How would you do if you took every +225 game in MLB?

[Andy117]

If you took the underdog in every game that is +225 or more in MLB, how would you do overall?

[FreeFall]

At closing time? You'd break even I hope

[GELATINOUS CUBE]

YOU'd.go.broke

waiting.for.+225s.to.appear

[pat venditto]

Win small.

[toastedbread01]

At closing time? You'd break even I hope

No you wouldn't. You would be down on vig.

[Grind-It-Out]

If you took the underdog in every game that is +225 or more in MLB, how would you do overall?

Not nearly as poorly as you'd do betting on same size favorites, but you'd still lose.

[mathdotcom]

You'd be down on both but a little bit more on -225 than +225. It is not as lopsided as you think.

[THE PROFIT]

I thought someone had actually done the math

[Andy117]

I don't think I'd do that all the time but I've definitely been finding value at numbers like this.

[Extra Innings]

49%

[thirtytwo]

Just ran a query in my DB for all dogs of +200 or higher. Including yesterdays games, the results would be: 14-22 +1005u. Lines taken from Vegasinsider.

[THE PROFIT]

so you'd be up 100 units? I figured it would be damn good. Thats more than any capper on this board is up. And thats from doing no cappin', no work required. Blindly bet all +200 and greater dogs. Gambling is easy, we make it hard

[rm18]

that is 10.05 units profit

[thirtytwo]

that is 10.05 units profit

yep, 1 unit per dog, 10.05 units up so far on the season...

[THE PROFIT]

Oh, I thought it said 100, my bad, that makes more sense. Thats still $1000 at $100 units, not bad for no work

[Grind-It-Out]

Yeah, but 36 games is a small ass sample size.

I'm gonna look into my database of all last years games and get back to this in a few minutes. It'd be sweet if it was a winning angle, but I'm a skeptic.

[Grind-It-Out]

Haha this is funny. It's almost exactly break even.

For the 2007 - 2009 seasons, betting $100 on all teams with lines of >+200 would yield a result of: 92 - 211 (-$375)

[MC PICKS]

Good if they hit 40% or higher.

[Wilforth]

Not nearly as poorly as you'd do betting on same size favorites, but you'd still lose.

[wildbill044]

I tried this out a few years ago, and break even is pretty much what happened. Now, if you were to keep a log of all these games and pretty much play it like counting cards in blackjack- then you might show some profit. In the three year sample, favs hit about 70%. So far this year favs are hitting 61%. Sounds like you might be able to make a little $ if you're willing to lay the chalk until it starts to catch up- which I would think it would when it hits about 2/3, or 67%. Lots of high $ dogs lately. Had you been on them the last week or two you'd be sittin pretty now.

[Panekkkk]

You'd be 132-331 and down $2,240 laying $100 per game since 2004 for an ROI of -4.8%

[Andy117]

You'd be 132-331 and down $2,240 laying $100 per game since 2004 for an ROI of -4.8%

Is that for +200 and up or +225?

[Panekkkk]

+255 and up

[whatsgood5]

You sure wouldn't win money longterm

[Sam Odom]

You would win 22.5% of your bets +/- 3%