A holiday Monday means matinee action in the NHL. To celebrate the last holiday afternoon games of the regular season, we'll play our own fun game, using what every sports bettor wishes they had - a time machine.

Unfortunately, this time machine has a catch: We'll get to know everything about the games - except the actual goals.

Let's apply this magical circumstance to real games from last week. We get to know which team created more high-danger scoring chances at even strength and the percentage of expected goals their five-on-five attack generated - two pretty important indicators for success.

Game 1

Game 2

As a bonus, we also get to know that Team C was given seven power plays but didn't score on any of them. Which team would you want to bet on before the game? The -200 favorite that went scoreless on the power play but had a minor edge at even strength, or the +170 underdog?

For long-term profitable betting, both answers should be Team B - the San Jose Sharks. Yet in both cases, they lost - 3-1 (empty-net goal) to the Pittsburgh Penguins and 2-1 to the Vegas Golden Knights.

San Jose got surprisingly good goaltending from Aaron Dell (.926 save percentage) and Kaapo Kahkonen (.947 SV%), didn't allow a goal on special teams (10 out of 10 penalty kills), and was cumulatively level with its opponent at even strength. However, even with all this time-travel-assisted information, we would've made good bets that lost.

Here's how season-long metrics look for each team.

Even without a time machine, you can see how we might expect the Sharks to outplay the Penguins at home and compete stride for stride with the Golden Knights - even if the puck didn't bounce their way around the net.

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.

Panic struck Wednesday afternoon. The Blackhawks - second-last in the league-wide standings - showed up in our venerable guide as valuable at a price of +460 on the road against the Maple Leafs.

In our last edition of the NHL betting guide, we drew a line of value for Chicago at +317 - a 24% implied win probability similar to its 6-17 moneyline record on the road - for a game three nights after publication.

Of course, we didn't know on Monday that Auston Matthews - one of a handful of players who'll significantly shift a game market - would be making his return. In fact, neither did the betting market - Toronto opened the Blackhawks as high as +375 underdogs Tuesday night. Once the Maple Leafs confirmed Matthews's availability, the market reacted aggressively, pushing them up over -600, while the Blackhawks went up through +450.

"Am I going to have to bet the Blackhawks?!" was an appropriate, terror-filled question.

In Monday's guide, we hadn't adjusted the Leafs' win probability up 10% - for Matthews' return along with the Hawks playing on a back-to-back with travel - so once that was the case, the odds moved from +317 (24% IWP) to +610 (14%).

Strict guide followers could be let off the hook, even if the idea of any hockey team - let alone one that just lost at home to the Blue Jackets and isn't in first place in its own division - should be a -600 favorite.

There are two big takeaways from this game example. First: You should never be forced to do anything when it comes to betting. Our advantage is that we can be picky. If you don't want to bet the Blackhawks, regardless of price, you don't have to. Second: If a line doesn't look right, maybe there's a reason - like the return of a superstar.

Of course, the Leafs manhandled the Blackhawks that night with advantages of 78% in even-strength high-danger chances and more than 70% of the expected goals at five-on-five, confirming that an 80% win probability wasn't far off. They'll meet again Sunday, and the Leafs will be at the disadvantage of playing the second game of a back-to-back. How much the market will care about that tough schedule spot will decide whether bettors have another tough decision to make.

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.

The All-Star break is in the rearview and we've turned it up a notch, going to twice per week for the NHL betting guide so that we can be as accurate as possible in evaluating each team, especially with significant players in and out of the lineup. A quick price comparison from Monday to Thursday would have produced nine bets in total. With 20/20 hindsight, here's how that looked.

That there was a mix of favorites and underdogs - both short and long - is an even better sign than the small sample size of a 7-2 (+7.7 units) stretch. Finding value at various prices - and in some cases, both for and against teams like the Golden Knights - can indicate we're doing well to not overreact to the ebbs and flows of the betting market.

With our new biweekly schedule, we can react to things like injuries to Aleksander Barkov and Cale Makar early in the week, the market's game-to-game adjustment to the Maple Leafs without Auston Matthews against good teams like the Bruins before their break and a home-and-home with the likes of the Blue Jackets after it, and the Canucks' and Islanders' value after the Bo Horvat trade.

Much to Devils fans' chagrin, we get our first guess as to how the betting market will react to Jack Hughes' absence. We'll start with an assumption that New Jersey is 5% less likely to win an individual game without Hughes, who sits third in the NHL in goals. Meanwhile, we'll take a wait-and-see approach on any boost the Rangers get after their addition of Vladimir Tarasenko.

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.

Last we convened, we were wrapping up the unofficial first half of the NHL season, managing a 10-10 week through six days of daily picks that netted +1 unit. Neither element of that short-term record is all that impressive, but if we managed to finish every week in the black, we'd gladly take it.

The randomness of betting hockey - particularly in the regular season when the game fundamentally changes if it's tied through 60 minutes - makes it hard to pick games at better than a 50-50 rate. So why make it difficult for yourself by betting on teams that average -150 or higher? Why set the bar of success at 60% when you don't have to?

Of course, setting the bar for profitability at or below .500 means betting plus-money underdogs - the worst team in the matchup. And sure, those teams win all the time. The problem is trying to make a case, in print or aloud, for the underdog in matchups like Ducks-Avalanche, Blue Jackets-Oilers, Senators-Maple Leafs, and Blackhawks-Flames: all games the underdog won in the week leading up to the All-Star break.

We know the favorite isn't 100% guaranteed to win any NHL game, but how can you make an argument for why tonight is the night the road underdog shocks its high-caliber opponent?

That's where comparative pricing comes in. The only real argument for backing the Ducks to fly into Denver to beat Colorado is the fact our numbers suggest that Anaheim wins 29 times out of 100, but the moneyline suggests the Ducks pull off the upset 24 times out of 100.

That 5% disparity might not pay off in one game, but we're not actually betting one game: We're betting hundreds of games over the course of a season and over the course of our betting life. Sometimes those ugly, uncomfortable bets are on teams from Anaheim. Sometimes they're from Columbus, Ottawa, and Chicago. In all of those bets, we expect those teams probably lose that night, but over a large enough sample size - our lifetime - they win slightly more than the market suggests, and a sub-.500 record on the ice still provides a positive margin in the betting ledger.

With the stretch run upon us, we'll match the intensity of the playoff push with biweekly articles - Monday weekday and Friday weekend editions - of our price comparison tool in an effort to be as accurate as possible.

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.

If we talk about NHL games as a series of coin-flips and then bet one lined like a 50-50 game, we probably shouldn't be surprised when it goes to overtime. The joy was palpable after the Hurricanes' overtime win against the Stars on Wednesday. But we're not geniuses for winning a bet after regulation, just as we aren't dummies for losing one. It's all in the name of making valuable bets and letting the chips fall where they may.

Bruins (-115) @ Lightning (-105)

We've alluded to this week as the moment our weekly betting guide comes alive. A Monday update would have shown our projected fair moneyline for this game at BOS +121/TBL -121. Since -105 is a better price than -121, the Lightning are worth a bet at an expected value of +3.4%.

We know why the market is high on the Bruins. They win. A lot. Boston's start to the calendar year is similar to its start to the season: 10 wins in 11 games. The Bruins are 38-9 on the moneyline, thanks in part to being third in the NHL in five-on-five expected goal share (xG%) at 54.7%. But their true dominance stems from their ability to turn even-strength high-danger chances into goals at a high rate while allowing opponents to convert their relatively few high-danger chances at just a 7.9% rate.

Who has the best chance of beating the Bruins? A team that creates a lot of high-danger chances and has the skill to convert them. The Lightning lead the league with 9.75 five-on-five high-danger chances per game, converting them at the same rate as the Bruins.

Since the Christmas break, Tampa Bay's even-strength metrics have been better than Boston's. The Lightning are top five in xG% and high-danger chance share, while Boston isn't. Once we break their moneyline records down by location, the Bruins' impressive 16-5 road record looks a lot like the Lightning's 18-5 home record. You can see why Tampa Bay is more likely to win this game than the moneyline suggests.

Pick: Lightning (-105)

Penguins (+100) @ Capitals (-120)

The formula we use to build our weekly guide suggests there's modest value on the Capitals, with a fair price just slightly higher at -123. But that's based on numbers accumulated throughout the entire season. Recently, there's been reason to expect more from Washington and less from the Penguins.

It's worth comparing expected goal share and the percentage of high-danger chances each team has generated at even strength, both before the holiday break and after:

The concern for Washington is that injuries are piling up again. The Capitals were without Tom Wilson and Nicklas Backstrom for much of the season, and both are uncertain for Thursday night. T.J. Oshie and John Carlson are also out. Still, Washington has been the better team in expected goal share in five of its last six games, despite a 2-4-0 record in that time.

While the Capitals are banged up, the biggest injury is on the Penguins' side, with goaltender Tristan Jarry out until mid-February. That leaves Pittsburgh with Casey DeSmith back between the pipes after giving up six goals to the Panthers on Tuesday.

Pick: Capitals (-120)

Blues (-155) @ Coyotes (+135)

When the Blues were without Ryan O'Reilly, Vladimir Tarasenko, and Torey Krug, the market's rating of St. Louis went largely unchanged. When Tarasenko and Krug returned, the market didn't change drastically either. That inertia was rewarded Tuesday when St. Louis lost to the Sabres, mustering just five high-danger chances at even strength in the process.

Beyond a pair of modest winning spurts, the Blues haven't been good all season, healthy or not. The Coyotes aren't any good either, but the argument is the same as it was when we faded the Blues against the Blackhawks on Saturday: If both teams are bad, take the team priced at plus money. That's especially valid here, with the Coyotes hovering around .500 on home ice and likely to go back to Karel Vejmelka - their much better option in net.

Pick: Coyotes (+135)

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.

Why do we frequently use the term "coin flip" to describe certain games in the NHL? Well, at 9:30 p.m. EST on Tuesday night, six of the first seven games on the schedule were tied in the third period. The seventh was a 2-1 Golden Knights lead that the Devils tied with their goalie pulled a few minutes later on a seemingly harmless shot that hit a Vegas shin guard and went in.

We won just one out of our four bets last night, as both overtime results - the ultimate coin-flip situation - went the wrong way. New Jersey got its good bounce to beat Vegas in an evenly played game. Meanwhile, the Sharks dominated even-strength play against the Red Wings, as we hypothesized, with a 65% share of the expected goals and a 19-5 mark on high-danger chances, only to lose at three-on-three.

If those overtimes went slightly differently, the sun would've shone a little brighter this morning. Alas, the NHL is the ultimate long game - you have to let the sample size pile up to even things out.

Hurricanes ( -110) @ Stars (-110)

We can take a little extra time to break down the 50-50 nature of the NHL because, on a light Wednesday, there's only one bet worth making. Lo and behold - it's lined as a true coin flip. How fitting.

Here's a potentially controversial statement: The Hurricanes are the best team in the NHL right now.

The key word being "now," since the Hurricanes are still 14 points behind the Bruins in the standings. Overall, Carolina is first in even-strength expected goal share at 59.74%, way ahead of the Devils (55.86%) and Bruins (54.7%). After a 15-1 stretch, the Hurricanes are on a 4-4 run, but since the Christmas break, their five-on-five expected goal share is actually up to 62% (the Bruins are seventh in that time).

Carolina isn't playing Boston on Wednesday night, but the stand-out stat is its 10.5% conversion rate on even-strength high-danger chances. That below-league-average number could be why its results have waned in the short term. Being able to win games when you're not sniping at an unusually high rate will be helpful in Dallas against Jake Oettinger and the Stars.

Dallas allowed just four goals on 131 even-strength high-danger chances allowed since Christmas. That's absurd. The Stars win by keeping the puck out of the net - their offensive numbers are only middle-of-the-pack. Since the calendar turned to 2023, the Stars' five wins came on three shutouts and two games in which they gave up just one goal.

Arguably the most significant reason to back Carolina is the return of Frederik Andersen. He has a 4-0 record since Christmas and an outstanding 5.33 goals saved above expectation, which is actually better on a per-game basis than Oettinger's mark. Andersen's midseason return can match Dallas' stinginess.

If you prefer calling things a "slump" versus statistical variance, why not rely on the best team in the NHL at creating goals relative to how few it allows to be created?

Pick: Hurricanes (-110)

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.

Winning bets is fun. Losing them? Not so much. The Variance Monster bit us on Monday as the Islanders and Maple Leafs racked up an unforeseeable 7.5 expected goal (xG) count at even strength, sending the game over a total that dropped a full goal from 6.5 to 5.5 before the opening faceoff.

Beating the market with that kind of closing-line value should provide better results, but that's the nature of sports. Things like the Stars outperforming the Sabres 15-5 in high-danger chances can happen, and when you get the wrong Buffalo goalie, a bet can go awry. Fortunately, there are plenty of wagers to choose from Tuesday as we look to get back in the winning saddle.

Sharks (+130) @ Red Wings (-150)

We'll start with our bread and butter: a moneyline value play fit for the weekly betting guide. With a season-long 52.3 xG% and a 55.8% high-danger chance rate at even-strength, the Sharks will offer are value often. The Red Wings are the inverse, with five-on-five percentage rates in the mid-40s.

Both teams have middle-of-the-road power plays, but San Jose's penalty kill is third in the NHL. Why don't the Sharks win more games? Goaltending. In most cases, finding consistent value with one team means the goalies aren't up to snuff.

James Reimer hasn't been good this season, but he's the best option for San Jose. Ville Husso, meanwhile, hasn't been much better in his first season with the Red Wings; this matchup is close to even, with my projections giving the Sharks a 48.6% chance to win. A +130 moneyline implies San Jose will win 43.5% of the time, and a 5% edge is enough to take a shot on the Sharks.

Pick: Sharks (+130)

Golden Knights (+150) @ Devils (-175)

Bettors are jumping ship on the Golden Knights, whose Pacific Division lead has dwindled with a 5-7 moneyline record since the Christmas break. Still, Vegas is tied with the Hurricanes in allowing the fewest even-strength high-danger chances in the NHL in that time.

Known for having a substantial home-ice advantage, the Golden Knights are an impressive 15-4-2 on the road this season. They shouldn't fear traveling to face the Devils - who are a surprising .500 on the moneyline at home. New Jersey has experienced regression of its own after an incredible start, ranking 23rd in xG% at five-on-five since Christmas.

Season-long metrics indicate the Golden Knights have a 43.5% chance to win a game that's lined as though they're 40% likely. Given home-road splits and the Devils' average play of late, jump back on the Vegas boat at +150.

Pick: Golden Knights (+150)

Jets (-120) @ Predators (+100)

In the last of our value plays, we've got the Predators as 55% favorites at home against the Jets, who aren't the same team on the road that they are at the Canada Life Centre. They carry even-strength play at a 53% rate in Winnipeg, but it's the inverse on the road, and we're getting even money on Nashville.

The Jets play their last contest of a five-game, eight-day road trip that's taken them from eastern Canada through Philadelphia and down to Music City. The Predators have played just twice in that time, and Juuse Saros continued his strong play at home - where he's a half-goal better than he is on the road - with a Saturday win against the Kings.

Pick: Predators (+100)

Blackhawks (+190) @ Canucks (-227)

This has nothing to do with the numbers, as the metrics in the moneyline guide indicate we need +212 to consider backing the Blackhawks. But these two teams have vastly different vibes around them right now.

Normally, the inclination is to back a team that just fired its head coach because that usually happens midseason after the players have quit on the incumbent. That's not the case in Vancouver, where the Canucks have publicly embarrassed themselves in their handling of fan-favorite Bruce Boudreau. Vancouver's players have had ample opportunity to jump to life and play better defense to protect leads. Instead, they've proven incapable of doing so time and again. That shouldn't immediately change with a new voice in the dressing room.

If the Canucks win, it's because Chicago is bad. But the Blackhawks have won six of their last eight - apparently losing interest in tanking narratives. Historically, they're always up for a trip to Vancouver, and it makes more sense to bet on the team feeling good and giving maximum effort at +190 than to lay a big price amid a messy situation.

Pick: Blackhawks (+190)

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.

We're bringing the NHL weekly betting guide to life for a loaded Saturday on the ice. Let's start with a pair of matinee games as those north of the border celebrate "Hockey Day in Canada," even if most of the value is south of the border.

Ducks (+215) @ Sabres (-260)

It's never easy to start a day with a bet that'll probably lose, but that's the reality with an underdog this big. The Ducks are too big of an underdog. My numbers give Anaheim a 38% chance of winning in Buffalo.

The Sabres have run hot and cold this season, compiling a cold spell running eight contests and a six-game winning streak over the campaign. They've won just two of their last seven games, generating an average 50% high-danger chance rate at five-on-five over that time.

There's very little to like about the Ducks, as they sit last in the NHL in goal differential. They also own a league-worst expected goal (XG) share over their current 6-10 stretch. However, Anaheim is being priced as high as +240, which is an implied win probability of less than 30%. That makes the Ducks an ugly but long-term profitable play.

Pick: Ducks (play down to +200)

Lightning (+100) @ Flames (-120)

Later in the afternoon, we've got a more palatable underdog. I have the Lightning - available at +100 - as a slight favorite of 52.7% to win in a game lined like a coin flip.

After winning at a 62.5% rate before the Christmas break, Tampa Bay has since won nine of 12 games and are second in the NHL in both XG and high-danger chances shares at even strength.

Flames backers have been waiting for Jacob Markstrom's play to improve to his previous high level. His GSAx has dropped thanks to a minus-1.69 rate since the break. Meanwhile, Andrei Vasilevskiy is as steady as ever, with negligible difference in his home/road splits.

Pick: Lightning (play up to -105)

Wild (-105) @ Panthers (-115)

The Panthers' even-strength metrics are good enough to make them the sixth-best team in my ratings. But for much of the season, they've refused to win games - largely due to terrible goaltending from Spencer Knight and Sergei Bobrovsky. Florida demoted Knight, and Bobrovsky left Thursday's game with an injury.

If the Panthers can get replacement-level goaltending from either Bobrovsky or Alex Lyon on Saturday, they can continue a push that's seen them go 6-3 with a trio of excusable road losses in Dallas, Vegas, and Toronto. Now just four points out of a playoff spot, Florida should edge the Wild. Minnesota is just 6-6 since the Christmas break, with sub-50% even-strength metrics in that time.

Pick: Panthers (play up to -135)

Kings (-105) @ Predators (-115)

We don't like to rely on the finicky nature of goaltending in a one-game sample size. But in another 50-50-type game, we'll take Juuse Saros over whomever the Kings put in between the pipes.

The Predators netminder is second in GSAx this season, and his home splits are favorable with a 2.55 GAA and .921 save percentage. L.A. may have thought it found the answer to its horrendous goaltending in Pheonix Copley. However, his above-average December stats have turned into below-average January numbers.

Pick: Predators (-115)

Blackhawks (+215) @ Blues (-260)

Like our first game, we have another scary underdog that provides about 6% of value over a 100-game sample size. Unfortunately, they're only playing one contest Saturday night, but at odds longer than +200, the Blackhawks have to be the bet.

Since losing Vladimir Tarasenko and Ryan O'Reilly (and later Torey Krug), the Blues are 6-3, which makes no sense. The team's even-strength metrics have been among the worst in the NHL over that time. Chicago is also down near the bottom but has won five of its last six contests.

In a game between two bad teams whose recent results are over their heads, we'll take better than 2-to-1 odds on something closer to a coin flip than the market suggests.

Pick: Blackhawks (play down to +200)

Avalanche (-105) @ Kraken (-115)

Unlike the bets above, this is less a numbers play and more about the situation. The Avalanche are coming off a win in Vancouver last night and will be turning to backup goaltender Pavel Francouz for their final road game until after the All-Star break. While Alexandar Georgiev boasts a plus-7.55 GSAx this season, Francouz has played just moderately.

The Avs' even-strength metrics have been average this campaign. Maybe their power play can be the difference against the Kraken's weak link - the penalty kill. But Seattle has consistently found ways to beat better opponents since the calendar turned to 2023.

Pick: Kraken (-115)

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.

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.

The NHL had its Christmas break, but with the season poised to resume, I've got a gift for you: a chance to complain.

The whole "peace on earth, goodwill toward men" thing is over for another year, so without further adieu, here's my rating for each team from now through the rest of the year. Perfect for something to grumble about.

How to read the ratings:

As usual, current standings are meaningless. That shootout win your favorite team earned in October doesn't help win games in February. This is not about ranking teams to this point; it's about who will be profitable from Dec. 27 to April 14.

A rating of 1.00 represents a league-average team. If your favorite team gets a higher rating - a 1.05, for example - that club can be expected to be 5% better than a league-average team from here on out. In turn, squads rated at 0.95 are expected to be 5% worse than the average team. In betting terms, a team that's 5% better than its opponent would be -111 on the moneyline before a sportsbook applies the vigorish.

The left column shows where teams stood before the season. The column on the right illustrates how perceptions have changed and expectations going forward.

The recipe

We started the campaign using regular-season point totals as a baseline for rating teams since it's still our best measurement. Throughout the campaign, we'll 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 © 2022 Score Media Ventures Inc. All rights reserved. Certain content reproduced under license.