Do You Think Strictly ML Bettors Have More Success??

[jjgold]

It seems minus the USA, the ML bet is by far the most popular bet in the world.

Are we missing the boat by not playing many of them??

[FreeFall]

source?

[jgray]

It depends on the sport. Soccer is certainly conducive to ML wagering - much like baseball and hockey. Football and baskets not so much.

[The Seer]

Recently I've had a few spreads of -3 on football games and the the team won by 1in one game and 2 in the other and I lost both. I would have won with ML.

[Reload]

They can have more success, but more failure also. More variance and more swings with it.

[Statman]

Problem with M/L's is that while you may win more compared to a 'side' bet, more often than not betting a large favourite is the demise to one's bankroll as once one loses, you have much less to play with. Big favourites for example do get beat all the time like the Lakers against Millwaukee or the Eagles against Minny. Betting a large underdog on the other hand with M/L's can be profitable but you really need to pick your spots.

[minet123]

They can have more success, but more failure also. More variance and more swings with it.

This
Just look at both the Yankees and Phillies numbers last year one losing streak laying -195 and your buried
3 way money lines with "+" for a draw is a whole different animal

[WeinketoWarrick]

If you have a big bankroll but exercise good money management and are very selective, yes, it can be far more profitable.

Teams play to win games, not cover spreads.

[noties]

wager 250 to 300 small ml dogs per +105 to +135 and wait for the

game to be completed then wager another and see your results

(do not use small ml mlb )