Is life too short to bet the under? Not at this rate in NFL

It’s been said that life’s too short to bet the under. But wagering on NFL games to go under the point total has been a profitable proposition this season.

Entering Week 7, unders are 56-37-1, cashing at a 60.2 percent clip. That’s the highest over or under percentage through Week 6 in 31 years, according to ESPN. A $100 bettor who blindly backed unders this season would be up $1,530.

Unders have been even more profitable in prime-time games, cashing at a sizzling 68.4 percent rate (13-6) on Sunday, Monday and Thursday nights.

The preponderance of unders has proved costly for the betting public, which typically backs the over.

“For the most part, the public probably bets ‘over’ 80 percent of the time,” Westgate SuperBook vice president of risk Ed Salmons said. “The public wants to sit back and be entertained and root for good stuff to happen.”

They certainly don’t want to wager on an ugly game with no touchdowns, such as the Colts’ 12-9 overtime win over the Broncos in Week 5 on “Thursday Night Football.”

But those types of contests have become more commonplace with scoring in the NFL at its lowest level since 2009. Teams are averaging 21.6 points per game, down from 23.0 ppg last season and 24.8 ppg in 2020.

That’s fine with sharp bettors who largely bank on the under, including Lou Finocchiaro (@GambLou), who leads the RJ NFL Challenge with a 20-10 ATS record.

“I handicap the sports I work by attempting to uncover value on underdogs and under the totals, as a style but not a rule,” he said. “It’s no secret that most public wagerers tend to bet favorites and over the totals.

“In many instances, a ‘tax’ can be placed on those numbers from the book, thus creating some opportunity on the ‘dog and under position.”

Longtime Las Vegas bookmaker Robert Walker agrees.

“Historically, there is some value on the under and certainly some value on the underdog,” he said. “It’s not rocket science. We know the public wants to bet on the favorites and they want to bet on the over. So there’s value.

“People say, ‘How do you make the line?’ We use the consensus line and shade the favorites. The only time you should shade the line, in my mind, is to shade it to how the public bets.”

Only five teams have a winning record to the over this season, including the Raiders at 3-1-1, while 19 have more unders than overs. Seven teams have a 5-1 under mark: the Bengals, Bills, Broncos, Buccaneers, Colts, 49ers and Rams.

Salmons said there are countless possible reasons for the drop in scoring, including the prowess of punters and kickers. But he said he believes it’s mostly due to the two-deep defenses that force teams to march down the field via short plays rather than give up big plays.

“It’s incredible how sophisticated the defenses are,” he said. “I’m guessing at some point the NFL has to make some kind of rule change. But it’s obvious the defenses are ahead of the offenses.”

Books already have adjusted the totals. There are five games with totals of 42 or less this week and five with totals of 41 or less for Week 8.

“I have a sneaking suspicion that we’re going to be heading somewhere in the mid-30s on some of these teams,” Salmons said. “If they keep going under these numbers, they’ll just get lower and lower and there will be a point where they’ll reach value on the over.”

Another common saying about totals is that “It’s not under until it’s over,” meaning that under bettors have to sweat out games until the end.

“My opponents claim when you bet overs you always have a chance,” Finocchiaro said. “I say with unders, ‘I’m winning,’ and it must be taken from me.”

Walker has the same philosophy.

“When you’re on the under, you’re winning until you’re not. When you’re on the over, you’re losing until you’re not,” he said. “I know all this, but I don’t always practice this. I don’t bet (much). But when I do, I kind of want to bet the over.

“That’s why I’m on this side of the counter. I can’t help myself. I want to root for scoring. I have a hard time betting the unders.”

Contact reporter Todd Dewey at tdewey@reviewjournal.com. Follow @tdewey33 on Twitter.