What Happens If You Only Bet Underdogs All NHL Season?

The Math Case for Dogs

First, the math case for dogs. Underdogs don't need to win half the time to be profitable. A +150 dog only needs to win 40% to break even.

That's why dog strategies can work: you're trading frequency of wins for payout size.

The underdog math:

• +150 dog needs to win 40% to break even
• +120 dog needs to win 45.5% to break even
• +100 dog needs to win 50% to break even
• You're trading win frequency for payout size

This is why "only underdogs" can be a coherent strategy. You don't need to win half the time.

Hockey moves fast. So do our picks. The Content Lab has the angles you actually need.

Research Supports Underdog Pricing Can Be Favorable

There is research support for the idea that underdog pricing can be favorable in the NHL.

The NHL pricing and bias paper found that "betting all road underdogs" generated positive returns per dollar in its sample, and "betting road underdogs where favorite odds are -200 or greater" was even stronger, consistent with favorite prices being shaded too steeply in some ranges.

Separately, Sports Insights published system results showing that certain underdog subsets (e.g., visitors receiving 35% or less of moneyline bets and closing between +105 and +200) produced positive unit returns in their historical sample.

Again: not universal, but it shows that dog value can exist.

The research on underdogs:

• "Bet all road underdogs" generated positive returns
• Road underdogs where favorite is -200 or greater even stronger
• Visitors receiving 35% or less of bets closing +105 to +200 profitable
• Dog value exists in certain subsets

The data supports selective underdog betting. Not "all underdogs," but "underdogs when the favorite is overpriced."

Read more: NHL Betting: The Ultimate Guide for the 2025/2026 Hockey Season

Think you can predict the chaos? Try Gridzy and prove it. Build your grid. Call your shots. It's free.

The Case Against "Dogs Only"

Now the case against "dogs only." The problem is selection. Not all underdogs are created equal.

Some are true mismatches (bad team, tired, backup goalie, injuries).

Some are "pricing dogs" (solid team, just facing a popular opponent).

Some are "schedule dogs" (good team in a bad spot).

If you bet every dog blindly, you're mixing all three, and the first category can drown you.

The three types of underdogs:

• True mismatches (bad team, tired, backup, injuries) → avoid
• Pricing dogs (solid team vs popular opponent) → value
• Schedule dogs (good team in bad spot) → situational value

You also have to be honest about variance and streaks. A dog-only strategy will have longer losing streaks. Even if the strategy is positive EV, your bankroll and discipline can break before the edge pays out.

Before puck drop, check the Content Lab for the sharp side.

What Would Actually Happen Over a Season

So what would actually happen over a season?

1. You'd win fewer bets, but your wins would matter more: That's obvious, but many bettors underestimate how emotionally difficult it is. When you're 3-9 over two weeks, it feels like failure even if your three wins were +170, +160, +145 and you're near break-even.
2. You'd become very sensitive to price shopping: If you're living on plus money, small differences in price matter. Getting +155 instead of +145 is a big deal over hundreds of bets.
3. You'd need rules, or you'd be donating to the worst dogs: A workable "dogs-first" framework is not "bet all dogs." It's "bet dogs when one of these is true": The favorite is a public magnet (brand team) and the line is inflated. The dog has a rest and goalie edge. The dog is at home (home dogs win more often than road dogs in many samples). One home and away trends piece reported home underdogs winning 44.4% while away underdogs won 35.9% in its dataset, which is a meaningful gap if you're choosing where to concentrate dog exposure.
4. You'd probably end up preferring puck line +1.5 to moneyline: A lot of disciplined underdog bettors migrate to +1.5 because the distribution of NHL games makes "lose by 1" common, and covering +1.5 can cash often even when the dog loses. Many betting write-ups explicitly pitch puck-line underdogs as structurally appealing for that reason. This changes the profile from "dogs only" to "dogs with protection," which reduces variance.

If you're betting goalies and totals, start in the Content Lab.

The Emotional Difficulty of Longer Losing Streaks

When you're 3-9 over two weeks, it feels like failure even if your three wins were +170, +160, +145 and you're near break-even.

This is the emotional difficulty of underdog betting. You lose more often. It feels like you're doing something wrong.

The emotional challenge:

• 3-9 record feels like failure
• But three wins at +170, +160, +145 equals near break-even
• Public sees "30% win rate" and thinks you're losing
• You need discipline to ride out longer losing streaks

Most bettors can't handle this emotionally. They abandon the strategy after two bad weeks, even if the math supports it.

If you're feeling confident about tonight's slate, Gridzy is waiting.

Price Shopping Becomes Essential

If you're living on plus money, small differences in price matter. Getting +155 instead of +145 is a big deal over hundreds of bets.

Price shopping example:

• You bet 100 underdogs at +145 average
• Win 42 of them (42% win rate)
• Profit: 42 wins × $145 = $6,090 won, 58 losses × $100 = $5,800 lost
• Net profit: $290
• Now bet 100 underdogs at +155 average (same 42% win rate)
• Profit: 42 wins × $155 = $6,510 won, 58 losses × $100 = $5,800 lost
• Net profit: $710

That 10-cent difference in average price more than doubled your profit. Price shopping is essential for underdog strategies.

No puck tonight? Piggy Arcade's top casino picks are live.

The Workable "Dogs-First" Framework

A workable "dogs-first" framework is not "bet all dogs." It's "bet dogs when one of these is true."

The favorite is a public magnet (brand team) and the line is inflated.

The dog has a rest and goalie edge.

The dog is at home: Home dogs win more often than road dogs in many samples. One home and away trends piece reported home underdogs winning 44.4% while away underdogs won 35.9% in its dataset, which is a meaningful gap if you're choosing where to concentrate dog exposure.

The rules-based approach:

• Public magnet favorite (Leafs, Habs, Rangers) → line inflated
• Dog has rest and goalie edge → structural advantage
• Dog is at home → 44.4% win rate vs 35.9% on road
• Without rules, you're donating to worst dogs

If you can't point to one of these three reasons, don't bet the dog. You're gambling, not finding edge.

When the ice goes quiet, Piggy Arcade keeps the lights on. Switch from slapshots to slot spins in one click.

Puck Line +1.5 vs Moneyline

A lot of disciplined underdog bettors migrate to +1.5 because the distribution of NHL games makes "lose by 1" common, and covering +1.5 can cash often even when the dog loses.

Many betting write-ups explicitly pitch puck-line underdogs as structurally appealing for that reason. This changes the profile from "dogs only" to "dogs with protection," which reduces variance.

Puck line +1.5 advantages:

• "Lose by 1" is common in NHL (sudden death OT)
• +1.5 cashes even when dog loses by one goal
• Reduces variance (more frequent wins)
• Payout is smaller but hit rate is higher

If you're betting underdogs all season, puck line +1.5 is the smarter play than moneyline. You get protection and reduce variance.

The Bottom Line on Betting Only Underdogs

Betting only underdogs for an entire NHL season can be a coherent contrarian philosophy, and there's research consistent with the idea that certain underdog subsets (especially road dogs in specific favorite-price bands) have been profitable in historical samples.

But doing it blindly is more of a social experiment than a strategy. The profitable version is "dogs when the favorite is overpriced," not "dogs because dogs."