As of this morning there have been 604 games played in the regular season.
179 of hem have been 1 run games, only 29.6%
So less than a third of all games are 1 run games. Now, if we assume that the standard rule of favorites hitting 57% is accurate, would that not tell us that probably the +1.5 benefitted the dog only 102 times? The math then tells us there is only a 17% chance the +1.5 will help. That is less than 1 in 5 times.
According to the current odds at 5Dimes, the +135 dogs have an average line of -136.33 and the same dogs on the money line have an average of +115. That is an average of 51.33 cents or a 25.7% disadvantage.
So, is it sensible to accept a 25.7% disadvantage for an occurrence that happens about less than 1 in 5 games?
I think not but am open minded. I think people that utilize the +1.5 run line are out to build their W/L record, but in baseball the W/L is irrelevant, it is the profit (ROI) that matters.
Respectfully submitted, and I would request respectful discussion, not b.s.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
As of this morning there have been 604 games played in the regular season.
179 of hem have been 1 run games, only 29.6%
So less than a third of all games are 1 run games. Now, if we assume that the standard rule of favorites hitting 57% is accurate, would that not tell us that probably the +1.5 benefitted the dog only 102 times? The math then tells us there is only a 17% chance the +1.5 will help. That is less than 1 in 5 times.
According to the current odds at 5Dimes, the +135 dogs have an average line of -136.33 and the same dogs on the money line have an average of +115. That is an average of 51.33 cents or a 25.7% disadvantage.
So, is it sensible to accept a 25.7% disadvantage for an occurrence that happens about less than 1 in 5 games?
I think not but am open minded. I think people that utilize the +1.5 run line are out to build their W/L record, but in baseball the W/L is irrelevant, it is the profit (ROI) that matters.
Respectfully submitted, and I would request respectful discussion, not b.s.
I'm actually surprised that the number of one run games is 29.6%. That's a bit higher that what I expected. As a rule of thumb though, I rarely ever take the +1.5 RL, unless it's a significant dog of +250 or more and I have to feel really good about their chances.
I'm actually surprised that the number of one run games is 29.6%. That's a bit higher that what I expected. As a rule of thumb though, I rarely ever take the +1.5 RL, unless it's a significant dog of +250 or more and I have to feel really good about their chances.
Posted: 2 minutes ago "Quote" I'm actually surprised that the number of one run games is 29.6%. That's a bit higher that what I expected. As a rule of thumb though, I rarely ever take the +1.5 RL, unless it's a significant dog of +250 or more and I have to feel really good about their chances.
I might make an exception of +1.5 and +$, if the dog were that big. On the opposite side of the debate is that I also hate to lay -1.5, just for reduced juice. I don't like to lay odds and runs in the same game.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
Posted: 2 minutes ago "Quote" I'm actually surprised that the number of one run games is 29.6%. That's a bit higher that what I expected. As a rule of thumb though, I rarely ever take the +1.5 RL, unless it's a significant dog of +250 or more and I have to feel really good about their chances.
I might make an exception of +1.5 and +$, if the dog were that big. On the opposite side of the debate is that I also hate to lay -1.5, just for reduced juice. I don't like to lay odds and runs in the same game.
I agree with emoney. The only time I even CONSIDER playing +1.5 is if it is still + juice. Thanks for the stats, Key. I rarely play +1.5/-1.5 but I will play -1 to shrink the juice a bit on heavier favorites.
I agree with emoney. The only time I even CONSIDER playing +1.5 is if it is still + juice. Thanks for the stats, Key. I rarely play +1.5/-1.5 but I will play -1 to shrink the juice a bit on heavier favorites.
30% has been about right historically. The key stat for RL favs (-1.5) is how often they win by EXACTLY one run. Everything else is irrelevant. For RL dogs, this is only appropriate when used in tandem with other bets or in arbitrage - which is now more likely due to yesterday's SCOTUS ruling.
30% has been about right historically. The key stat for RL favs (-1.5) is how often they win by EXACTLY one run. Everything else is irrelevant. For RL dogs, this is only appropriate when used in tandem with other bets or in arbitrage - which is now more likely due to yesterday's SCOTUS ruling.
Key - I don't think I commented in your thread for 3 years - but always read it.
Keep up great work and keep avoiding trolls.
I know a guy who crushed betting +1.5
The juice is 10 cents (or he got that line). Do you think any recreational bettor ever wants to bet SHITTY PITCHER +1.5 vs Kershaw, Verlander, Strausburg, etc.
Maybe what you saying is true for this year - but I guarantee the +1.5 is better than the -1.5.
I would argue for one the 57% can't be applied to these games.
Every game that is 10 run or 9 run or 8 run difference is PROBABLY the favorite more than 57% of time - so that means in the closer games they win less than 57%. This would actually MORE SUPPORT your argument. Point is broad stroke math can't be applied. And obvioulsy using -135 across board doesn't make sense either.
I love your thought process here - but I am highly confident (90%+) you are off base here.
Key - I don't think I commented in your thread for 3 years - but always read it.
Keep up great work and keep avoiding trolls.
I know a guy who crushed betting +1.5
The juice is 10 cents (or he got that line). Do you think any recreational bettor ever wants to bet SHITTY PITCHER +1.5 vs Kershaw, Verlander, Strausburg, etc.
Maybe what you saying is true for this year - but I guarantee the +1.5 is better than the -1.5.
I would argue for one the 57% can't be applied to these games.
Every game that is 10 run or 9 run or 8 run difference is PROBABLY the favorite more than 57% of time - so that means in the closer games they win less than 57%. This would actually MORE SUPPORT your argument. Point is broad stroke math can't be applied. And obvioulsy using -135 across board doesn't make sense either.
I love your thought process here - but I am highly confident (90%+) you are off base here.
kvs23- Long and complicated would be the result of debating the point. I don't think my view/perception is very far off at all.
Regarding your buddy that made a lot of money betting +1.5: Did he track how many of the winners were outright winners, and the +1.5 had nothing to do with it? Did he chart how well he would have done just betting the dogs at +$ odds? He may have won fewer games but more money, and that is the point of the exercise. Sounds to me like the guy was just a great dog picker in the first place, because the mathematics of +1.5 at negative odds don't make sense. There is no such hing as a free lunch, and all forms of exotic betting carry heavier juice than straight action.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
kvs23- Long and complicated would be the result of debating the point. I don't think my view/perception is very far off at all.
Regarding your buddy that made a lot of money betting +1.5: Did he track how many of the winners were outright winners, and the +1.5 had nothing to do with it? Did he chart how well he would have done just betting the dogs at +$ odds? He may have won fewer games but more money, and that is the point of the exercise. Sounds to me like the guy was just a great dog picker in the first place, because the mathematics of +1.5 at negative odds don't make sense. There is no such hing as a free lunch, and all forms of exotic betting carry heavier juice than straight action.
There is NO more juice on the exotic - he is 20 cents wide. For the LAD game he is -110 on the -1.5 and +1.5.
The spread is the juice - same as game lines (unless you have dime lines).
Regardless my point is this is standard -110 on each side effectively - and the majority of people take -1.5s.
Just look at taking -1.5 and taking +1.5 for every game for last 10 years - probably both are losers (obviously) but willing to bet A LOT that the -1.5 has lost 3x ROI/$ than +1.5
There is NO more juice on the exotic - he is 20 cents wide. For the LAD game he is -110 on the -1.5 and +1.5.
The spread is the juice - same as game lines (unless you have dime lines).
Regardless my point is this is standard -110 on each side effectively - and the majority of people take -1.5s.
Just look at taking -1.5 and taking +1.5 for every game for last 10 years - probably both are losers (obviously) but willing to bet A LOT that the -1.5 has lost 3x ROI/$ than +1.5
You might be making different argument which is if you like dog - just bet ML and not RL.
That might be true - but doesn't make sense as blanket dogs and blanket favorites probably roughly same losing amount over 10 years where the RL bets are not.
You might be making different argument which is if you like dog - just bet ML and not RL.
That might be true - but doesn't make sense as blanket dogs and blanket favorites probably roughly same losing amount over 10 years where the RL bets are not.
Posted: 4 hours ago "Quote" I just pulled up my local site.SDG +100COL -120SDG +1.5 -160COL -1.5 +140There is NO more juice on the exotic - he is 20 cents wide. For the LAD game he is -110 on the -1.5 and +1.5.The spread is the juice - same as game lines (unless you have dime lines).Regardless my point is this is standard -110 on each side effectively - and the majority of people take -1.5s.Just look at taking -1.5 and taking +1.5 for every game for last 10 years - probably both are losers (obviously) but willing to bet A LOT that the -1.5 has lost 3x ROI/$ than +1.5
OK, your local has 20 cent lines on the money line. If you are foolish enough to pay it you can do that. By paying extra for the money line you do not increase the value of the run line, you simply add expense to the money line, making it of less value. You also have chosen one game as an example to make a point for many. One game is the smallest possible sample size and poorest example of anything. Stop embarrassing yourself by exposing your lack of knowledge about gambling mathematics.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
Posted: 4 hours ago "Quote" I just pulled up my local site.SDG +100COL -120SDG +1.5 -160COL -1.5 +140There is NO more juice on the exotic - he is 20 cents wide. For the LAD game he is -110 on the -1.5 and +1.5.The spread is the juice - same as game lines (unless you have dime lines).Regardless my point is this is standard -110 on each side effectively - and the majority of people take -1.5s.Just look at taking -1.5 and taking +1.5 for every game for last 10 years - probably both are losers (obviously) but willing to bet A LOT that the -1.5 has lost 3x ROI/$ than +1.5
OK, your local has 20 cent lines on the money line. If you are foolish enough to pay it you can do that. By paying extra for the money line you do not increase the value of the run line, you simply add expense to the money line, making it of less value. You also have chosen one game as an example to make a point for many. One game is the smallest possible sample size and poorest example of anything. Stop embarrassing yourself by exposing your lack of knowledge about gambling mathematics.
5/15/18 As of this morning there have been 604 games played in the regular season. 179 of hem have been 1 run games, only 29.6% So less than a third of all games are 1 run games. Now, if we assume that the standard rule of favorites hitting 57% is accurate, would that not tell us that probably the +1.5 benefitted the dog only 102 times?
I think you should find out the exact number of 1-run favorite won by the favorite.
Since the dog naturally isn't as good, I'm guessing that they win more of the 1-run games and less of the 1.5+ run games. So they'll win more than 43% of the 1-run games.
5/15/18 As of this morning there have been 604 games played in the regular season. 179 of hem have been 1 run games, only 29.6% So less than a third of all games are 1 run games. Now, if we assume that the standard rule of favorites hitting 57% is accurate, would that not tell us that probably the +1.5 benefitted the dog only 102 times?
I think you should find out the exact number of 1-run favorite won by the favorite.
Since the dog naturally isn't as good, I'm guessing that they win more of the 1-run games and less of the 1.5+ run games. So they'll win more than 43% of the 1-run games.
I haven't placed a +1 1/2 baseball wager this century. For years I played -1 1/2 visiting teams only, if I played a home team it was ML only, usually eating a bit of juice,and that just gets to me after a while. About 3 years ago I switched to -1 for every bet. It opened up home teams for me at + money, and I am clearing a little bit higher % of return (not a whole lot, but some) in the long run than I did with the old -1 1/2 method I used to use.
I haven't placed a +1 1/2 baseball wager this century. For years I played -1 1/2 visiting teams only, if I played a home team it was ML only, usually eating a bit of juice,and that just gets to me after a while. About 3 years ago I switched to -1 for every bet. It opened up home teams for me at + money, and I am clearing a little bit higher % of return (not a whole lot, but some) in the long run than I did with the old -1 1/2 method I used to use.
When favorites win, they have won 73% of the time over 1.5 runs so far this year which is actually lower than last year (season ending) but pretty much around the same as previous year 72-73%
However dogs dont have to win do win RL so.. Dogs have won 55% of the time whether SU or by losing less than -1.5 runs which is actually the lowest it has been in the past 4 years. (previous years 56-58%).. so RL has helped them win 27% more by playing dogs on RL
However away Dog RLs hit at 58% while Home Dogs hit at only 50%.. (still lower than previous years in both instances()
When favorites win, they have won 73% of the time over 1.5 runs so far this year which is actually lower than last year (season ending) but pretty much around the same as previous year 72-73%
However dogs dont have to win do win RL so.. Dogs have won 55% of the time whether SU or by losing less than -1.5 runs which is actually the lowest it has been in the past 4 years. (previous years 56-58%).. so RL has helped them win 27% more by playing dogs on RL
However away Dog RLs hit at 58% while Home Dogs hit at only 50%.. (still lower than previous years in both instances()
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.