Serious handicapping question

[fearless]

1. The majority of this board thinks that the -1.5 run line in baseball is almost always a bad bet.

2. Most of those same people think taking the favorite minus the points in football and basketball is always the way to go (if you're betting on the favorite).

Is there not a huge contradiction here? Can someone explain this to me?

[Shortstop]

Fearless, do you want the Bears at +1.5?

[fearless]

Fearless, do you want the Bears at +1.5?

That's a bad line, who's gonna take it?

[Shortstop]

Bad line according to who? Are you a linesmaker? What's the line at Pinnacle?

[Mikail]

I love taking the -1.5 RL. It is a good way to wager, because if a team is favored and you don't want to risk playing chalk then the RL is the answer. Be weary of certain teams though and consider that most MLB games are decided by more than 1 run. As for the favorite it basketball or football... I feel also yes to get good value play the spread. Of course cap each game. I am by far an expert but these are the type of wagers that build my bankroll with less risk!

[fearless]

Bad line according to who? Are you a linesmaker? What's the line at Pinnacle?

According to the market, here's the line at betcris:

PITTSBURGH -3+105
CHICAGO +3-125


I am a linesmaker for the 128 man tourneys. If you think I'm doing a bad job then you're free to beat my book, stop by anytime.

[fearless]

I love taking the -1.5 RL. It is a good way to wager, because if a team is favored and you don't want to risk playing chalk then the RL is the answer. Be weary of certain teams though and consider that most MLB games are decided by more than 1 run. As for the favorite it basketball or football... I feel also yes to get good value play the spread. Of course cap each game. I am by far an expert but these are the type of wagers that build my bankroll with less risk!

Great answer, thanks! You like to play the -1.5 run line so you're not really one of the people that I was asking the question about.

There's some people here who say "the -1.5 run line is always a bad bet" but those same people think taking the favorite minus the points in football and basketball is always the way to go (if you're betting on the favorite). I really want to hear from those people.

[Shortstop]

What's the line at Pinnacle fearless? Answer the question guy.

[LT Profits]

1. The majority of this board thinks that the -1.5 run line in baseball is almost always a bad bet.

2. Most of those same people think taking the favorite minus the points in football and basketball is always the way to go (if you're betting on the favorite).

Is there not a huge contradiction here? Can someone explain this to me?

Not a contraction at all, favorites in the ATS sports cover about 50% of the time. In MLB, 25% of games are decided by one run, so using rough numbers, if favorites win 60% vs. the ML and 25% of those wins are by one run, that's just 45% vs. the RL. Run Line win% is much lower for home teams too.

[LT Profits]

And to clarify, I do not feel that Run Lines are "always" bad bets, I play them myself. I am just saying that it is a fact that Run Line favorites do not win as often as ATS favorites.

[LT Profits]

What's the line at Pinnacle fearless? Answer the question guy.

You can't base market line on Pinnacle at Wong number because they avoid them intentionally. That's why Steelers -1 is at -127. If you want to offer someone Bears +1.5, you also have to give them +120 odds.

[fearless]

What's the line at Pinnacle fearless? Answer the question guy.

At Pinnacle it's currently Steelers -1 -126 but at 6 out of the 10 books listed on SBR lines it's Steelers -3.

Do you think that Pinnacle is more reflective of the total market than the fact that 6 out of the other 9 books have Steelers -3?

The market overall (including LVSC and most of the books in Vegas, I checked) are saying the line for this game is Steelers -3.

I think it's clear that the market has the line as Steelers -3.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Come on, LT. -1.5 RL's usually have positive odds. There is virtually no difference from a return standpoint.

Fearless, isn't it obvious that those people have no idea what they're doing in the first place? Why would their opinion matter? There is nothing wrong with playing RL's if you know what you're doing. They can certainly be profitable.

[fearless]

Not a contraction at all, favorites in the ATS sports cover about 50% of the time. In MLB, 25% of games are decided by one run, so using rough numbers, if favorites win 60% vs. the ML and 25% of those wins are by one run, that's just 45% vs. the RL. Run Line win% is much lower for home teams too.

Great answer it makes sense now, thanks!

[LT Profits]

Come on, LT. -1.5 RL's usually have positive odds. There is virtually no difference from a return standpoint.

Fearless, isn't it obvious that those people have no idea what they're doing in the first place? Why would their opinion matter? There is nothing wrong with playing RL's if you know what you're doing. They can certainly be profitable.

I disagree, RL favorites played blindly still have a much worse -EV than ATS faves played blindly.

But again, as I said, they are not always bad bets and I play them myself if the odds are high enough.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Umm. How?

[Shortstop]

At Pinnacle it's currently Steelers -1 -126

Exactly! Thanks Fearless!

[fearless]

Exactly! Thanks Fearless!

You ignored the rest of what I posted but maybe you can respond to LT's post:

You can't base market line on Pinnacle at Wong number because they avoid them intentionally. That's why Steelers -1 is at -127. If you want to offer someone Bears +1.5, you also have to give them +120 odds.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I disagree, RL favorites played blindly still have a much worse -EV than ATS faves played blindly.

But again, as I said, they are not always bad bets and I play them myself if the odds are high enough.

Do you realize that you're insinuating that there is a market bias in RL's?

[Shortstop]

You ignored the rest of what I posted but maybe you can respond to LT's post:

Fearless, it's a fukking points offer. If no one wants it, no one has to take it. It's not the end of the world. You get wayyyyy too serious about what goes on here. Relax, it's not that big of a deal. Plus, it doesn't concern you so why do you care? Go take a walk and cool off.

[durito]

At Pinnacle it's currently Steelers -1 -126 but at 6 out of the 10 books listed on SBR lines it's Steelers -3.

Do you think that Pinnacle is more reflective of the total market than the fact that 6 out of the other 9 books have Steelers -3?

The market overall (including LVSC and most of the books in Vegas, I checked) are saying the line for this game is Steelers -3.

I think it's clear that the market has the line as Steelers -3.

those are the same lines

[TomG]

There is a bias among the betting public. If they like the favorite, they will prefer to lay the points. If they like the underdog, they will prefer the moneyline. It's an extension of the "favourite-longshot bias" (pure gamblers prefer the lottery mentality of risking a small amount to win a big payoff and dislike having to risk a lot to win a little). This phenomenon occurs most commonly on the Superbowl line. Huge public money comes in disproportionately on the underdog money line and the favorite point spread.

This carries over to run lines in baseball. The betting public prefers to lay the -1.5 runs on the favorite because it allows them to bet on the better team while creating a situation that gives them a positive payout (presumably the best of both worlds). It's the majority of public money being bet on the favorite run line that creates value in the underdog +1.5 runs. Interestingly, with more people thinking that the +1.5 side is the better bet, there are now more situations where there is value on the favorite -1.5. The bottom line is that either side can be good. It just depends on the price of the handicap.

[LT Profits]

Do you realize that you're insinuating that there is a market bias in RL's?

That is actually correct. The books play with the odds more on RL's because, well, because they can! They almost always inflate the odds on -1.5 and deflate the odds on +1.5 (but not nearly to the extent that they are profitable). On the other hand, they can't vary much off of the -110 ATS except for the 3 in NFL.

[LT Profits]

There is a bias among the betting public. If they like the favorite, they will prefer to lay the points. If they like the underdog, they will prefer the moneyline. It's an extension of the "favourite-longshot bias" (pure gamblers prefer the lottery mentality of risking a small amount to win a big payoff and dislike having to risk a lot to win a little). This phenomenon occurs most commonly on the Superbowl line. Huge public money comes in disproportionately on the underdog money line and the favorite point spread.

This carries over to run lines in baseball. The betting public prefers to lay the -1.5 runs on the favorite because it allows them to bet on the better team while creating a situation that gives them a positive payout (presumably the best of both worlds). It's the majority of public money being bet on the favorite run line that creates value in the underdog +1.5 runs. Interestingly, with more people thinking that the +1.5 side is the better bet, there are now more situations where there is value on the favorite -1.5. The bottom line is that either side can be good. It just depends on the price of the handicap.

I like this explanation better.

[james4512]

i only like to bet favorites with small chalk, i dont like putting money on bad teams because they always find a way to lose it. Small tip avoid laying heaving chalk on the road especially in the NFL

[Blargh]

From a very general and unindepth perspective, I think some look at odds of winning. ATS is generally designed to be a 50/50 propostion (minus the juice). While the RL can run from a 33-60% chance of winning (based on odds) with most RL coming in around +150, or in general a 40% chance of winning.
To get a better (and yet again unindepth (I'm liking that word) gauge of a RL, the Pirates/Pades game was -110/-110 at Bookmaker or 50/50. For the RL it was -215/+185 or 66/34 (with juice extracted). The past few years have seen approx 72% of all games won by 2 or more runs. So a team with a 50% chance of winning straight up, in general, has a 36% chance of winning by 2 or more runs. So in this case you are paying for a 34% chance while getting a 36% chance. Of course the total plays a role in cost of the RLs as well. You could also factor in home/visitor win pcts by 1 run. Someone once posted 1 run games were 30% of all games with home team winning 60% of those.

So in conclusion, I dunno.

[magynuck]

Just to echo Tom's post there is "value" to be had on both sides of the RL. And I too have noticed a slight shift from the slightly intuitive +1.5 plays against public money on the big ml favourite to just as many -1.5 on the overcompensation. I bet many RL on both sides. If a majority of posters here believe the blanket statement -1.5 never is a good then I would venture to say they have no clue.

[MonkeyF0cker]

That is actually correct. The books play with the odds more on RL's because, well, because they can! They almost always inflate the odds on -1.5 and deflate the odds on +1.5 (but not nearly to the extent that they are profitable). On the other hand, they can't vary much off of the -110 ATS except for the 3 in NFL.

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I'm not even going to bother...

[Pancho sanza]

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I'm not even going to bother...

I'd love to hear what you think is wrong about his statement.

[LT Profits]

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I'm not even going to bother...

EXCUSE ME?

Just do a basic analysis of how all MLB RL Faves have done, and you will see that the -ROI is significantly worse than all teams ATS in any 11/10 sport. (I know there are reduced juice shops, but more fair to compare at -110 since MLB RLs are almost always 20-cent lines).

Why do you think that is?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Obviously, it's because the books "play with the odds" since they must know fair value on the game before the market determines it.