1st Inning Wagers: Profitable Or Degenerate Special?

I want to preface this blog by stating this is not an attack on you as a bettor if you play 1st inning wagers.

I'm going to admit a little bit of ignorance on this subject. I did not know first inning wagers existed until I started participating in the MLB Forum. More specifically, the "Will there be a score in the 1st inning?" wager.

I see them posted quite frequently in the forums, but after analyzing the odds, they seem awfully tough to gauge and win at over an extended period of time.

It's a juiced coin flip in my opinion. I've read statistics which grade the 1st inning, the 5th inning and the 9th inning as the innings which produce the most runs regardless of who's on the hill which makes the yes/no bet that much more difficult.

Take, for example, Felix Hernandez. Most of his "Will there be a score in the 1st inning?" wagers have been juiced heavily on the "No" side of the depending on the level of his opponent. Being a Mariners fan, I've seen Felix be a hit or miss in the 1st inning before settling into the game. So, what makes someone want to pay -160 vigorish on the "No" side of this bet? Conversely, who wants to roll the dice on the "Yes" side when he's more than capable of going 1-2-3 and the bet is over? He's usually paired against another ace, so 6 quick outs seem very likely to bet the "Yes" side. More over, one quick, fluke homerun could also end the wager on the "No" side.

Why not choose a 5 inning line or full game line?

I'm probably answering my own question as this being a supremely degenerate wager, but I want to know the thoughts and opinions on those who play these frequently and those who stay completely away. Do you have a calculated way of betting these, or is this simply a quick chase or action wager?

Let the discussion begin: Profitable or Degenerate Special?

i take 1st inning plays on occasion. It has been very profitable for me. The thing is you have to do your homework. Look at both pitchers past 10 starts. How deep do they usually go before they start giving up runs. Some guys give up runs immediately almost always and then settle down, while others start out blazing and fade late. Also look at the ballparks, is it pitcher friendly or hitter friendly. Last but not least, look at the opponents. Braves vs Padres will not likely yield a run in the 1st , while the bo sox vs yanks likely yields a run or two in the 1st.

I have only played it on tilt, so I'd have to say degenerate special.

I think "Degenerate Special" may be a bit strong (I guess that's the former bookie and current back/lay arbitrage trader), but this bet is definitely one for the book. It's target is gamblers (as opposed to disciplined pros) that bet for action rather than profit. I don't suspect you'll find too many serious that regularly play the one inning line or consider it a route to profit. If any at all!

Personally, I wouldn't touch them as a trader, as they over no trade opportunities. My dream scenario is a game that goes 15+ innings and has 20+ lead changes!

Oh! And by the way....Hi SJP, I hope you've had a good week.

Best of luck!

Playing the 1st innings can be fun and profitable.  What I always do is always play the biggest dog for the group of games starting at a certain time.  The first bet I make is always very small, just for fun...if i lose the first, i start to chase, and i will double up on the biggest dog of the second group of games.  Usually, you win on the second or third game, i have lost 5 straight.  But, because you are playing dogs, and most of the public is betting huge on the favorites, you will eventually win one.  As long as you have a big bankroll, and start out very small...you will always grind out a small profit, and have fun doing it.

 

I think it's like any other bet if and when it loses how do you react to the next one so on and so forth. It being a prop also lower your limits to how much you can win too so. But in the long run as like any other type of bet selection, what have you, like most everyone has pointed out, money management helps a lot. If I had to choose one way or another it can be profitable in certain spots/occasions like anything else.

 

Love the first inning plays!

Will there be a score in the 1st inning is NOTHING MORE than a degenerate bet, IMHO. That doesn't mean you're a degen if you make those bets. It just means that the books profit HUGE off of these 'cause many degens like to make these bets in hopes of some quick cash (especially by taking the easy-looking no-score with 2 aces on the mound).

That said, I'm 8-2 in them this year. However, mine all had some sort of stat, trend, etc to back it up.

1st inn bet is quick payoff, If you good at it, you can double or tripple your money without waiting for these slow moving baseball games.............

A couple of Sundays back, with game times staggered throughout the day, I played four YES bets throughout the day and they all hit. I think betting yes has room to play it consistently, since you're looking to go .500 at worst to profit, since it's almost always + money to bet yes. Betting no is just dangerous, as it's usually -150 or worse when two good pitchers are on the mound. You really want to pay big juice and witness this sequence in a Mariner/Padre game?

"Suzuki singled. Ryan struck out. Suzuki stole 2nd, throwing error by catcher, Suzuki to 3rd. Kennedy grounded out. Smoak struck out swinging, reached on wild pitch, Suzuki scores. Cust struck out looking."

I don't.

I keep track of every team's first inning score along with the pitchers! Haven't bet it during the interleague play. They way I use it with a very small starting stake is I use it in a chase system starting at the beginning of a series. It is a crazy prop,but as they say it's a game of %'s. So I play teams that are 60% or higher of either yes  or no and start the chase!

So, aside from Weeble, most use some sort of chase system with these?

I do when i play them.  But i also use a chase system in all of my betting.  Its slow, and a grind, but every month is a nice little profit.

Both early games today are case in point...


Jays/Phils: 1st-inning no-score looked FAIRLY easy, IMO. Even if it wasn't...the result hurt those who bet it. Bottom of the 1st saw a 2-out, 2-run double.

Sox/Cubs: A "should have been" DP turns into a runner reaching and then the Sox scoring on a sac fly.

If you can pick and choose spots to play the YES, then I think it can become profitable. As I said, I'm 8-2 on them this season but at least half of my wins came on the YES.

Are there some sportsbooks that dont have 30 cent lines on these bets? every time i've looked at these bets in the past it's always somethin like NO -140  YES +110. I think they're bad bets in the long run

Good point.

The two early games also illustrate the point that wagering on a single inning is a complete crap shoot.

I've read a few messages about chase 1st inning "systems." Chasing, in general and especially on these, seems like a recipe for disaster.

These wagers aren't even available at all sportsbooks let alone for reduced vig.

The vig on a coin toss bet with odds @ -140 & +110 is actually only 3.79% and nowhere near 30%.

sd/seat no run is juiced at -155 to much for me but i would think no runs would hit in that game today.

i said 30 cent not 30% tho but whats 3.79? how you get that?

I have a friend who plays these and he is 32-17 on the year. I do believe that he only started in May something.  He went 5-0 on them last night.  He uses a site that calculates 1st inning runs on all teams and I do believe he back tested a "system" of sort.

In any case, I do not play them often. I may tail him on a couple here and there, but for the majority not for me.

 
So you did!

The 3.79% comes from a straight forward calculation. You work out how much you'd have to put on each possible outcome in an event to guarantee a return of 100 (Not a profit, but a return.).

With odds of -140, you'd have to place 58.333 on to guarantee a return of 100.

With odds of +110, you'd have to place 45.454 on to guarantee a return of 100.

Add these two numbers together from the two possible outcomes and you have the over-round. With the odds in this example, the over-round totals 103.79. This means, that with a perfectly balanced book (identical liabilities on either side), for every 103.79 the book takes 3.79 is profit regardless of the outcome.

I hope I've explained that in a way that makes sense?

Best of luck

UK Crunch - calculations slightly wrong.  U need to place more than 45.454 to guarantee 100 at +110.  (Check ur math).  I calculate vig as 6.0% (depends what u consider "true" line) - and the expected loss per every $ bet at -0.071 to -0.063 (again depends on what u consider "true" line).

Agree???

Yes, you're right, kvs. +110 goes 47.62 %, making the over-round on that book 105.95%. I thought 3.8 looked a bit skinny for those numbers. I'm more used to working with fractional odds or nowadays decimal odds. US odds always confuse me and I have to convert them first.

good thread and discussion here...