So this year I decided to do something different when it comes to betting MLB. I decided that ALL my MLB bets will be on underdogs only! No way would I lay -200, or -180, or even -150 to win 1 unit this year. I used to do that in the past and would always seem to chase my losses. Year after year. Obviously I'm going to be looking for the right situations and matchups to place these, but NO way will I bet a favorite this year.
The logic is simple...Even the shittiest teams win about 40% of their games every year. The best teams win around 57%/58% of their games. Majority of the teams fall in the 47% - 54% range. So I guess the question is this: Do I want to lay juice to get a 54% winning percentage long-term or do I want to collect + odds to get a 47% winning percentage?? Well, this year I'm investing in the 'positive odds'.
The interesting thing so far (I know the season is really young still) is that my mentality has changed. In the past when I would research games I would be on the lookout for the 'so called' best favorite to win a particular game. That led me to bet a lot of -170 and higher games. (In addition it's human nature to think that a team laying the highest odds is the MOST likely to win all the time) Now I'm on the lookout for an underdog that has the best chance of a win. This eliminates a lot more games quickly, narrowing it down to select few, and minimizing the time I spend on my research. (More time to handicap NBA )
In any case, here's an interesting perspective on betting dogs in MLB, that I read today:
Contrarian Investing, Odds and Psychology
There is "value" in selecting underdogs. In moneyline sports such as baseball and hockey, historical data shows that picking underdogs -- that pay out more than you risk -- is the best way to earn profits when investing in the sports marketplace. This may result in winning only 40%-50% of your selections, but the long odds means you'll have positive Units Won.
Why does this work? Psychologically, contrarian sports investing makes a lot of sense. Most casual bettors like to watch a game and say that they "picked the winner." This is why many fan favorites or championship-caliber teams are over-valued and do poorly "against the spread." Most sports fans like to bet on heavily-favored teams like the Yankees or Red Sox and happily watch their team win 55% or 60% of the time. However, they forget that they might be laying -200 moneyline odds (or betting $200 to win $100). Many of these fans who lay heavy odds (or in other sports, lay a lot of points) shrug their shoulders if they see themselves losing money because they know that their team seems to be winning around 60% of the time (even as their bankrolls dwindle). In the long-run, if you continue to lay heavy (-200) odds and win even 60% of the time, you will lose your hard-earned cash.
In any case, the reason for this post is because I'm wondering if anyone else has tried this strategy in the past? What are your thoughts and results? Are there particular times during a baseball season when investing in underdogs is more profitable? Any other insights, thoughts, opinions would be appreciated. Good luck this season!
covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?action=quote&ur=bodio&i d=107718787&spt=27&sub=100725355&page=1# reply
The logic is simple...Even the shittiest teams win about 40% of their games every year. The best teams win around 57%/58% of their games. Majority of the teams fall in the 47% - 54% range. So I guess the question is this: Do I want to lay juice to get a 54% winning percentage long-term or do I want to collect + odds to get a 47% winning percentage?? Well, this year I'm investing in the 'positive odds'.
The interesting thing so far (I know the season is really young still) is that my mentality has changed. In the past when I would research games I would be on the lookout for the 'so called' best favorite to win a particular game. That led me to bet a lot of -170 and higher games. (In addition it's human nature to think that a team laying the highest odds is the MOST likely to win all the time) Now I'm on the lookout for an underdog that has the best chance of a win. This eliminates a lot more games quickly, narrowing it down to select few, and minimizing the time I spend on my research. (More time to handicap NBA )
In any case, here's an interesting perspective on betting dogs in MLB, that I read today:
Contrarian Investing, Odds and Psychology
There is "value" in selecting underdogs. In moneyline sports such as baseball and hockey, historical data shows that picking underdogs -- that pay out more than you risk -- is the best way to earn profits when investing in the sports marketplace. This may result in winning only 40%-50% of your selections, but the long odds means you'll have positive Units Won.
Why does this work? Psychologically, contrarian sports investing makes a lot of sense. Most casual bettors like to watch a game and say that they "picked the winner." This is why many fan favorites or championship-caliber teams are over-valued and do poorly "against the spread." Most sports fans like to bet on heavily-favored teams like the Yankees or Red Sox and happily watch their team win 55% or 60% of the time. However, they forget that they might be laying -200 moneyline odds (or betting $200 to win $100). Many of these fans who lay heavy odds (or in other sports, lay a lot of points) shrug their shoulders if they see themselves losing money because they know that their team seems to be winning around 60% of the time (even as their bankrolls dwindle). In the long-run, if you continue to lay heavy (-200) odds and win even 60% of the time, you will lose your hard-earned cash.
In any case, the reason for this post is because I'm wondering if anyone else has tried this strategy in the past? What are your thoughts and results? Are there particular times during a baseball season when investing in underdogs is more profitable? Any other insights, thoughts, opinions would be appreciated. Good luck this season!
covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?action=quote&ur=bodio&i d=107718787&spt=27&sub=100725355&page=1# reply