Good bets lose all the time. It's by far the worst thing about sports betting. Novice bettors, or the stubborn, will claim that if a bet didn't win, then it wasn't a good bet. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Last Monday, the Penguins played the Bruins in the Winter Classic at Fenway Park. Sure, the Bruins had more fans in the stands that were set away from the playing surface, but this was far from the usual home game. In fact, no franchise has played more outdoor games (six) than the Penguins, with the Bruins having played one fewer (five). Both teams are familiar with the morning wake-up call required for a Winter Classic.

Given that somewhat familiar but also unusual circumstance, how much implied win probability should be accounted for home-ice advantage for an outdoor game?

We've got a pretty good handle on the market ratings for both the Penguins and Bruins, and using those ratings, we can expect a moneyline split of around PIT +120 / BOS -140 on neutral ice.

On Monday, the moneylines got as high as PIT +160/BOS -185. On the Penguins' side, that's an implied win probability of 38.5% compared to 45.5% for Pittsburgh on neutral ice - a 7% difference.

Since home-ice advantage usually translates to approximately a 4% shift from neutral ice, that would suggest significant value on the Penguins. Pittsburgh scored first in the game, but Boston had the best of the even-strength Expected Goal Share (66%), while the shots and scoring chances were even. The Bruins tied the game midway through the third period and took the lead with just over two minutes left. The Penguins thought they may have tied it in the virtual bottom of the ninth at Fenway, but they scored after the clock hit zero.

The game largely played out in the 50-50 manner that you ask for when betting a +160 moneyline, even though, in this case, the Penguins ran out of outs. A pretty good bet was lost.

The recipe

We started the campaign using regular-season point totals as a baseline for rating teams since it's our best measurement. Throughout the campaign, we adjust club ratings using on-ice metrics to remove the cognitive bias of win-loss records, which can be skewed by outliers like special-teams results, poor goaltending performances, and other unreliable events.

The cheat sheet

There are no bad bets at the right price, but how do we know what a good price is?

The following includes my fair price on the games (true moneyline) and the moneyline price I'd need to bet either side. I only need a 1% edge for a favorite if we're getting better than a fair price on the team more likely to win. For the underdog, I'll need 4% or better to make it a bet. For games I project to be closer to a coin flip, a 2.5% edge is enough for a worthwhile wager. I also have a 5% win probability consideration for a team playing in the second game of a back-to-back with travel and a 3% consideration for a team on the second leg of a back-to-back without travel. When it comes to injured players, I do my best to estimate the impact on their team's win probability.

When the betting markets open up the night before, you can compare those prices with our "price to bet" column to see if you're getting any value with either side's moneyline. There's also a possibility that a moneyline moves into a bet-friendly range at some point between market open and puck drop.

Matt Russell is a betting writer for theScore. If there's a bad beat to be had, Matt will find it. Find him on Twitter @mrussauthentic.

Copyright © 2023 Score Media Ventures Inc. All rights reserved. Certain content reproduced under license.