Hockey frustrated me when they changed the overtime rules. When it was even skating and only 5 minutes without a shoot out, I loved to take the +.5 goals. I don't bet hockey as much anymore, other than the playoffs when obviously the overtimes are standard hockey.
I'm not sure what your approach would be in hockey, or if football would be similar. Each pointspread in football aligns with a money line. The spread comes first, and then the appropriate money line is attached. That's why I always think it's curious and more than a bit amusing when people want to believe a spread is not a prediction of the outcome. The straight up odds (money line) are based on the spread and the sportsbooks move that money line when the spread moves. If a game has a spread of -3 and a total of 45, the point prop over/under on the favorite will be 24 and the point prop on the underdog will be 21. Yet the spread and total are not a prediction of the outcome. Remarkable.
I have some formulas that dispute the pointspread in certain situations. Generally, mediocre teams are given too much credit when they are favored big against teams in their own class level, while the best teams are undervalued against weak teams. But on this site and others I ignore what I think the spread should be and always list the likelihood of victory based on the spread and money line. For example, the Dolphin money line is consensus in the -290, +250 range. Splitting the difference aligns with a theoretical 72% chance of victory.
Someone in this thread asserted that Miami's chances were 67.7% based on Las Vegas odds. That's wrong, quite a bit low. At 67.7%, which aligns with -209, the money line would be Dolphins -220 and the Jets at +200 for a -210 midsection (man to man). As you can see by looking at the money line at any sportsbook, our money line is well above that -210 level.
