I use to love runlines but not anymore because even though it doesn't happen as much, runlines are hard to hit especially for home teams since they usually won't bat the 9th inning if they are winning. I know 20-25 percent of games are decided by 1 run i recalled. Or is it 30 percent?
I know when an underdog is +140 and then you have another game where the RL for the favorite team is also +140, don't you guys feel that an underdog has a better shot of winning as oppose to a team winning on the RL with the same price? I use to love betting on a home favorite that is say -150 at home but i would just take them RL instead for +140. My thoughts are you don't have to lay juice and this team will most likely win and most likely win and more than 1 run and you get plus money. For the road favorite to be +140 on the RL, they are usually just -125 Favorite or so.
But even though a lot of times its hard for an underdog to win the game, I am starting to think its much harder for a favorite to hit the RL as oppose to an underdog winning straight up. My reasoning is if you take a +140 underdog, all you have to do is just win the game. Score starts 0-0. Even if you are down 2-0, you have a shot. However, if you take the RL for the same +140 price for a favorite, you are basically starting the game down 2 runs. The moment the other team scores 1 or 2 runs, you are down 3 or 4 runs. And if you are the home team, it is worst because even though you will probably get to bat the 9th inning, you still won't cover the RL unless its a home run and you will most likely win by just 1 run. Even when you take a road favorite on the RL, the moment you give up a few runs, you are in trouble but its never as bad at taking a home favorite on the RL.
I know +140 Underdog and +140 Favorite on the RL should be equal chance of happening but does anyone else feel taking the underdog has a better chance? All you have to do is win the game whereas the favorite on the RL needs to win the game and have to win by 2 runs at least and many times they get moosed at the end when the underdog scores 1 run and make the game end in a 1 run difference. Is my logic wrong here?
I know when an underdog is +140 and then you have another game where the RL for the favorite team is also +140, don't you guys feel that an underdog has a better shot of winning as oppose to a team winning on the RL with the same price? I use to love betting on a home favorite that is say -150 at home but i would just take them RL instead for +140. My thoughts are you don't have to lay juice and this team will most likely win and most likely win and more than 1 run and you get plus money. For the road favorite to be +140 on the RL, they are usually just -125 Favorite or so.
But even though a lot of times its hard for an underdog to win the game, I am starting to think its much harder for a favorite to hit the RL as oppose to an underdog winning straight up. My reasoning is if you take a +140 underdog, all you have to do is just win the game. Score starts 0-0. Even if you are down 2-0, you have a shot. However, if you take the RL for the same +140 price for a favorite, you are basically starting the game down 2 runs. The moment the other team scores 1 or 2 runs, you are down 3 or 4 runs. And if you are the home team, it is worst because even though you will probably get to bat the 9th inning, you still won't cover the RL unless its a home run and you will most likely win by just 1 run. Even when you take a road favorite on the RL, the moment you give up a few runs, you are in trouble but its never as bad at taking a home favorite on the RL.
I know +140 Underdog and +140 Favorite on the RL should be equal chance of happening but does anyone else feel taking the underdog has a better chance? All you have to do is win the game whereas the favorite on the RL needs to win the game and have to win by 2 runs at least and many times they get moosed at the end when the underdog scores 1 run and make the game end in a 1 run difference. Is my logic wrong here?
