Betting Both Sides

[_Symmetrical_]

Anyone ever consider this..


taking something like Indians ML (+136)

and then takings White Sox -1.5 (+140)

...

could hit both of them large and turn a profit unless the outcome is chicago by one

...

is that too easy? seems like white sox would be destined to win by one run

 

[taoist]

is that too easy?

Yes. If it were that easy, everyone would be betting this way....

 

[greggraffin]

ive tried that a lot, you might win a few games here and there, but everytime you lose one it sets you back a lot...def. not worth it by experience

 

[Englishman]

This is very interesting. It would depend on if you could reasonably calculate the likelihood that the CWS win by one run.

How many home games did they win by one run last year, then in Division, then against Cle?

It might be worth it.

 

[Englishman]

I should have added:

Let's just say that you make 15% if you win. Does CWS win by one run in this spot enough to make the 15% payoff unprofitable? I don't know. How common are one run wins in this kind of game?

 

[_Symmetrical_]

well only very limited times would this be used...


the dog would need to have a respectable chance at winning coupled with odds that dont reflect it


used today's game as an example since I think Westbrook v. Garcia isn't as far apart as the odds say


... going to check out white sox run last year and see how many 1 run games they won.. (a lot i am guessing from what i remember)..

 

[60 SEC ASSASSIN]

I tried this a few years back but only for Rockies home games. My thinking was with the thin air there would hardly be any 1 run games at Coors.

I remember picking up 20 or 30 bucks here and there but like greggraffin says if it lands at 1 run it sets you back pretty far. At the end of it all I figured it wasnt worth it and just started playing regular sides and totals.

 

[_Symmetrical_]

agreed...

isn't worth it

amazing how white sox had 33 one run victories last year (if i added correctly)

...

would not be profitable playing