I am sure alot of you have heard of this .. betting the favorite on the run line (-1.5) at + money ..and betting the dog on the moneyline ....thus the only way you can lose the bet is if the favorite wins by exactly one run ..example
Yankees vs Bluejays
bet $100 on Yankees -1.5 +135
bet $100 on Bluejays ML at +140
Jays win you win 40 .. Yankees win by 2 or more you make $35.. Yankees win by exactly 1 you lose
For this to be profitable you need to win 90 -95% of the time.. anyone have any further idea's on how to avoid the 1 run fav wins ? ..Willing to do a lot of backtesting.. just looking for some fresh ideas on how to tweak this,...
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
I am sure alot of you have heard of this .. betting the favorite on the run line (-1.5) at + money ..and betting the dog on the moneyline ....thus the only way you can lose the bet is if the favorite wins by exactly one run ..example
Yankees vs Bluejays
bet $100 on Yankees -1.5 +135
bet $100 on Bluejays ML at +140
Jays win you win 40 .. Yankees win by 2 or more you make $35.. Yankees win by exactly 1 you lose
For this to be profitable you need to win 90 -95% of the time.. anyone have any further idea's on how to avoid the 1 run fav wins ? ..Willing to do a lot of backtesting.. just looking for some fresh ideas on how to tweak this,...
Are you sure you have to win 90-95% of the time? If that is the case, then move on, how are you going to tweek it to make that kind of money?
roughly.. but considering that THE only losing outcome is EXACTLY a 1 run win by the favorite... 90% is very realistic i haven'y done alot of testing yet, but so far it seems only about 2% of favorite wins are by 1 run ..and most of those are home faves.. so not playing the games where the home team is favored may be an improvement right there... another variable i have considered testing is the Over/under on the game... i.e .. i would think that games with a total of 8 would have a better chance of being a 1 run game , based on the expectancy of their being less runs total..these are the types of variables i am looking at..and am wondering if someone else have already done some of this work, or can suggest other variable that may facotr into a 1 run game...(bad weather ..a team in a scoring drought..etc..etc..)..the idea is to figure out who will win or lose..the only objective is to avoid 1 run victories by the favorite//
0
Quote Originally Posted by PatrickBateman:
Are you sure you have to win 90-95% of the time? If that is the case, then move on, how are you going to tweek it to make that kind of money?
roughly.. but considering that THE only losing outcome is EXACTLY a 1 run win by the favorite... 90% is very realistic i haven'y done alot of testing yet, but so far it seems only about 2% of favorite wins are by 1 run ..and most of those are home faves.. so not playing the games where the home team is favored may be an improvement right there... another variable i have considered testing is the Over/under on the game... i.e .. i would think that games with a total of 8 would have a better chance of being a 1 run game , based on the expectancy of their being less runs total..these are the types of variables i am looking at..and am wondering if someone else have already done some of this work, or can suggest other variable that may facotr into a 1 run game...(bad weather ..a team in a scoring drought..etc..etc..)..the idea is to figure out who will win or lose..the only objective is to avoid 1 run victories by the favorite//
Great..thanks ..so about 87% of the time the favorite didn't win by 1 ..about in the ballpark i thought.. i would also be willing to bet that a majority of those 68 times, it was a home favorite than won by 1.. i am going to do some reseach on this ..so far the list of factors i have to help avoid a 1 run favorite win are:
- Home Teams (better chance of a 1run victory in the bottom of the 9th)
- Recent form of the teams offense... i.e if the Yankees are averaging 10 runs per game in their past 3, and the Bluejays are averaging 3 runs per game, then i would think this would indicate lees chance of a 1 run game, than if both were averaging about the same
- Pitchers ERA - the closer the 2 era's , the better the chance of a 1 run game
- The total for the game - the lower the total line is set at the less runs are expected, therefore better chance of a 1 run game..
I am going to do some research to support these assumptions, but i think they generally make sense..
0
Great..thanks ..so about 87% of the time the favorite didn't win by 1 ..about in the ballpark i thought.. i would also be willing to bet that a majority of those 68 times, it was a home favorite than won by 1.. i am going to do some reseach on this ..so far the list of factors i have to help avoid a 1 run favorite win are:
- Home Teams (better chance of a 1run victory in the bottom of the 9th)
- Recent form of the teams offense... i.e if the Yankees are averaging 10 runs per game in their past 3, and the Bluejays are averaging 3 runs per game, then i would think this would indicate lees chance of a 1 run game, than if both were averaging about the same
- Pitchers ERA - the closer the 2 era's , the better the chance of a 1 run game
- The total for the game - the lower the total line is set at the less runs are expected, therefore better chance of a 1 run game..
I am going to do some research to support these assumptions, but i think they generally make sense..
- Pitchers ERA - the closer the 2 era's , the better the chance of a 1 run game
- The total for the game - the lower the total line is set at the less runs are expected, therefore better chance of a 1 run game..
I am going to do some research to support these assumptions, but i think they generally make sense..
My opinion is you might be able to make this work but your rational might be a little off here. A sportsbook director once told me when I asked him why the NL runline price was always lower than similar AL numbers that the less runs scored, the more likely they game is won by 2 or more. It sounds wrong at first but consider the possibilities. Say you got Santana vs Lincecum and the total is 6.5. If they score is 1-0 2-1 or 3-2 you'd lose by one run. But the other outcomes of this game going under are scores of 2-0 2-1 3-0 3-1 4-0 4-1 4-2 5-0 5-1 and 6-0. so out of the 12 possible outcomes, 10 of these scores would give you a win by more than one run. If a game goes over or has alot of runs scored then the outcomes are endless. The score could be anywhere from 4-3 to 22-21, the more runs scored the better chance for a one run game since there is virtually no limit to the possible outcomes.
I don't know if blindly betting a system like this would make money over the course of a season no matter what approach you take, but I think if your capping games and find situations where you think a total goes under, then playing this one run method could be useful.
0
Quote Originally Posted by neilsy25:
- Pitchers ERA - the closer the 2 era's , the better the chance of a 1 run game
- The total for the game - the lower the total line is set at the less runs are expected, therefore better chance of a 1 run game..
I am going to do some research to support these assumptions, but i think they generally make sense..
My opinion is you might be able to make this work but your rational might be a little off here. A sportsbook director once told me when I asked him why the NL runline price was always lower than similar AL numbers that the less runs scored, the more likely they game is won by 2 or more. It sounds wrong at first but consider the possibilities. Say you got Santana vs Lincecum and the total is 6.5. If they score is 1-0 2-1 or 3-2 you'd lose by one run. But the other outcomes of this game going under are scores of 2-0 2-1 3-0 3-1 4-0 4-1 4-2 5-0 5-1 and 6-0. so out of the 12 possible outcomes, 10 of these scores would give you a win by more than one run. If a game goes over or has alot of runs scored then the outcomes are endless. The score could be anywhere from 4-3 to 22-21, the more runs scored the better chance for a one run game since there is virtually no limit to the possible outcomes.
I don't know if blindly betting a system like this would make money over the course of a season no matter what approach you take, but I think if your capping games and find situations where you think a total goes under, then playing this one run method could be useful.
I looked at the yankees as an example real quick here. They were favored 140 times and won 20 games by one run as someone stated above. That basically gives them a a win percentage of .857. If you only played them when they were on the road (where they were more likely to go under, they were guaranteed their 9 innings of at bats and were favored by at least -110) the record is 53-3 for a win percentage of .946. The problem here, and this is without seeing the exact numbers, when they were favored by outrageous numbers like -260 or whatever, you'd also be laying money on the runline. So if they won by 2+ runs you'd be breaking even on your 2 bets instead of coming out ahead. You'd win some of those games with the dogs being +200 or more but you'd win more often with the yankees runline and get something like +120 - +140. So when you win you get a quarter of a unit roughly, but when you lose, you lose 2 units. So last year you would have made a profit but if 2 more games don't go your way and they end something like 51-5 this isn't going to make you anything for the most part. Too much risk here to do it consistently in my opinion.
This is just from looking at the yankees. Maybe every team in this situation is around the 95% mark but anything less than that and you're losing money or risking alot over the course of a season to barely turn a profit.
0
I looked at the yankees as an example real quick here. They were favored 140 times and won 20 games by one run as someone stated above. That basically gives them a a win percentage of .857. If you only played them when they were on the road (where they were more likely to go under, they were guaranteed their 9 innings of at bats and were favored by at least -110) the record is 53-3 for a win percentage of .946. The problem here, and this is without seeing the exact numbers, when they were favored by outrageous numbers like -260 or whatever, you'd also be laying money on the runline. So if they won by 2+ runs you'd be breaking even on your 2 bets instead of coming out ahead. You'd win some of those games with the dogs being +200 or more but you'd win more often with the yankees runline and get something like +120 - +140. So when you win you get a quarter of a unit roughly, but when you lose, you lose 2 units. So last year you would have made a profit but if 2 more games don't go your way and they end something like 51-5 this isn't going to make you anything for the most part. Too much risk here to do it consistently in my opinion.
This is just from looking at the yankees. Maybe every team in this situation is around the 95% mark but anything less than that and you're losing money or risking alot over the course of a season to barely turn a profit.
Maybe play the system ONLY when the road team is the fav... then you take them by -1.5 and the home dog on the ML and you negate the 1-run win coming in the bottom of the 9th.
And as with any case of betting two sides of one bet (arbing), there is always an optimal price for both bets to ensure the most return.
0
Maybe play the system ONLY when the road team is the fav... then you take them by -1.5 and the home dog on the ML and you negate the 1-run win coming in the bottom of the 9th.
And as with any case of betting two sides of one bet (arbing), there is always an optimal price for both bets to ensure the most return.
Maybe play the system ONLY when the road team is the fav... then you take them by -1.5 and the home dog on the ML and you negate the 1-run win coming in the bottom of the 9th.
And as with any case of betting two sides of one bet (arbing), there is always an optimal price for both bets to ensure the most return.
That sounds good in theory but if the team you have on the runline wins 6-5, you lose. If there was a way to guarantee we'd hit 95% of plays then this would be great but I can't see how you can do that.
The other problem is you arent ensuring any return if the favorite wins by 1 run, you're not guaranteed to hit one of your bets here. You can lose them both. If you lose you're basically looking at as many 6-8 wins just to get back your losses. But before those 6-8 wins come in you might lose again, now your going to need 15 bets or so just to get even. I think you'd be better off looking just to play live dogs everyday. You wouldnt need to go 95% to make money.
Just my opinion.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dj_destroyer:
Maybe play the system ONLY when the road team is the fav... then you take them by -1.5 and the home dog on the ML and you negate the 1-run win coming in the bottom of the 9th.
And as with any case of betting two sides of one bet (arbing), there is always an optimal price for both bets to ensure the most return.
That sounds good in theory but if the team you have on the runline wins 6-5, you lose. If there was a way to guarantee we'd hit 95% of plays then this would be great but I can't see how you can do that.
The other problem is you arent ensuring any return if the favorite wins by 1 run, you're not guaranteed to hit one of your bets here. You can lose them both. If you lose you're basically looking at as many 6-8 wins just to get back your losses. But before those 6-8 wins come in you might lose again, now your going to need 15 bets or so just to get even. I think you'd be better off looking just to play live dogs everyday. You wouldnt need to go 95% to make money.
Wally..generally i am starting to agree with you.. i narrowed it down to faves of -160 or more, because any favorite of less (-110--150) would not pay enough on the run line to make it worthwhile...so checking back 5 years the numbers are pretty similar...generally about 600 games that fit, with about 90 or so 1 run fave wins..about 15% ..as well, the road faves only have a slightly higher chance of not being one run ,..about 87%..so no real value there..am looking at a few more angles, but if find no real edge..will move on to the next plan..
0
Wally..generally i am starting to agree with you.. i narrowed it down to faves of -160 or more, because any favorite of less (-110--150) would not pay enough on the run line to make it worthwhile...so checking back 5 years the numbers are pretty similar...generally about 600 games that fit, with about 90 or so 1 run fave wins..about 15% ..as well, the road faves only have a slightly higher chance of not being one run ,..about 87%..so no real value there..am looking at a few more angles, but if find no real edge..will move on to the next plan..
Wally..generally i am starting to agree with you.. i narrowed it down to faves of -160 or more, because any favorite of less (-110--150) would not pay enough on the run line to make it worthwhile...
The runline would give you a higher number on a -110 favorite than it would a -160. But you'd lose some value on the dog winning outright.
0
Quote Originally Posted by neilsy25:
Wally..generally i am starting to agree with you.. i narrowed it down to faves of -160 or more, because any favorite of less (-110--150) would not pay enough on the run line to make it worthwhile...
The runline would give you a higher number on a -110 favorite than it would a -160. But you'd lose some value on the dog winning outright.
Obviously the goal of this system is to minimize the number of favorites winning one run games.
The best way to do this would be to bet games with heavy favorites / dogs (which should result in a larger run differential), but then you minimze your profits playing the favorites.
I suggest refining the information provided by robwalton to determine the optimal moneylines that result in the fewest one run games.
Regarding the sportsbook policies pointed out by GamblrzAnonyms, sports bettors should have at least a couple of different accounts anyways. If nothing else, to shop for the best lines. Good luck!
Dead
0
neilsy25,
Obviously the goal of this system is to minimize the number of favorites winning one run games.
The best way to do this would be to bet games with heavy favorites / dogs (which should result in a larger run differential), but then you minimze your profits playing the favorites.
I suggest refining the information provided by robwalton to determine the optimal moneylines that result in the fewest one run games.
Regarding the sportsbook policies pointed out by GamblrzAnonyms, sports bettors should have at least a couple of different accounts anyways. If nothing else, to shop for the best lines. Good luck!
Why not take favorite with the run line which is usually positive money. That would make your break even point lower. I used this last year and was profitable. I mostly went with the big boys or home teams with good pitchers.
0
Why not take favorite with the run line which is usually positive money. That would make your break even point lower. I used this last year and was profitable. I mostly went with the big boys or home teams with good pitchers.
Doing this with 2 different accounts/sites to make both bets would require a lot of money mgmt. One account could always be losing while one is winning, no matter how you switch it up. There would probably be a lot of streaks in either direction that would make it a challenge. But, good luck to you.
0
Doing this with 2 different accounts/sites to make both bets would require a lot of money mgmt. One account could always be losing while one is winning, no matter how you switch it up. There would probably be a lot of streaks in either direction that would make it a challenge. But, good luck to you.
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.
Hot Forum Topics
