[gamblingisfun]

If I want to bet on the fave to win and the juice is too high, I just bet the -1, like I think a lot of people will do. I was thinking, why not bet the fave -1 all the time? That is, if the game is capped and you think they're going to actually win. My thinking is that the odds more than half the time will be +odds and at worst -150ish, with faves only winning by exactly 1 run like 18% of the time, those will be graded pushes instead of wins, but that over time you'll be ahead more because of the better odds. If the fave loses, even a ML bet would lose, I'd rather lose paying -110 -1RL, than -170 ML. I just want to save as much as possible juice on fave losses. Does anyone have any info on whether the -1 on faves is better than ML betting? I'm not sure if the extra wins on the ML would make up for all the pushes and saved juice on the other....

[EVPlus]

I'll pick my spots and take the -1 from time to time. However, I NEVER just blindly take a huge fave and bet them at -1. Huge faves do lose and they often win by just 1 run.

If you're that curious, this theory is easy to back test. Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[drfunkmaster]

biggest huge favourites are the phillies, their relievers have the highest ERA

[gamblingisfun]

I didnt necessarily mean the fave had to be the biggest or have super high juice, just faves in general doing the -1. There would be a lot of +money odds and even if the fave loses the odds wouldn't kill a BR fast