There's a common perception, in some circles, that it is better value to take a Runline -1.5 on a road team, because 80% of the time, the road team wins by 2+, if they do end up winning.
However, I think this is only smart to do with the Favorites. 2 Reasons why.
1. The favorite is more likely to be a part of the group that wins 80% of the time. I would bet that if you take dogs out of the equation, it is probably 85%, or slightly more.
2. Example: A team is -130 on the ML, but +120 on the RL. They lose outright. You lose 100 instead of 130. This helps offset the times they do only win by 1 run.
Why I think it is smarter to bet the Dog ML instead of the Alternate Runline.
1. Like I said before, A dog team is more likely to be a part of the 20% of games that the road team wins by one. They are just less likely to blow out a team compared to the favorites.
2. You are already getting Plus Money, so why get greedy? Example: +130 ML vs +180 ALT -1.5.
In this example, a one run win is a negative $230 swing for a $100 bettor
ML bettors +130
ALT line bettor -100
Any arguments?
However, I think this is only smart to do with the Favorites. 2 Reasons why.
1. The favorite is more likely to be a part of the group that wins 80% of the time. I would bet that if you take dogs out of the equation, it is probably 85%, or slightly more.
2. Example: A team is -130 on the ML, but +120 on the RL. They lose outright. You lose 100 instead of 130. This helps offset the times they do only win by 1 run.
Why I think it is smarter to bet the Dog ML instead of the Alternate Runline.
1. Like I said before, A dog team is more likely to be a part of the 20% of games that the road team wins by one. They are just less likely to blow out a team compared to the favorites.
2. You are already getting Plus Money, so why get greedy? Example: +130 ML vs +180 ALT -1.5.
In this example, a one run win is a negative $230 swing for a $100 bettor
ML bettors +130
ALT line bettor -100
Any arguments?
