A general handicapping question...

[goldcupsports]

at -200 and lose 1000 or just losing 500 i feel better about losing by that .5 than losing 1000 inreality one is laying .5 for alot of value not 1.5 because unlike hockey there are no ties.

I agreee 100% with that. It does at times come down to money managment. I love the White sox today... I love them much more laying -1.5 -115 than laying .5 -200 I feel the sox win this easy so why not lay the lower price than lay the big number..

 

[Nick Douglas]

Night owl, if I understand correctly, that means that the record playing -1 1/2 would be 57-68 (45.6%). That means you make a profit at +120 on the runline or -140 betting straight up. I guess you have to evaluate each game individually but I am with Jack here. personal experience has told me not to take the run line.

 

[THUNDER]

NICK WHAT OWL IS SAYING 78% OF THE CHALK THAT WON COVERED THE RUNLINE. LAST YEAR 63% OF CHALK BETWEEN 120-160 COVERED THE RUNLINE THAT WON AND 76% OF 170 OR HIGHER COVERED THE RUNLINE.

 

[TheShrimp]

Night Owl

Night Owl

Good post.

Exactly what I was looking for when I started this thread.

What Nick wrote (-140 vs +120 to break even) is actually probably pretty close to the average payouts for betting faves ML vs. RL. If so, your data would suggest that neither is particularly more valuable, but of course this is still a small sample.

One thing to notice, though, is that the ML has a much lower return than the RL for home teams. For example, tonight ATL is -140 on the ML but +110 on the RL and they're playing away. Whereas, STL is at home as a -140 fave, but has a +150 RL. The reason for the discrepancy should be obvious.

Do you have your data broken down by Away/Home, by any chance?

TheShrimp

 

[MadJack]

57 have ALSO COVERED THE RUN LINE!! 78.1% Not bad, huh??

no, it's not that good because we're talking 125 games total, right (73-52)?

so that's 57 RL winners out of 125 games = 45.6%

am i missing something here?

 

[kcwolf]

TheShrimp,

I too side with Jack & Nick. Their reasoning is solid and no need to repeat what has been said.

I have never made a play on the runline, never will. I've seen way to many astute gamblers, I mean players that win year in and year out - but they are losers almost every year on their runline wagers.

One other thought to consider, as I have considered this angle some - a runline wager "may" be worthy if you are positive the bullpen is worn out on the team you are playing against.

I have looked a few situations like toward the last tow months of the season, especially. Still felt it wasn't worth it.

Another opionion for what its worth.

goldcupsports: Really respect your thoughts over the last two years on this forum. We live in the same city, maybe we aught to shoot the breeze someday?

 

[dr. freeze]

no, it's not that good because we're talking 125 games total, right (73-52)?

so that's 57 RL winners out of 125 games = 45.6%

am i missing something here?

no.....the math is right.....i wonder what the RL is on the dogs though....that 54.4% looks kind of enticing.....especially if many of them you are getting + numbers.....

 

[MadJack]

i wonder what the RL is on the dogs though

speculation only----you're probably laying a price on a good chunk of those and will end up losing money on that 54% +RL winners.

 

[THE HITMAN]

I guess everything has been said that has to be........alot of figures & stats thrown around by all. I have been wagering/investing for a long time (some will condider it a long, long time) and, GENERALLY speaking and over the LONG RUN, you can toss run lines and parlays in the category of teasers...............No & Uh Uh. They all work for Mr. Book. That is why they have them, folks. Then, of course, one can say the same for straight bets I suppose. Any special wagering type situation can work for you in given circumstances. A wrong thought can be a winner and a good play can be a loser. But, the key is (and someone said it before) finding a winner. I dont mean to sound facetious or like a simpleton, but you can fancy up all of the losing teams you want with plus and minus 1 1/2's and teasers and "if" this and "if" thats.....Find winners and the rest usually takes care of itself............straights, ifs, parlays & run lines. I suppose what I am saying is that you can beat the system easier by using a good researched winner vs. trying to beat it with a gimmick type bet.
Yes, I do use parlays and run lines on a limited basis. If i like a team, I may go 70% straight and 10 or 15% apiece on a run line and/or parlay if I feel the play warrants it. Parlays seem to work in bases a bit better as you can usually get a truer line that way, it always isn't 13-5. Rarely teasers, tho. Hey, it's hard enough picking ONE winner sometimes & now you want to try & pick Two ?? Usually I reserve those for NFL totals that run in the 30's only. Not so much in colleges where scores are higher and more unpredictable. Hope Everyone Hite Em ..............THE HITMAN

 

[dr. freeze]

speculation only----you're probably laying a price on a good chunk of those and will end up losing money on that 54% +RL winners.

i thought he said though that these RL's were on on Favs at -160 or more....with that in mind, the RL would in most cases be the one laying the extra change......don't know though.....

here is what might make sense.....you take the 1.5 against a heavy fav, because you would think that the bait is in laying the 1.5 with a heavy fav....dunno....might be worth time tracking though.....

 

[Night Owl]

Madjack and Nick,
Going into yesterday, your figures were correct. 57-68, .456 win percentage if you were to bet on EVERY SINGLE FAVORITE to win AND cover the run line as well. True those numbers are not very impressive. But either way you look at this, the numbers are a bit skewed, and I'll touch on that more here in a sec.

Shrimp, unfortunately I do not have these numbers broken down any further than the very general numbers I originally posted. I wish I had tracked how it was doing home and away and with certain pitchers and/or teams. I can say, though, that Schilling and Johnson are 6 for 6 in wins and they've covered the run line in each of those games, as well. When guys are only giving up 1 or 2 runs, usually, and they'd only need 3 or 4 to cover a runline -- at a much lower price -- maybe a chance to load up?? :shrug:

Freeze, if you're talking about all the dogs no matter the price, Jack is right in saying (if I understood him right) that a lot of these smaller "dogs" will turn into somewhat hefty "faves" when getting 1.5 runs. Because of this, 54.4% winners might not do you a lot of good as the ONLY actual protection you're getting is this team losing by a run and nothing more or of course winning outright. As I stated, this just simply isn't happening very much so far this year. Between the two, you'd be better off just taking the dog to win in most cases.

Thunder, glad you were able to understand what I was trying to say. Wasn't sure I was really explaining the way I meant to. Obviously you can see there is SOME value in playing the runline from time to time, although I get the impression we are in the minority on this

Ok, why do I say the numbers are skewed, you might ask? First of all, they are skewed in both directions. 57-68 isn't really a useful figure for the simple fact that nobody would play every favorite on the board. Same as they wouldn't play every dog. I've done some research on playing every dog, too, actually, and anybody playing EVERY dog would be losing their ass right about now. Anyway...
The fact that 57 out of 73 winning favorites have also covered the runline is skewed, as well, for the very same reasoning. Nobody would ever be playing the runline in every single one of these games, even if they had a knack for only picking winning favorites. That's just not realistic. :nono: So I do have to admit that the 78% doesn't do you as much good as that number might suggest and it's not a useful number for this reasoning, either.

But one question I have is would 57-68 REALLY be that bad? The answer is NO! Let's just suppose for a second that you DID wager on the runline on EVERY single favorite. In 52 of those 68 losses, you would have lost ANYWAY! In other words, the faves lost outright in those contests. Now by betting the runlines each time, you would have just saved yourself quite a bit of cash. I know, I know...losing is never saving and nobody likes to lose. But if you have to lose, wouldn't you rather lose say $125 instead of $185 (supposing you were trying to make $100 per bet...just as an example)???? I sure as hell would. 52 times you would have done just that (lost less money). 16 times, and 16 times ONLY would you have turned a would-be winner into a loser. That's not very often. Now for those 57 wins? In each case, you were either risking less to still win $100 or in the case of small faves, you were actually making MORE as a lot of them turned to "dogs" when having to lay 1.5 runs. Hope I am making at least some sense with this :shrug:

Only thing I am really trying to say with all this is that if you're playing favorites, and you really like a game and think the team will win by more than one run, the overall numbers suggest you're really not hurting yourself or putting any extra risk into your bet. It's like betting ML dogs in football or basketball. All about risk and reward, matchups and capabilities. If that ML dog loses but covers, sure you feel like crap. But if they lose and don't cover, you've probably at least LOST LESS by reducing your risk (to win the same amount as a straight bet) and if they do win......nice little payoff reward, huh?? So I can totally understand why Nick Douglas bets almost exclusively ML dogs.

Perspective/personal experience is also very important to this discussion. Obviously if you played all 16 of the faves who won but didn't cover the runline (and didn't have many of those 57 wins), you'd think this was a crappy way to play, sucker bet, etc. Anything you haven't had success at is, understandably, probably going to be lumped into the same big category 0f "bad bet." Although if you are 0-3 or something like that with this type of bet, that hardly qualifies as enough bets to justify these being "bad bets." Hope those against it are talking from A LOT of experience!? Anybody can have a couple losses. BIG DEAL!

By the way, yesterday the Faves went 11-4. (I got Toronto at +100...probably a fave in a lot of places, which would have made the faves 12-3). Out of those 11 winning favorites, ONLY the Mets didn't cover the runline as well. In the 15 games all told, only 2 ended up being 0ne-run affairs. 10-5 if somehow you were to take all faves laying 1.5 runs.
Not saying run-lines are the "RIGHT" way to bet or that winning faves will have continued success covering the 1.5 as well, but at the very least I think it's something everybody should look at, think about and keep in mind. Maybe take the faves you personally like and track how they would've done covering the 1.5 for a couple of weeks and see for yourself if it's worth a shot or not. Hope nobody thinks that you "CAN'T" win at runlines just because you are laying 1.5 runs?!? Good luck all.

Night Owl

 

[yyz]

Good work, Owl!

 

[MTROYAL1]

RUNS????

RUNS????

I THINK PICKING THE WINNER SHOULD BE YOUR #1
PRIORITY. RUNS OR NO RUNS A LOSER IS A LOSER.
PERSONALLY, I LIKE TO TAKE THE DOG +1.5 WITH MY MAN
AND LAY THE MONEY ON FAVORITES IN THE ISLANDS.
7 WINNERS SO FAR THIS SEASON , BUT YOU MUST GET +1.5

GOOD LUCK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!