tongiht I put 400 on the sf to win and if they do I win 510. I also bet 400 on the rockies -1.5 if they win by more than 1 I get 600. So as long the favorite team doesn't win by one point I will either win 200 or 100. So I was thinking about finding other tight lines like this and doing the same thing because I'm only giving the book one number and I get all the rest. However if I do hit the dreaded one point win then I lose 800 which would suck. Anyone else ever tried this out? So far sf is up 7-0 tonite looking like i win one hundred.
my new strategy is it good or bad?
- Thread starter bdelong5
- Start date
ensign_lee
EOG Addicted
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
It's a losing play long term.
You essentially laid -800 that the favorite wouldn't win by 1 run. To break even, this has to not occur 8 times out of 9. Now, think about that.
It's a losing play long term.
You essentially laid -800 that the favorite wouldn't win by 1 run. To break even, this has to not occur 8 times out of 9. Now, think about that.
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
This is an issue I've long considered. In the middle of 2006, I finally did an analysis.
I considered middles, where you take one team +1.5 runs and the other to win. Here you lose a small amount generally and win big on a one run win by the right team.
I also consider the opposite that I called edges (this is what bdelong5 did). This is where you take one team -1.5 runs and the other to win. Here both bets are more than +100, so normally you make a small profit. If the wrong team wins by one run, then you lose both and take a big hit.
Turned out there were opportunities both ways. Obviously it depends on the interaction of the available lines and probability that the game will end with a one run win by either team.
Over the last half of 2006 I found two to four positive situations a day. For that period I was able to return 2.9%. But that was higher than the theoretical return, as the number of one run games during that period was lower than normal.
I am going to redo the analysis in the next few weeks looking to confirm and maybe fine tune.
Bottom line, there is opportunity, but identifying it is not straight forward.
This is an issue I've long considered. In the middle of 2006, I finally did an analysis.
I considered middles, where you take one team +1.5 runs and the other to win. Here you lose a small amount generally and win big on a one run win by the right team.
I also consider the opposite that I called edges (this is what bdelong5 did). This is where you take one team -1.5 runs and the other to win. Here both bets are more than +100, so normally you make a small profit. If the wrong team wins by one run, then you lose both and take a big hit.
Turned out there were opportunities both ways. Obviously it depends on the interaction of the available lines and probability that the game will end with a one run win by either team.
Over the last half of 2006 I found two to four positive situations a day. For that period I was able to return 2.9%. But that was higher than the theoretical return, as the number of one run games during that period was lower than normal.
I am going to redo the analysis in the next few weeks looking to confirm and maybe fine tune.
Bottom line, there is opportunity, but identifying it is not straight forward.
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
The 2.9% was a blended number of both. Using the -1.5 runline I returned 2.2%. Using the +1.5 runline (and looking for a middle) I returned 22%.
But be careful with these numbers, because I made about 25 times as many -1.5 runline wagers. The sample on the +1.5 runline was very small, and hence the results represent much luck.
Also, I just picked off the top choices, and as I said before, during that period there were a lower incidence of one run games than expected. By the way so far this year there has been a higher incidence. Part of my next study would be to look at these results by month over the last 10 years to see if there is a trend.
The 2.9% was a blended number of both. Using the -1.5 runline I returned 2.2%. Using the +1.5 runline (and looking for a middle) I returned 22%.
But be careful with these numbers, because I made about 25 times as many -1.5 runline wagers. The sample on the +1.5 runline was very small, and hence the results represent much luck.
Also, I just picked off the top choices, and as I said before, during that period there were a lower incidence of one run games than expected. By the way so far this year there has been a higher incidence. Part of my next study would be to look at these results by month over the last 10 years to see if there is a trend.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
Fox, how about the second strategy of playing the +1.5 and trying to catch both? One side would have to hit every time, and you're playing middles off the fave winning by 1 run. Was that included in your strategy? The one I see most often attempted is the -1.5, and hope they don't win by just 1 run. That's too stressful for me, but the true middle might be interesting.
Fox, how about the second strategy of playing the +1.5 and trying to catch both? One side would have to hit every time, and you're playing middles off the fave winning by 1 run. Was that included in your strategy? The one I see most often attempted is the -1.5, and hope they don't win by just 1 run. That's too stressful for me, but the true middle might be interesting.
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
What you have described is a Polish Middle, and this is a losing proposition.
If this was profitable then don't you think that it would be allowed. Same thing could have been done with the drop down menu at Pinnacle.
Remember- when something looks to good to be true. . .. it probably is.
Do you normally lay -800 odds on things?
What you have described is a Polish Middle, and this is a losing proposition.
If this was profitable then don't you think that it would be allowed. Same thing could have been done with the drop down menu at Pinnacle.
Remember- when something looks to good to be true. . .. it probably is.
Do you normally lay -800 odds on things?
munson15
I want winners...
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
The figures quoted above equal a little less than 1 in 6 faves winning by 1 run. So the -800 scenario is certainly bad news.
The figures quoted above equal a little less than 1 in 6 faves winning by 1 run. So the -800 scenario is certainly bad news.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
I agree that -800 is a bad way to go, but playing for sides and middles is allowed, and I've made a lot of money that way over the years.
I agree that -800 is a bad way to go, but playing for sides and middles is allowed, and I've made a lot of money that way over the years.
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
Munson I don't understand what you mean by playing for sides and middles. You mean you take the the dog to cover the +1.5 and you take the the favorite to win outright so if the favorite does win by one then both win and no matter what your losses each day wouldn't be that big and you would be hoping for a one run win so you could double up.
Munson I don't understand what you mean by playing for sides and middles. You mean you take the the dog to cover the +1.5 and you take the the favorite to win outright so if the favorite does win by one then both win and no matter what your losses each day wouldn't be that big and you would be hoping for a one run win so you could double up.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
Not to beat a dead horse, but wouldn't the discrepancy between home faves winning by 1 run and road faves winning by 1 run be key to this? I know the run lines are tilted to take into account the home team only batting for 8 innings when ahead. This is directed to those who haven't already dismissed the strategy altogether.
Not to beat a dead horse, but wouldn't the discrepancy between home faves winning by 1 run and road faves winning by 1 run be key to this? I know the run lines are tilted to take into account the home team only batting for 8 innings when ahead. This is directed to those who haven't already dismissed the strategy altogether.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
Playing for sides and middles is something I've always done to some extent in baskets and football w/ success. Not getting rich, but always coming out ahead. For instance, this basketball season, I'm up $1931 on sides and middles. That's based on $100 bets both ways on games where I have 2 chances to win. Example would be Det.-7, and NY +8.
After reading the beginning post here, I was hoping to find a way to use a similar method in baseball. The way you laid it out is exactly what I'm talking about, but the run lines and odds will be much different depending on whether the road or home team is favored, I believe.
Playing for sides and middles is something I've always done to some extent in baskets and football w/ success. Not getting rich, but always coming out ahead. For instance, this basketball season, I'm up $1931 on sides and middles. That's based on $100 bets both ways on games where I have 2 chances to win. Example would be Det.-7, and NY +8.
After reading the beginning post here, I was hoping to find a way to use a similar method in baseball. The way you laid it out is exactly what I'm talking about, but the run lines and odds will be much different depending on whether the road or home team is favored, I believe.
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
Munson, you are correct about the key. One needs to know the probability of each team winning, plus the probability that the win will be by exactly one run. If one knows these probabilities and the lines, then you can compute the expected return for any bet, or combination of bets.
The money line is an excellent source for the probability of each team winning. Now the question becomes what is their chance of winning by exactly one run?
ULPAFOX's data suggests the favorites win by one run 15% of the time. But that doesn't differentiate between road and home favorites. The home team wins by one run a higher percent of the time than the road team does. So one has to use two different factors in doing the analysis.
As to your basketball middles, you do have a valid strategy. However, setting a difference in lines of one point (like your example), is probably a long term loser. I did a lot of work on this several years ago and found the minimum to be a one and half point spread. In this case, the strategy will return a positve amount over time.
Munson, you are correct about the key. One needs to know the probability of each team winning, plus the probability that the win will be by exactly one run. If one knows these probabilities and the lines, then you can compute the expected return for any bet, or combination of bets.
The money line is an excellent source for the probability of each team winning. Now the question becomes what is their chance of winning by exactly one run?
ULPAFOX's data suggests the favorites win by one run 15% of the time. But that doesn't differentiate between road and home favorites. The home team wins by one run a higher percent of the time than the road team does. So one has to use two different factors in doing the analysis.
As to your basketball middles, you do have a valid strategy. However, setting a difference in lines of one point (like your example), is probably a long term loser. I did a lot of work on this several years ago and found the minimum to be a one and half point spread. In this case, the strategy will return a positve amount over time.
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
By the way, the reason the home team wins a higher percentage of games by exactly one run is obvious with a little thought.
Take games that are tied in the ninth or extra innings. If the visitors score, they keep batting until the inning is out. So they could score one or more runs.
If the home team scores the game is over. Most times this would be one run (except for walk off homers with men on base). Hence more one run wins by the home team.
By the way, the reason the home team wins a higher percentage of games by exactly one run is obvious with a little thought.
Take games that are tied in the ninth or extra innings. If the visitors score, they keep batting until the inning is out. So they could score one or more runs.
If the home team scores the game is over. Most times this would be one run (except for walk off homers with men on base). Hence more one run wins by the home team.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
I have a hard time believing it's a losing proposition, because my actual experience has been positive. Additionally, you may not have taken into account that I am playing at -105 juice on many of the situations.
I have a hard time believing it's a losing proposition, because my actual experience has been positive. Additionally, you may not have taken into account that I am playing at -105 juice on many of the situations.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
Long term, I agree. But the original post is not what I'm talking about now. What I'm trying to do is isolate a +1.5 run line visitor playing against a home team (which is more likely to win by 1 run) and middling there. The key would be finding the percentage of home faves winning by exactly 1 run. We already know from the research quoted above that 15% is the number overall. Probably not viable, but interesting enough to prove one way or another.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
Ulpafox, thanks again for the info. Would love to know if a breakdown of home/road is possible.
Ulpafox, thanks again for the info. Would love to know if a breakdown of home/road is possible.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
If the numbers back up that opinion, zero, I completely agree. But think about narrowing down the situation to where, you only take road teams +1.5, and then play only low-run games (o/u less than 9 runs, for argument's sake) with the expectation of less scoring combinations. If that fails the test, then no need to discuss further. I'm asking here because I don't have the computer acumen to come up w/ the figures on my own. I appreciate every poster weighing in on this, bdelong got my attention because I've had some luck playing middles and sides in the NFL and baskets.
If the numbers back up that opinion, zero, I completely agree. But think about narrowing down the situation to where, you only take road teams +1.5, and then play only low-run games (o/u less than 9 runs, for argument's sake) with the expectation of less scoring combinations. If that fails the test, then no need to discuss further. I'm asking here because I don't have the computer acumen to come up w/ the figures on my own. I appreciate every poster weighing in on this, bdelong got my attention because I've had some luck playing middles and sides in the NFL and baskets.
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
Munson, at -105 then your strategy is profitable. There was a pretty long thread on this at another board in February which pretty much covers the subject. I'm not sure it's appropriate to point at another boards thread, so I won't do it. But maybe you can find it.
Munson, at -105 then your strategy is profitable. There was a pretty long thread on this at another board in February which pretty much covers the subject. I'm not sure it's appropriate to point at another boards thread, so I won't do it. But maybe you can find it.
Re: my new strategy is it good or bad?
Although this is not how I wager games, if it works for you more power to
you. I think you'd end up busted by half way through the season. To myself, it makes more sense (and cents) to bet either sides or totals (for baseball). BOL with the choices you make.
Although this is not how I wager games, if it works for you more power to
you. I think you'd end up busted by half way through the season. To myself, it makes more sense (and cents) to bet either sides or totals (for baseball). BOL with the choices you make.