+1.5 Run Line

[Tomato]

Matchbook moneyline:
CLE +125
CWS -126
Total: 8.5 (+111/-112)

Matchbook runline:
CLE +1.5 -168
CWS -1.5 +167

Given constraints:

IF away dog loses, margin is 1 run approximately 30% of the time (29.7% last 5 years at 8.5). 31.2% at 8 and 30.3% at 9.

P:CLE W= 44.36%
P:CWS W= 55.64%

Matchbook run line probabilities:
P:CLE +1.5= 62.6%
P:CWS -1.5= 37.4%

Matchbook moneyline probabilities + 1 run loss frequency
P:CLE L=55.64% * 30% (P:L 1 run) = 16.69%
P:CLE +1.5= 44.36% + 16.69% = 61.05%
P:CWS -1.5= 1-61.05% = 38.95%

Something isn't adding up. Numbers for CLE +1.5 seem too high at Matchbook (Tomato identifies value on CWS -1.5 of about 2.5%). Correct Tomato! Tomato guesses it's his calculated 1 run loss frequency that is the problem.

[Tomato]

Pinnacle moneyline:
CLE +123
CWS -131
Total 8.5 (+111/-120)

Pinnacle run line:
CLE +1.5 -178
CWS -1.5 +164

IF away dog loses, margin is 1 run approximately 30% of the time (29.7% last 5 years at 8.5). 31.2% at 8 and 30.3% at 9.

Pinnacle Moneyline probabilities
P:CLE W= 44.16%
P:CWS W= 55.84%

Pinnacle Run line probabilities
P:CLE +1.5= 62.83%
P:CWS -1.5= 37.17%

Pinnacle moneyline probabilities + 1 run loss frequency
P:CLE L=55.84% * 30% (P:L 1 run) = 16.75%
P:CLE +1.5= 44.16% + 16.75% = 60.91%
P:CWS -1.5= 1-60.91% = 39.09%

--------------------------

62.83% (P:+1.5) - 44.16% (P:ML) = 18.67% (P:1 run loss)
18.67% (P:1 run loss) / 55.84 (P:L) = 33.4%

33.4% does not seem like a reasonable probability.

Matchbook's probability is 32.8%

[dodger33]

I love your posts tomato

[djiddish98]

Interesting post - I guess we would need to know the distribution around that 30% 1 run loss league average by team - do all teams play very closely to that 30% (range of 29.6 to 30.4%) or is the distribution wider - 26% to 34%? That might explain things - perhaps matchbook / pinnacle are doing a team specific 1 run loss calculation.

For other matchups, is the probability always greater than 30%?

[SpiderMonkey]

Tomato is my favorite fruit on SBR.

[Igetp2s]

Are you taking Matchbook's commissions into account?

[TomG]

A successful run line model should consider at least two factors: 1) the money line and 2) the expected run total. Your analysis only considers one of them.

[skrtelfan]

You need to look at individual moneylines and how often teams in that odds range lose. A +120 dog loses by 1 run at a different frequency as a +200 one.

[skrtelfan]

That 30% is too low for teams around even money and should probably be closer to 33% or 34%. The 30% 1 run losses suggest a ML of +100 on each side with a total of 8.5 should be away team +1.5 -185 home team -1.5 +185, and you'll get killed taking the home team -1.5 +185 in that scenario.

[TomG]

Your "back of the envelope" calculations also demonstrate a more general point. In a relatively large market such as MLB Run lines, when your calculations do not agree with the marketplace, you can assume that your calculations are wrong.

[Tomato]

A successful run line model should consider at least two factors: 1) the money line and 2) the expected run total. Your analysis only considers one of them.

Does the total not represent expected run total?

[Tomato]

You need to look at individual moneylines and how often teams in that odds range lose. A +120 dog loses by 1 run at a different frequency as a +200 one.

Will investigate.

[Todd Deville]

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but why do all this work, why not just see how teams do individually against the RL? Won't that come out to the same thing?

[Todd Deville]

And then you could see how teams do against the RL with different line ranges.

[wantitall4moi]

I have said it before and I will say it again betting a +1.5 RL is the worst mistake anyone can do, unless it is scalpable somewhere.

I have several datababses and betting dogs +1.5 will obviously produce more "winners" than losers, but with the odds you are further behind than you would have been.

I have even tried to look for subsets (home dogs with short prices and low totals for example) there arent any where simply betting the dog to win wasnt the better option. I call them insurance plays, they win if the dog wins or the dog loses by exactly one run, but you pay that premium for the insurance. But I dont like betting anything, and getting worse odds for doing it, that only is better in a single circumstance.

[LT Profits]

I have said it before and I will say it again betting a +1.5 RL is the worst mistake anyone can do, unless it is scalpable somewhere.

Not necessarily true, I am guessing you are using sharp books for your +1.5 Run Line research, i.e., Pinny or CRIS. However, there are quite a few rogue books that shade their Run Lines as much as 15 cents in favor of the +1.5, giving it value in many instances.

[wantitall4moi]

Not necessarily true, I am guessing you are using sharp books for your +1.5 Run Line research, i.e., Pinny or CRIS. However, there are quite a few rogue books that shade their Run Lines as much as 15 cents in favor of the +1.5, giving it value in many instances.

That only gives 'value' in a vacuum, but would be REALLY valuable if you could scalp/arbitrage it with another book, which goes to my other point of betting them for the +1.5 alone and not with another angle.

Most guys like them because they are great for getting roll over amounts at books to qualify the bonuswhores out there. So I suppose they have their place.

But if I am looking at a game and I have the option of betting St Louis -138 or Arizona +1.5 for -131 I will take the -138. Or better yet take AZ SU for +130. Because before I bet it I will have an opinion. But I have never had the opinion that "hmm I think AZ will lose by exactly one run today". If I think the cost of 60 cents to insure myself of that is worth it, then I wouldnt be gambling in the first place. If A loses by exactly 1 run I call that a bad beat and move on. baseball is about volume, and that is why I say when you look at past results and the sheer volume of plays available worrying about a one runloss is doingmore harm mentally than it is anything else.

[LT Profits]

That only gives 'value' in a vacuum, but would be REALLY valuable if you could scalp/arbitrage it with another book, which goes to my other point of betting them for the +1.5 alone and not with another angle.

Most guys like them because they are great for getting roll over amounts at books to qualify the bonuswhores out there. So I suppose they have their place.

But if I am looking at a game and I have the option of betting St Louis -138 or Arizona +1.5 for -131 I will take the -138. Or better yet take AZ SU for +130. Because before I bet it I will have an opinion. But I have never had the opinion that "hmm I think AZ will lose by exactly one run today". If I think the cost of 60 cents to insure myself of that is worth it, then I wouldnt be gambling in the first place. If A loses by exactly 1 run I call that a bad beat and move on. baseball is about volume, and that is why I say when you look at past results and the sheer volume of plays available worrying about a one runloss is doingmore harm mentally than it is anything else.

I disagree, if you find a book where the Money Lines are consistently about the same as Pinny but the +1.5 lines are consistently 10-15 points more favorable, I think you will win long term taking the +1.5 on its own merit. You can substitute "the market" for Pinny if you wish, my point still stands.

[wantitall4moi]

I disagree, if you find a book where the Money Lines are consistently about the same as Pinny but the +1.5 lines are consistently 10-15 points more favorable, I think you will win long term taking the +1.5 on its own merit. You can substitute "the market" for Pinny if you wish, my point still stands.

Pinny isnt and wasnt nearly as sharp as people gave them credit for, see my post in the other thread. And now that they have stopped taking US action their American sports, especially baseball, 'sharpness' is really quesitonable. They still move their lines around a lot, but it is hard to say what type of volume it is taking to do it.

[LT Profits]

Pinny isnt and wasnt nearly as sharp as people gave them credit for, see my post in the other thread. And now that they have stopped taking US action their American sports, especially baseball, 'sharpness' is really quesitonable. They still move their lines around a lot, but it is hard to say what type of volume it is taking to do it.

Hence, the last sentence of my last post.

[goblue12]

50k limits on a .06 line, when they move the entire industry moves, and you're questioning their 'sharpness'.

[wantitall4moi]

OK I will throw out some numbers from one of my databases.

This one is the most up to date and includes games played up to yesterday.

It has 14944 games in it.

Overall Dogs are 6111-8275. Ave prices for dog +137, faves -150, dog +1.5 RL , -142 fave -1.5 RL +118

Of those 8275 losses 2243 of them were by exactly one run.

So do with those numbers what you will. But those are the results. There is a small margin of error for games that closed even both ways or straddled over from one side to another being favored. But I am not going to break down every angle.

As far as Pinnacle and their limits, they have and probably always will limit players on an individual basis. I think when I left my limits for baseball for 15K. But limits are meaningless, what matters is the overnight limit or how fast they let you bet the max amount. And how much the line has moved when they do so.

[donjuan]

That only gives 'value' in a vacuum, but would be REALLY valuable if you could scalp/arbitrage it with another book, which goes to my other point of betting them for the +1.5 alone and not with another angle.

Most guys like them because they are great for getting roll over amounts at books to qualify the bonuswhores out there. So I suppose they have their place.

But if I am looking at a game and I have the option of betting St Louis -138 or Arizona +1.5 for -131 I will take the -138. Or better yet take AZ SU for +130. Because before I bet it I will have an opinion. But I have never had the opinion that "hmm I think AZ will lose by exactly one run today". If I think the cost of 60 cents to insure myself of that is worth it, then I wouldnt be gambling in the first place. If A loses by exactly 1 run I call that a bad beat and move on. baseball is about volume, and that is why I say when you look at past results and the sheer volume of plays available worrying about a one runloss is doingmore harm mentally than it is anything else.

It's called a probability distribution. Even if you suck at math, this is one of the most basic concepts in sports betting.

[TomG]

wantitall4moi, do you have any thoughts on reverse run lines? Specifically taking the favorite +1.5.

[Pancho sanza]

I have said it before and I will say it again betting a +1.5 RL is the worst mistake anyone can do, unless it is scalpable somewhere.

I have several datababses and betting dogs +1.5 will obviously produce more "winners" than losers, but with the odds you are further behind than you would have been.

I have even tried to look for subsets (home dogs with short prices and low totals for example) there arent any where simply betting the dog to win wasnt the better option. I call them insurance plays, they win if the dog wins or the dog loses by exactly one run, but you pay that premium for the insurance. But I dont like betting anything, and getting worse odds for doing it, that only is better in a single circumstance.

You have to pick your spots with the +1.5.

It can be profitable with large (> -250) road dogs, esp if you got some square outs.

Or better yet, find a local who is doesnt move his #'s.

[durito]

OK I will throw out some numbers from one of my databases.

This one is the most up to date and includes games played up to yesterday.

It has 14944 games in it.

Overall Dogs are 6111-8275. Ave prices for dog +137, faves -150, dog +1.5 RL , -142 fave -1.5 RL +118

Of those 8275 losses 2243 of them were by exactly one run.

So do with those numbers what you will. But those are the results. There is a small margin of error for games that closed even both ways or straddled over from one side to another being favored. But I am not going to break down every angle.

As far as Pinnacle and their limits, they have and probably always will limit players on an individual basis. I think when I left my limits for baseball for 15K. But limits are meaningless, what matters is the overnight limit or how fast they let you bet the max amount. And how much the line has moved when they do so.

they don't limit players on big markets like mlb. they appear, however, to have given you bigger limits which they do do once they deem you stupid.

[wantitall4moi]

You have to pick your spots with the +1.5.

It can be profitable with large (> -250) road dogs, esp if you got some square outs.

Or better yet, find a local who is doesnt move his #'s.

Wellif I wanted to look it up I could tell you how that subset breaks has done in the past, but I dont have time to fire up the DB right now.

But again, this is all just using past results trying to figure out a 'probability' of a future occurance. While it might make some people feel better knowing this, I just like to have it to show me that it doesnt really matter.

Because if the Rays and Sox have played 200 times and some DB or set of past results tells me the RAYs "probability" of winning 4 straight is 25% (made up) that surely didnt help me today now did it? Was today an illusion or are the Rays MUCH better now than they have been in the past, and how do you start wieghting teams getting better or worse when you start looking at past results? So now that they have won 4 straight what is their probality of doing it again in the future?

Bottomline is I dont like betting +1.5 at all, if I think the game is that close I either wont bet it or will hope that enough people think the same way I do and hammer one side and hope the line moves enough for me to sclap it back somewhere. There are 2430 baseball games a year, skipping a couple because of a 'bad' number isnt going to kill me, and getting a run and a half and having to pay 35 or 60 cents for it wont make me feel any better either.

[Pancho sanza]

You are overthinking it, the RL is simply a derivative of the ml/total.

If you have a large enough database of prior games, you can create a table of what the rl price should be at zero vig and from there you can measure your edge.

[tomcowley]

I'm pretty sure wantitall4moi is a system.

[wantitall4moi]

You are overthinking it, the RL is simply a derivative of the ml/total.

If you have a large enough database of prior games, you can create a table of what the rl price should be at zero vig and from there you can measure your edge.

Still based on past events that may or may not even be valid to predict a future outcome. besdies I am sure most sportsbooks have database at least as good as most people out there, so I am usre they will shade their lines accordingly.

I see them shade lines all the time in other sports where there is some long running trand that people always seem to want to bet.

I have one Db that has nearly 15K searchable games with everything you could want. That is al the way back to 2004. I have another one that goes back to 2000 with slightly less data returned, and also another one that is barebones but goes back to sometime in the mid 80s so it has over 60K games in it. I would think that is as comprehensive and as large a sample of games as anyone around maybe. and there still isnt any blanket theory that covers them all.

I can however find a few correlary plays in there, but those still rely on one thing happeneing to give an edge for the second to occur.

But I still stand by my statement that betting a +1.5 RL is not that great an edge. Overall it has only been a 15% occurance in all games played since 2004. Its almost akin to buying off the 3 in the NFL, you CAN do it, but it usually costs you too much. But it still doesnt cost as much as buying the 1.5 runs in baseball.

[djiddish98]

Of those 8275 losses 2243 of them were by exactly one run.

Overall it has only been a 15% occurance in all games played since 2004.

Quote 1 seems to contradict quote 2.

[vitalyo]

I agree with wantitall4moi +1.5 is a sucker bet .

But if I am looking at a game and I have the option of betting St Louis -138 or Arizona +1.5 for -131 I will take the -138. Or better yet take AZ SU for +130. Because before I bet it I will have an opinion. But I have never had the opinion that "hmm I think AZ will lose by exactly one run today". If I think the cost of 60 cents to insure myself of that is worth it, then I wouldnt be gambling in the first place. If A loses by exactly 1 run I call that a bad beat and move on. baseball is about volume, and that is why I say when you look at past results and the sheer volume of plays available worrying about a one runloss is doingmore harm mentally than it is anything else.

Great post wantitall4moi .

[PAULYPOKER]

I love to watch you guys argue over who is right and who is wrong it just makes my day to know I'm above this

[PAULYPOKER]

[MonkeyF0cker]

Tomato,

I would be factoring in full Matchbook commission into your no-vig/percentage calculations.