MLB breakdown?

**Flying Dutchman** · 06-22-09, 08:51 PM

A quick read of forums tells me Honkball (American=MLB) is not worth the time. You may want to try WNBA, folks on other forums are killing it.

**Dark Horse** · 06-23-09, 12:33 AM

I think you may be mistaken. There are those here who swear by baseball, and find it the easiest sport to beat. I'm just wondering if different personal methods would still -roughly- target the same spread ranges as profitable and not profitable.

**TheIntegrityKid** · 06-23-09, 04:31 AM

Why not stick to Home Underdogs? I heard that was a way to go...

**josie88** · 06-23-09, 01:26 PM

here you go

Over the last 5 years:

< -130 = -3.1% ROI
>= -130 = -1.5% ROI
dogs only = -0.7% ROI

Profits are calculated based on risking the line to win $100 when playing on favorites and risking $100 to win the line when playing on dogs, historical covers stats.

For giggles:

>+120 = -0.5%
>+140 = -1.5%
>+160 = -3.9%
>+180 = -4.4%
>+200 = -6.3%

All faves = -3.1%
<-120 = -2.8%
<-140 = -3.1%
<-160 = -2.3%
<-180 = -2.3%

**Dark Horse** · 06-23-09, 02:22 PM

Thanks josie88. So playing dogs only would give the player a clear advantage to start out from. -0.7% isn't much to overcome.

**durito** · 06-23-09, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Thanks josie88. So playing dogs only would give the player a clear advantage to start out from. -0.7% isn't much to overcome.

You know better than this.

**Dark Horse** · 06-23-09, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by durito

You know better than this.

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but one reason I started this thread is that I will gladly, and profitably, bet large ML favorites in the NBA. But the cookie doesn't crumble that way in MLB. This is dog country.

I'm also a relative newcomer to MLB. So I was trying to get some more precise numbers, to see if it was my approach that gave me this breakdown, or if it is a general finding.

I'm trying to get a better grasp of what the books are looking at in this sport.

**josie88** · 06-23-09, 03:34 PM

My own limited results suggest adding in a -ROI of 3-6% on top of the covers numbers, so it's possible that betting faves only across the board could have a return as low as -7% or so.

One of the things I've learned is that theoretical results are better than real world results for so many reasons. I haven't seen any exceptions to this yet.

**Dark Horse** · 06-23-09, 03:42 PM

Josie88, would you have a similar breakdown for the NBA? I'm wondering if a sport where a large segment of the betting public bets ATS shows a different ML breakdown than MLB where most people bet the ML.

I want to see if, and how much, favorites in MLB are being overvalued (compared to other sports), and could see that being the case because of an overemphasis on starting pitchers.

**EmpireMaker** · 06-23-09, 04:06 PM

I think that you can find value betting against big name pitchers that are off form .

**durito** · 06-23-09, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but one reason I started this thread is that I will gladly, and profitably, bet large ML favorites in the NBA. But the cookie doesn't crumble that way in MLB. This is dog country.

I'm also a relative newcomer to MLB. So I was trying to get some more precise numbers, to see if it was my approach that gave me this breakdown, or if it is a general finding.

I'm trying to get a better grasp of what the books are looking at in this sport.

Take a better look at those numbers. Go back further and blindly betting big dogs is profitable. Recently it hasn't been. These things are picked up by the market. How do you know that from here on forward big dogs won't be vastly overprice and favorites the other way around.

**Dark Horse** · 06-23-09, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by durito

Take a better look at those numbers. Go back further and blindly betting big dogs is profitable. Recently it hasn't been. These things are picked up by the market. How do you know that from here on forward big dogs won't be vastly overprice and favorites the other way around.

Sure. But I never suggested to bet dogs blindly.

My question is posed to MLB players with enough of an edge to win long term. Do different personal approaches pinpoint the same profitable zones?

So as not to make things up, there's a little SBR contest where my picks for faves >130 are -6.78 units (21 units wagered) for June and my dog picks are +21.93 units (48 units wagered). Compared to NFL and NBA my 'work' in MLB is unsophisticated, so, small sample size aside, I was surprised to see such a heavy emphasis on dogs. I still don't take MLB very serious, but am starting to wonder if I should. So I was asking the experts in this sport...

**durito** · 06-23-09, 05:16 PM

I don't know MLB at all, historically that's the way people have posted to play it. But, I somehow doubt that such a strategy will get you very far. Maybe you are just better at identifying value with dogs, or more likely it's just variance.

If you are capable of projecting fair value on a game, i'm not sure why that wouldn't apply to favorites and underdogs. From a bankroll perspective, you'd prefer to bet favorites.

**Dark Horse** · 06-23-09, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by durito

If you are capable of projecting fair value on a game, i'm not sure why that wouldn't apply to favorites and underdogs. From a bankroll perspective, you'd prefer to bet favorites.

I'm not sure why either.

That's why I was wondering if the bettors who play ML faves in the NBA represent a sharper section of the betting public (mostly drawn to ATS betting) than in MLB. If so, favorite betting (on starting pitchers) could tilt the balance in MLB.

I would just like to have a better understanding of who is betting what in baseball.

**josie88** · 06-23-09, 06:38 PM

Sorry, just ATS and O/U for NBA

**MonkeyF0cker** · 06-23-09, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

I'm not sure why either.

That's why I was wondering if the bettors who play ML faves in the NBA represent a sharper section of the betting public (mostly drawn to ATS betting) than in MLB. If so, favorite betting (on starting pitchers) could tilt the balance in MLB.

I would just like to have a better understanding of who is betting what in baseball.

Huh? You bet anything and everything of value. It's no different than any other sport.

**Dark Horse** · 06-24-09, 08:08 PM

Nice neon sign, MonkeyFOcker. However, with plenty of places to find an edge I like to throw out whole sections upfront. (I decided to get into horse racing after throwing out almost all horses. If anything, if feels great...). When given a choice to start out with the tide or against it, I'll take with. I'm lazy that way.

Originally posted by josie88

Over the last 5 years:

< -130 = -3.1% ROI
>= -130 = -1.5% ROI
dogs only = -0.7% ROI

**jboz** · 07-01-09, 02:55 PM

never bet a road team ever never bet a hometeam over 110 period

**Bogart45** · 07-06-09, 01:36 AM

I depends on your system what will be profitable. I generate my own lines and make bets based on comparing my line to the actual line. I get on average 2-3 plays a day and most of these are favorites. I'm netting about 4 units every 10 days. I used to get more dogs to play but was losing money on them overall, so I changed my system to pick less dogs and now all is fine. I personally play favs up to -160 profitably. So with my system, I'd be making a lot less money if I stopped betting favs over -130. There is no such thing as never bet this or never bet that, unless it has proven unprofitable with the system you are using.