at first glance like they would offer a nice opportunity for bettors in Game Five back at home.
The problem with this logic is that if a vast majority of bettors also feel this way, then the resulting point spread number may not offer value relative to the situation. Bettors make a mistake if they become fixated exclusively on the circumstances -- without taking into account the corresponding point spread number. In this instance, the books placed Milwaukee as a favorite back at home as an 11.5-point favorite. So, the real question was: after the Heat pulled off two straight upset wins and now were traveling to play a Bucks team motivated to avoid playoff elimination after being upset in two straight games enough to expect them to win by 12 or more points?
Empirical situational angles can be helpful to ascertain how teams in similar situations have responded relative to the point spread. However, when the point spread gets so high, the relevant sample size gets diluted. How many NBA teams coming off two straight upset losses and were now staving off elimination were then laying double-digits? One could go back 50 years to extract more numbers for that sample size, but does data prior to the establishment of the 3-point line really add insight to this situation?
Sometimes the large point spread is indicative of just how resounding the favored team will respond. But sometimes it simply reveals how committed the betting public is to a narrative. The Bucks had failed to cover the point spread in 9 of their last 15 games as a double-digit favorite — but the public was still zombie-betting Milwaukee despite Giannis Antetokounmpo not being 100%. The Bucks closed as a 13-point favorite in many locations.
At a certain point, one simply has to pass. Fortunately, I concluded with a "No, thank you" on this proposition. I was not going to consider playing the Heat under those circumstances. But I have seen better results in my handicapping when accepting that sometimes the best way to utilize situations that I "like" is to use it simply say "no" to the other side. Passing is fine. Avoiding losers is good!
For me, that Milwaukee had most recently failed to cover the point spread in 5 of their last 7 games after a straight-up loss was concerning. I was troubled that they had failed to cover the point spread in 11 of their last 18 games at home when laying 6.5 to 12 points. They had not covered the point spread in 4 of their last 5 games against teams with a winning record. The warning signs were there.
Miami was also demonstrating that it is possible for "Heat Culture" to simply flip the switch in the postseason. I was so dismayed by their effort in their opening Play-In Tournament against Atlanta two weeks ago -- and that included Jimmy Butler. Things have changed. The Heat not only pulled a third straight upset in the playoffs by beating the Bucks in Milwaukee to end that series in five games, but they pulled off that trick again with a fourth straight upset victory against New York in Game One of their Eastern Conference Semifinals series.
Sometimes the best option on the table is to pass. The number has to reflect the value of the prospective situation.
Best of luck — Frank.
The problem with this logic is that if a vast majority of bettors also feel this way, then the resulting point spread number may not offer value relative to the situation. Bettors make a mistake if they become fixated exclusively on the circumstances -- without taking into account the corresponding point spread number. In this instance, the books placed Milwaukee as a favorite back at home as an 11.5-point favorite. So, the real question was: after the Heat pulled off two straight upset wins and now were traveling to play a Bucks team motivated to avoid playoff elimination after being upset in two straight games enough to expect them to win by 12 or more points?
Empirical situational angles can be helpful to ascertain how teams in similar situations have responded relative to the point spread. However, when the point spread gets so high, the relevant sample size gets diluted. How many NBA teams coming off two straight upset losses and were now staving off elimination were then laying double-digits? One could go back 50 years to extract more numbers for that sample size, but does data prior to the establishment of the 3-point line really add insight to this situation?
Sometimes the large point spread is indicative of just how resounding the favored team will respond. But sometimes it simply reveals how committed the betting public is to a narrative. The Bucks had failed to cover the point spread in 9 of their last 15 games as a double-digit favorite — but the public was still zombie-betting Milwaukee despite Giannis Antetokounmpo not being 100%. The Bucks closed as a 13-point favorite in many locations.
At a certain point, one simply has to pass. Fortunately, I concluded with a "No, thank you" on this proposition. I was not going to consider playing the Heat under those circumstances. But I have seen better results in my handicapping when accepting that sometimes the best way to utilize situations that I "like" is to use it simply say "no" to the other side. Passing is fine. Avoiding losers is good!
For me, that Milwaukee had most recently failed to cover the point spread in 5 of their last 7 games after a straight-up loss was concerning. I was troubled that they had failed to cover the point spread in 11 of their last 18 games at home when laying 6.5 to 12 points. They had not covered the point spread in 4 of their last 5 games against teams with a winning record. The warning signs were there.
Miami was also demonstrating that it is possible for "Heat Culture" to simply flip the switch in the postseason. I was so dismayed by their effort in their opening Play-In Tournament against Atlanta two weeks ago -- and that included Jimmy Butler. Things have changed. The Heat not only pulled a third straight upset in the playoffs by beating the Bucks in Milwaukee to end that series in five games, but they pulled off that trick again with a fourth straight upset victory against New York in Game One of their Eastern Conference Semifinals series.
Sometimes the best option on the table is to pass. The number has to reflect the value of the prospective situation.
Best of luck — Frank.
