maybce consider playing -1.5 on both teams?
-
Comment -
So knowing about 28% of games end in 1-run decisions, what should our strategy beComment -
Ok, EV on bets is additive. You're betting every RL -1.5 and alt-RL -1.5. So the sum of the EV of your bets is the sum of the EV of every RL bet + the sum of the EV of every alt-RL bet. Since you want the sum to be positive, one of those two numbers needs to be positive. So.. ask yourself:
Is laying fav -1.5 blind on every game +EV?
Is laying dog -1.5 blind on every game +EV?
The answer to 1 is obviously **** no, and I see no reason to think that the answer to question 2 is different- and even if it somehow were, you'd have to be ******* retarded to add the known -EV fav -1.5 bets to make a polish-middle system like the OP suggests.Comment -
Agree, but I think the following must be said.
Q: Under what circumstances either
laying fav -1.5 +EV
or
laying dog -1.5 +EV
or both?
A: When and ONLY when we think that the game will go Over.
There are less juice-wise expensive ways to play the Over. That is why this "strategy" does not make senseComment -
Assuming percentage of 1-run games is exactly 28%, then you need profit percentage at least 38.9% to be even. If you do find such bets, the game probably has a low total which implies greater 1-run probability than 28% average.Comment -
so would you say it's a smart move to lay 1.5 runs on both teams in the same game if the ROI is 40% or more, and the over/under total is 8.5 or more?
thanksComment -
After doing more thorough analysis on my initial idea, I did not find anything that I felt was worthwhile pursuing. There may be a chance that if you are getting a high enough ROI, it will overcome the 28% of games that end in 1 run. However, there is no way for me to evaluate this on games that give an ROI such as you stated, therefore my results would be inconclusive. Finally, I would think that logically, the lower the total, the better the chance the game will end in a 1 run decision which is exactly what you don't want. That's just my two cents.Comment -
-
but that doesnt answer my question, wrongturn...with all respect...if I DO find ROI's >40% with totals >8.5 should i bet both sides? or more complicated which i don;t know how to do is take the more valuable side?
thanksComment -
Legit,
The problem is that even if you do find ROI's with >40% and the totals you listed, there is still no data to backup the fact that these games will fall into the 28% category for 1 run decisions. If these games fall into a higher percentage for 1 run decisions, it would still be a bad bet. Overall, I think the best thing to do is stay away from the original idea completely and move on to something else. All the best!
-CNComment -
Excellent thread.Comment -
I have a question.
Bet every favorite money line.
Bet every underdog alternate line -1.5.
The only way to lose is for the underdog to win by 1.
Can someone do the math on how often that occurs against how often the underdog wins by 2 runs?
They typical underdog -1.5 is at +220. Obviously odds are that the favorite wins and you break even. If the underdog wins by 2 or more you win on average 1.2 units
what do you think???Comment -
That one I tried, ashteroid25. One of my early failed experiments. I seem to recall another poster, too, that THOUGHT it was a good idea. I found that you'll win a lot of small bets before the big losses make you s**t blood.Comment -
About 35% of the MLB games end in more than 1 run difference for home teams. Road team RLs cover about 43% of times. Thats why the prices for road team RLs are cheaper.Comment
