One Run Game Stats

[ctt8410]

you missed the concept of this totaly.....The home team wins by 1, doesn't matter how, I'm saying it's to your disadvantage to take the Home Team - 1 1/2, and Wayne says it doesn't............

Home team by 1, doesn't cover the RL - 1 1/2, it takes 2 runs for that......

Thats what Wayne and I are talking about....

I didn't miss the concept totally. You spent 2 paragraphs describing the scenarios in which the home team is at a disadvantage trying to beat the 1.5 spread when all that really matters are the numbers that Frank provided because those are the results. Every possible scenario is covered in the final results and I showed above that mathematically there is no disadvantage in laying the 1.5.

[ChuckLazar]

The only other reason I posted on Sunday to play -1.5 runs when betting on Sunday, was because at the time, they were winning at a higher % than 28%. Sunday along was 14-1 ratio with -1.5 winning.
I brought it up so whoever was taking the NYY in the late game was better off giving -1.5 at +105, than -$200 straight up. By the way the NYY did win by 8-2.

[ChuckLazar]

I didn't miss the concept totally. You spent 2 paragraphs describing the scenarios in which the home team is at a disadvantage trying to beat the 1.5 spread when all that really matters are the numbers that Frank provided because those are the results. Every possible scenario is covered in the final results and I showed above that mathematically there is no disadvantage in laying the 1.5.

Exactly my point as well.

[griswold]

I bet mostly dogs. I've compared betting them on the run line getting the +1 1/2 to betting on the moneyline and getting no runs.

If you play 100 dogs and go 50-50 (sensational) and the average dog is +130, at $100 per bet you make $3,000.

On a run line, you seem to have to lay about an extra 85 cents to get the +1 1/2. This would make the +130 dog about -155 on the run line.

To make $3000 on 100 games laying -155, you would have to win 73 games (73 X 100= 7300, 27x 155 = 4195). it actually comes out to 3105 profit but you get the point. If 28 percent of all games are one run games and you can presume 28 percent of your 50 losses are one run games, you'd win an extra 14 games.

That isn't enough to keep the $3000 profit.

I tried the same approach winning 40 percent of all games at +130. You'd make $200 bucks on 100 games on the money line.
On the run line, you'd win an extra 17 games for 57 wins at -155. Your 57 wins would give you 5700 bucks but the 43 losses would cost you 6800 bucks for an 1100 loss.

In other words, you are better off betting the dog on the money line unless the run line is a lot less than 85 cents more expensive.

[wayne1218]

In other words, you are better off betting the dog on the money line unless the run line is a lot less than 85 cents more expensive.

Exactly!

[Kaptain]

ctt

Home teams laying 1.5 usually pay about 80 cents more, correct? Assuming you picked all 4526 homewinners at even money, you'd be up 4526 units. If you picked those same teams -1.5 at +180, you'd be up 5614or 8146....don't follow this math....same games all winners by - 1.5 at +180 ?????????. If the team loses, you lose no matter what, so just subtract 100 for every loss. So I'm confused from a statistical perspective how this is a poor investment.

you say in post # 31 you proved this to be mathematically correct........4526 wagers at EVEN Money, and assuming you hit em all, you'd be up 4526 units........you would by your lines at +180 hitting all the same games at -1.5 be up 8146 units, not just 5614...........

well my man, you have a fixed faxtor of - 1.5 at +180.....that doesn't hold true...example....here's some lines for today on ML and - 1 1/2.......

-117/+125...........42 swing
-126/+125...........41
-107/+135...........42
-167/-120............47
-250/-120............130

Run line odds at -1.5 depend on the ML odds....they all differ.....no such thing as a set 180........I could theorize your figures at the odds that better suit my opinion, and then say I mathematically proved it was not a disadvantage.....


That mathematical formula you showed is theoritic.....assuming all the lines are the same....and they never are.......therefore, I disagree.........I still don't think it's feasible.....Some instances maybe....as a general rule no....IMO.......kapt


But each to his own....Best to ya----kapt

[Lsufan]

kapt

Now you talking Kaptain ... You tell 'em Podna!!!!

[ctt8410]

you say in post # 31 you proved this to be mathematically correct........4526 wagers at EVEN Money, and assuming you hit em all, you'd be up 4526 units........you would by your lines at +180 hitting all the same games at -1.5 be up 8146 units, not just 5614...........

well my man, you have a fixed faxtor of - 1.5 at +180.....that doesn't hold true...example....here's some lines for today on ML and - 1 1/2.......

-117/+125...........42 swing
-126/+125...........41
-107/+135...........42
-167/-120............47
-250/-120............130

Run line odds at -1.5 depend on the ML odds....they all differ.....no such thing as a set 180........I could theorize your figures at the odds that better suit my opinion, and then say I mathematically proved it was not a disadvantage.....


That mathematical formula you showed is theoritic.....assuming all the lines are the same....and they never are.......therefore, I disagree.........I still don't think it's feasible.....Some instances maybe....as a general rule no....IMO.......kapt


But each to his own....Best to ya----kapt

Aren't we talking about home teams here?? You didn't list the teams, so I'm not sure where you got your lines, but they must be all the road teams that are favored tonight. You can't use road teams to prove your point when we're discussing laying 1.5 on a home team

-117/+125 = LA Dodgers? Road team
-126/+125 = Boston? Road team
-107/+125 = Florida? Road team
-167/-120 = Yankees? Road team

The one home team you provided was San Diego and that's 130 change, much larger than my assumed 80 cents. In fact, here are some other home favorites for tonight:

Brewers-156/+150...........106 swing
White Sox -105/+183...........88
St. Louis -153/+127...........80
Arizona -124/+163...........87
Oakland -179/+116...........95
Angels -156/+141..........97
Mariners -124/+175..........99

So it appears that an 80 cent swing was actually a conservative estimate for the difference between moneyline and runline for a home team laying 1.5 since that's the lowest number of the bunch

And you wouldn't be up 8146 like you said, because I used Frank's numbers to find the units won.

For example:

4526 home teams win = 4526 units won

4526-1407 home teams won by more than 1 run = 3119 home teams won by more than 1 run times 1.8 odds = 5614 units won

[wayne1218]

you say in post # 31 you proved this to be mathematically correct........4526 wagers at EVEN Money, and assuming you hit em all, you'd be up 4526 units........you would by your lines at +180 hitting all the same games at -1.5 be up 8146 units, not just 5614...........

well my man, you have a fixed faxtor of - 1.5 at +180.....that doesn't hold true...example....here's some lines for today on ML and - 1 1/2.......

-117/+125...........42 swing
-126/+125...........41
-107/+135...........42
-167/-120............47
-250/-120............130

Run line odds at -1.5 depend on the ML odds....they all differ.....no such thing as a set 180........I could theorize your figures at the odds that better suit my opinion, and then say I mathematically proved it was not a disadvantage.....


That mathematical formula you showed is theoritic.....assuming all the lines are the same....and they never are.......therefore, I disagree.........I still don't think it's feasible.....Some instances maybe....as a general rule no....IMO.......kapt


But each to his own....Best to ya----kapt

Kaptain it goes with everything else and shopping lines. Yours my friend are simply put, not good. These are the home favorites remaining tonight copied and pasted from my site (Wagerstreet). It's actually alot higher than .80 units in most cases and adds even more fuel to our claim.

8:05 PM 952 Milwaukee B Sheets -165 -1½ +140 (+1.05 gain)

8:10 PM 964 Chicago White Sox J Danks -101 -1½ +190 (+.91 gain)

8:10 PM 966 St Louis B THOMPSON -155 -1½ +125 (+.80 gain)

9:40 PM 972 Arizona D Davis -125 -1½ +162 (+.87 gain)

10:05 PM 974 San Diego J Peavy -247 -1½ -105 (+1.42 gain)

10:05 PM 976 Oakland C Gaudin -180 -1½ +116 (+.96 gain)

10:05 PM 978 Los Angeles Angels B Colon -156 -1½ +135 (+.91 gain)

10:05 PM 980 Seattle M Batista -131 -1½ +170 (+1.01 gain)

[wayne1218]

.80 Units WAS being very conservative ctt. I agree with that after looking.

[Kaptain]

ctt

Aren't we talking about home teams here?? You didn't list the teams, so I'm not sure where you got your lines, but they must be all the road teams that are favored tonight. You can't use road teams to prove your point when we're discussing laying 1.5 on a home team.......

************************************************** ***

And you wouldn't be up 8146 like you said, because I used Frank's numbers to find the units won.well, you didn't say that, and you didn't show that....in your formula

For example:

4526 home teams win = 4526 units won

4526-1407 home teams won by more than 1 run = 3119 home teams won by more than 1 run times 1.8 odds = 5614 units won

Now that math I can follow----it's all stated and shown......no hidden factors......Now how would you factor in the point of lets say, 45% of the home teams that won by 1 run, didn't need to bat in the 9th....SO they won by 1, but didn't get to bat in the ninth....what percent of the odds do you figure that goes/went against em........I still would like to know what % the home team won by 1, whereas they didn't need to bat....You can't tell me losing 11 % of your potential scoring ability is not a factor somewhere....

[wayne1218]

Kaptain i'm sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. The % is probably the same for the road teams laying -1.5 that give up a cheap run in the bottom of the 9th to win by one. Either way, it is included in the total that shows it to be a legit waym to wager. I'm sure a ton of teams are up one in the 9th and don't need to bat. They are the teams included in the 28% already. I'm having trouble understanding why you can accept that. lol

[TMAC951]

Wanye I understand where your coming from.. I looked at your post up a few and I saw those odds for Milwaukee -1.5 and I couldnt resist.. I just took them as well!

[wayne1218]

Maybe the home teams only win by one run 17% of the time and with allowing cheap runs or not batting in the bottom half it adds about 11% (your number) and that's where the stat lands at around 28%. If that's the case and it's equal financially in the long run, guess what, Las Vegas probably made it that way meaning equal advantage at the window.

[frankb03]

Now, lets see if we can add another stat to that scenario, which in my opinion is the big one.....

What percent of home team wins, were by 1 run, and they were leading by 1, going into their 1/2 of the inning, thus, they didn't have to bat, thus mitigating their potential batting power/scoring ability by 11 %.....

The home team has won 767 games by 1 run where they didn't bat in the 9th inning.

Based on my earlier post in post#9 where the Home Team Wins by 1 run 1407 games 54.5% of the 1 run victories by the home team never bat in the 9th.

Let's add another 322 games the home team scored at least 1 run in the 9th to win by 1 run.

Meaning 1089 (77.4%) one run wins the home team didn't get all their at bats in the 9th as it wasn't needed.