if i bet every baseball game. bet the underdog then bet the -1.5 for the favorite. if the game isn't a 1 run game, I win.
Sounds too easy
give me the bad news guys
Sounds too easy
give me the bad news guys
Can this REALLLLLLY work?
- Thread starter SportsbookDave
- Start date
give me some numbers here folks. Would i be up if i bet this in the past 5 years for every game?
well I did it tonight
I bet $100 on every game
100 on the underdog and 100 on -1.5 for the favorite
we'll see
well I did it tonight
I bet $100 on every game
100 on the underdog and 100 on -1.5 for the favorite
we'll see
You would go broke quicker than you could borrow money to stay in the game.
You need to see a clear victory in roughly 7 of 8 games to even have a sniff at peanuts. Look at how many one run games there are where the dog loses.
I hope it pays off tonight, but a word to the wise......never play it again, regardless of what you see tonight.
Go back over this years games, and see what you face.
[This message has been edited by yyz (edited 05-15-2001).]
You need to see a clear victory in roughly 7 of 8 games to even have a sniff at peanuts. Look at how many one run games there are where the dog loses.
I hope it pays off tonight, but a word to the wise......never play it again, regardless of what you see tonight.
Go back over this years games, and see what you face.
[This message has been edited by yyz (edited 05-15-2001).]
I know someone who tried this theory last year and it didn't take them to long to realize that it is to good to be true. If you continue on it I wish you the best of luck.
------------------
Crazier shit has happened!!!
------------------
Crazier shit has happened!!!
yyz hit it right on the head. You need to hit about 85% of the games since you are just winning vig each time, but when you lose you lose twice.....and much more than 15% of the games are 1-run games. You wouldnt think so, but follow how many 1-run games you start to see over the next few weeks.
His name is SPORTSBOOKDave. I know it doesn't mean that he has to be a bookie but sounds like it huh. Maybe just trying to convince us to follow. Or maybe he is a curious mind, experimenting new things and unselfishly sharing it w/ us.
Ohh well I don't know about baseball anyways. I thought I know some about basketball but was proven wrong by the SPORTSBOOK's.
Just curious, if you were a sportsbook wouldnt you wanna utilize successfull capping site's like this.
PLEASE don't take it the wrong way MJ and everybody else. I am not suggesting anything. Just this guys name made me think. He might be a good guy.I dont know him.
Ohh well I don't know about baseball anyways. I thought I know some about basketball but was proven wrong by the SPORTSBOOK's.
Just curious, if you were a sportsbook wouldnt you wanna utilize successfull capping site's like this.
PLEASE don't take it the wrong way MJ and everybody else. I am not suggesting anything. Just this guys name made me think. He might be a good guy.I dont know him.
Alien,
I dont think Dave is up to anything. He just saw this as an angle the same way everyone else stumbles upon angles and wants to see how it plays out and if its worth the time and money......which in the long run it isnt.
I dont think Dave is up to anything. He just saw this as an angle the same way everyone else stumbles upon angles and wants to see how it plays out and if its worth the time and money......which in the long run it isnt.
I don't think this would work for all teams but I posted something similar about Colorado a couple days ago (didn't get any responses though).
http://www.madjacksports.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/003283.html
http://www.madjacksports.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/003283.html
Talon,
The only thing I can think of with respect to doing this at games played at Coors is that the totals are usually high enough that any substantial moneyline favorite would still be laying odds on the runs line. The higher the total, generally, the less the odds come down on a runs line. I would guess there would be fewer games where you could get odds on both the moneyline one way and the runs line the other. I dont have any data to support this claim. Its just my intuition.
I thought about this angle not too long ago and quickly gave it up before making any bets when I saw that there are many days where there are enough one run games to kill both sides of the bet. All it takes is one day with about 3-4 1-run games and you have alot of making up to do with only winning small payouts on each win.
The only thing I can think of with respect to doing this at games played at Coors is that the totals are usually high enough that any substantial moneyline favorite would still be laying odds on the runs line. The higher the total, generally, the less the odds come down on a runs line. I would guess there would be fewer games where you could get odds on both the moneyline one way and the runs line the other. I dont have any data to support this claim. Its just my intuition.
I thought about this angle not too long ago and quickly gave it up before making any bets when I saw that there are many days where there are enough one run games to kill both sides of the bet. All it takes is one day with about 3-4 1-run games and you have alot of making up to do with only winning small payouts on each win.
KotysDad, you're probably right as I haven't been keeping track of what the actual payouts would be, just the run margin.
Dave,
Run stats on this for Miller park, coors field, and where the astros play. Not sure how that comes out but I can say thats the only way it'd work and still not even sure of that. You'd still have to pick your spots too. Good solid handicapping is the only way to beat the book.
Run stats on this for Miller park, coors field, and where the astros play. Not sure how that comes out but I can say thats the only way it'd work and still not even sure of that. You'd still have to pick your spots too. Good solid handicapping is the only way to beat the book.
