 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
What is the maximum price for an MLB Fave?
I searched SBR and could not find this topic already covered in HTT.
There has to be a point where it is completely illogical, ill-advised and ill value (made that one up) to play the favorite.
Was it reality when I read somewhere that the 71% is the highest likelihood of any team beating another? I admit I spent a lot of time in Fantasy because my reality of being a loser sucks.
300 too high?
350 too high?
Kind of an obscure question, because there are so many factors.
But..
I plugged in, just for fun, an all-star lineup vs the astros and got -320 as a fair price. So when you take into account the teams this year, even this best teams (Phillies, Red Sox, Yankees) are only -240ish against the worst teams (Hou, Minny).
Interesting thread.
I have seen -450 on 2 occassions and they were both in the same 3 game series (Yankees v Royals) a few years back. Amazingly, the Royals won both games.
You see those crazy huge minuses during the last week or 2 of the regular season when one team is fighting to make the playoffs playing against another team that has nothing to play for.
I have no doubt that betting all teams +300 or more has shown a flat bet profit over the past 10 years.
If anybody has a site where you can look these things up, I would love to see the link.
I don't remember seeing higher than -400.
For me, underdogs of over +200 are basically an auto-play.
When Cliff Lee was traded to Texas, last year. In his first start, vs Baltimore, he was a -400 fav.
Doesn't look like taking Dogs of +200 or more is profitable according to Sports Data Base.....
But it does look like taking Dogs between +250 and +299 is profitable....
since 04 +200 and above is -11.5 % ROI in the database
it's better to be on the fav RL +4.9% ROI
It's better to create a statistical model and generate your own lines and make bets when you see a +EV opportunity. There are generally multiple +EV betting opportunities every day in MLB.Originally Posted by Inspirited
Simply betting based on trends is a potential loser long term as you have no way of mathematically knowing how long such a trend will last. How do you know if the market has adjusted for the trend or not?
If you generate your own fair lines, then you always know at what price a market has value, that's the benefit of such a strategy.
Good luck with your betting.
Even the sands that statistical models support themselves on can be washed away, but yeah I'd probably do that if I could. I can't do that right now.
I haven't specifically used any trends in the database myself though some monthly trends end up showing up in what I'm doing. Right now, I'm diversifying on past trends based on one simple statistical difference. It's all I got to work with this season.
That's assuming that what you are doing to generate a fair price is perfect. I guess not impossible but pretty far fetched to say the least.
I believe to become proficient at generating your own line is good to be able to "approximate" a fair price before the lines are hung, but to assume that one could out perform the oddsmaker sounds dangerous indeed(at least for major markets).I would say though on large schedules it may be possible to find a soft opener or two.
I have always wondered this in more general terms. There must be a theoretical point where a team simply cannot be any more of a fav over any other assuming they are all pros. 3-1 for a baseball game seems ridiculous considering how much randomness seems to operate in the sport.
I remember that because lee lost.
[COLOR=#000000 !important]How about taking dogs priced @ +300 and higher?[/color][COLOR=#000000 !important]Doesn't look like taking Dogs of +200 or more is profitable according to Sports Data Base.....[/color]
SBR, sure do hate those irritating COLOR bugs that come with each and every post I type.
I would say it all depends on how you have the teams capped...Look at the discrepancies between the two teams, then look at the discrepancies in the high/low vig...Then determine if it is a play, and if so where does the value lie.
It depends on how a team is playing at the time. If a team is on a bad losing streak and getting clobbered stay away from a +200 or more dog, If a team is playing decent and is in most games +200 or more is worth a shot
Color doesn't come with every post. You usually see it when copying and pasting.
I remember one of those games I parlayed Pirates the other longest shot on board and Royals and it was the best 2 game parlay I ever hit in baseball. Soria made it interesting in ninth.
i hate to sidetrack but its ludicrous to think that impossible to predict how sports betting markets react to certain situations. it very much can be done and it is possible to tell if the market has adjusted(not all that hard). why is this always repeated as dogma?
most trends are absurd, especially something like every +200 dog will be a loser or the reds are 7-0 when coming off a win by 6 runs or home teams coming off a road loss by 1 are 25-6. but there are some out there(and a few are not all that complicated) that work because the market can be predictable. A simple example but not one that will win you any money is that when one of the top 10 best pitchers in baseball is pitching, over 70% of gross bets will be on that side. A sound theory of betting psychology, confirmed over history by a solid sample size and continuing to be confirmed can beat the lines.
on topic, i think i remember cc being around -350 in the playoffs one game last year
the basic problem with taking short odds on any event regardless of the value is the psychological effect. Once a price is under 50% you subconciously assume it will win, the shorter the odds the more this is ingrained. So when lets say a -250 you have bet loses this causes a huge conflict with your thinking which if your not strong willed with your intentions, completely disrupt your original stance.
Personally no matter what the math say, betting long odds on is a slippery slope to bankruptcy. Remember, bookmaking empires were built on people who thought these short odds picks were money.
Thank you for the input gentlemen.
I guess a better way to pose the question would be:
What is the maximum edge you would grant one team over another in baseball? If you answer that one, you answer the maximum price part.
Does anyone think there is a match up in MLB where the favorite would be expected to win 80% of the time?
Side note: I remember Randy Johnson hitting 400 once or twice after he joined the Astros.
Last edited by statnerds; 06-09-11 at 08:37 PM.
I remember PEdro and Schilling were sometimes high -300s and low -400s in the early 2000s.... And Randy Johnson was definitely -450, might have been as high as -480.
Yah, I remember that too! Good example Houli.
I think you are misremembering.
yes, i do remember that series. I think it was a Friday night in May of 2007. (I think)---I remember this, because i had a guy who was up on me big and he bet his entire "wad" on the favorite and lost. I still cannot believe that something over 400 was out there, and that it also lost. The site www.bettorsworld.com would probably have the data you are looking for. go to the site, then click "capping tools", then click historical odds database. You should find what you want there.
As far as the largest price ever??? I cannot remember anything larger than the Royals series. Perhaps maybe the Big Unit, or Roger Clemmons had a couple, but i cannot seem to find them anywhere
there definitely has been some monster lines. that royals game you remember is in here.
http://killersports.com/mlb.py/query...0&submit=query
I think that if you can win 2 out of 3 bets (in pro sports) at any price, and still make a profit then the price isn't too high. That's the rule I go by. So, anything below -200 would work everytime by this rule. And, then I keep track of all my bets from (-150 -199) to see how it's going. If I fall below a 66 percent win rate on those, then I become more selective until I get it back up.
Last edited by afrodeschiac; 06-27-11 at 03:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
