I recently wrote a piece on how much the spread matters when betting the NFL. Some people are calling it the greatest sports betting piece written in the past 12 hours.
I wouldn’t go that far, but you should check it out.
If you’re too busy to read it, I’ll bottom line it for you: Although it historically has been better to bet against the spread instead of on the moneyline when wagering on NFL underdogs, it has specifically been more profitable to use the moneyline — instead of the spread — on short underdogs.
In my piece, I singled out underdogs of +0.5 to +3, but someone on Twitter asked what the cutoff point was. How long can a short underdog get before it loses value on the moneyline relative to the spread.
Let’s look into it.
Prop Bet Analyzer: View top rated props and historical prop performance by player >>
NFL Spreads vs. Moneylines: Short Underdogs
To recap, here’s the data on short underdogs against the spread vs. the moneyline, from the Bet Labs database (available via'Action Network), which goes back to 2003.
ATS Underdogs: +0.5 to +3
- Record:'834-789-79
- Win Rate:'51.4%
- ROI:'1.6%
- Units:'+27.2
- Margin:'+0.67
That's pretty good. But the moneyline is better.
ML Underdogs: +0.5 to +3
- Record:'768-930-4
- Win Rate:'45.2%
- ROI:'2.4%
- Units:'+40.8
- Margin:'-1.6
If you like a short underdog on the spread, you should at least consider betting the dog in the moneyline market — assuming you find a price that aligns with your numbers.
NFL Spreads vs. Moneylines: Underdogs Between a Field Goal & Touchdown
But what if you like an underdog of +3.5? Or +6.5? Has it still been historically profitable to pivot to the moneyline market in those situations?
Here are the numbers.
ATS Underdogs: +3.5 to +6.5
- Record: 835-808-19
- Win Rate: 50.8%
- ROI: -1.2%
- Units: -20.5
- Margin: -0.35
That’s not good at all. What about the moneyline?
ML Underdogs: +3.5 to +6.5
- Record: 567-1,091-4
- Win Rate: 34.2%
- ROI: 1.1%
- Units: +18.8
- Margin: -5.14