MLB +200 teams

**rfr3sh** · 04-18-10, 01:54 AM

maybe ill rephrase, does anyone know where I would be able to find the old lines to check these stats for myself
or if someone has them and is willing to share that would be appreciated

**skrtelfan** · 04-18-10, 04:30 AM

Read the other posts from the last few days take the big favorite -140 and preferably -1.5 -120 that's the road to riches.

**ljump12** · 04-18-10, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by skrtelfan

Read the other posts from the last few days take the big favorite -140 and preferably -1.5 -120 that's the road to riches.

Dur. No

You can find historical team lines on SBR, which you could then copy and paste into excel, and do some math that way. I suspect you'll find no one area that stands out as more profitable than others. Even if you do, I would then test that against more previous years to see if it holds up.

**Sawyer** · 04-18-10, 01:35 PM

If you blindly play all +200 dogs in hockey, you make profit on the long run. (for last 5 seasons)
However, I'm not sure about baseball. It may be profitable during September and April but I don't have numbers for that. I'm not sure.
Favs are winning a lot during July&Aug..

**Justin7** · 04-18-10, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Sawyer

If you blindly play all +200 dogs in hockey, you make profit on the long run. (for last 5 seasons)

I bet you they won't make money next season.

**rfr3sh** · 04-18-10, 05:39 PM

i was not / am not planning on blindy betting +200 dogs
just a question of curiosity

**Peeig** · 04-18-10, 05:55 PM

People with databases will know, but might not share............do some research and see.

**Thremp** · 04-18-10, 06:20 PM

long ago this and home dogs were printing money. You don't see faves as heavily favored though anymore and like all undervalued historical subsets you have the fundamental issue of only knowing when its no longer undervalued via a nice large sample of losing wagers.

**betyuda** · 04-19-10, 05:49 AM

there are difficulties winning with plus 200 numbers in the mlb, but i believe you only need to win about 32% of the time to make a profit which is incredible in comparison because at a even line you need up to 53-54% to make a profit. I m sure there are those making profits from betting the extreme underdogs in the mlb.

**Sawyer** · 04-19-10, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

I bet you they won't make money next season.

A friend of mine said same words 3 seasons ago.
+200 dogs produced 35 units (betting 1 unit per game) that season

+200 Dogs in NHL

2005 = +24.8 units
2006 = +12.8 units
2007 = +35.2 units

Prejudice is not a good thing Justy. What makes you think they won't make money next season, do you have a crsytall ball? I'll get your 10k SBR points if they make money next season Justy, LoL!

**Thremp** · 04-19-10, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by betyuda

there are difficulties winning with plus 200 numbers in the mlb, but i believe you only need to win about 32% of the time to make a profit which is incredible in comparison because at a even line you need up to 53-54% to make a profit. I m sure there are those making profits from betting the extreme underdogs in the mlb.

Math fail.

**will2survive** · 04-19-10, 10:06 AM

hmmmm+ 200---sounds like an idea

**will2survive** · 04-19-10, 10:07 AM

I could see how it would work with hockey

**wantitall4moi** · 04-19-10, 03:39 PM

Without getting too specific +200 or more dogs (average +236) are 203-513. Thats from a total of almost 15K games, so roughly 100 games a year will see +200 or higher dogs.

**bachngocduong** · 04-19-10, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

Math fail.

Math fail but maybe he right
lost 68 won 64 but Ml 200++++++++

**skrtelfan** · 04-19-10, 06:18 PM

Per Statfox's lines, there were 117 +200 dogs last year, all away, and betting all of them would have yielded a loss of 6 units.