Can you give an example of a scenario where betting the spread makes more sense than betting the moneyline?

[Bruce]

Imagine a matchup in the NFL where the Kansas City Chiefs are heavily favored to win against the Jacksonville Jaguars, with a point spread set at Chiefs -10. This means that the Chiefs need to win by at least 11 points for a spread bet on them to be successful. The moneyline for the Chiefs might be set at -450, meaning you would need to risk $450 to win $100, which offers a lower potential return.

So, In this scenario, if you believe the Chiefs will dominate the game but want to maximize your payout, betting on the spread makes more sense. If the Chiefs win by 15 points, a spread bet would pay off for you, while a moneyline bet offers less value due to the high risk for a relatively low reward.

 

[CR7]

In this scenario, the point spread of Chiefs -10 offers a more enticing betting option compared to the moneyline of Chiefs -450 due to the potential for a higher payout. If you are confident in the Chiefs dominating the game and winning by a significant margin, betting on the spread allows you to capitalize on your prediction with better odds.

By taking the spread bet, you are not only rooting for the Chiefs to win but also for them to win by at least 11 points. If the Chiefs win by a larger margin, such as 15 points as you mentioned, the spread bet becomes a successful wager, providing you with a more substantial payout compared to the moneyline bet.

On the other hand, the moneyline bet at -450 requires a significant upfront investment to yield a relatively lower return. It is a safer bet in the sense that you only need the Chiefs to win the game outright, but the risk-reward ratio may not be as appealing as with the spread bet.

Therefore, in situations where you are confident in a team's ability to win convincingly and cover the spread, opting for the spread bet can be a strategic choice to maximize your potential payout compared to a moneyline bet with less favorable odds.