Baseball Info

[nropp11]

Using the -1 Runline in baseball
A lot of people use a -1.5 runline in baseball to reduce vig, but in my opinion there is a better way with lesser risk. I ain’t going to go in depth to explain it, but I’ll post an example.
Take the Red Sox/A’s for instance:
Red Sox -157 ($100 to win $64)
Red Sox -1.5 +100 ($64 to win $64)
Therefore, you’re risking $164 to win $128 on the Red Sox winning at -1. If the game lands on 1 run, you win your original investment, don’t lose anything on the second (break-even).
Thus, your odds in this scenario would have been Red Sox -1 -128.
You won’t find many opportunities beginning of the season, but you do find some nice opportunities if you can find the consistent -120 to -130 ML, b/c their runlines on the -1.5 are in the +150’s to +160’s. For Example:
Cubs ML -120 ($100 to win $83)
Cubs RL -1.5 +155 ($83 to win $129)
Thus, you’re risking $183 to win $212, game lands on 1, push again.
Thus, Cubs -1 is at +112.

Just passing this along, you’ll find some nice spots in some instances…I use it often, especially if you have a few outs (3 or 4 different books w/ better prices - or if you do some arbing or bonus busting).

GL

 

[Fondybadger]

Interesting thought, never really though of doing something like that. I've done it where I've taken the + money on the RL and the dog ML, but never both the same side to get the -1... With 5Dimes having the -1 RL's, I'd like to see how those lines would end up comparing.

 

[B.A.R.]

Very interesting.

 

[NickelAndDimer]

You won’t find many opportunities beginning of the season, but you do find some nice opportunities if you can find the consistent -120 to -130 ML, b/c their runlines on the -1.5 are in the +150’s to +160’s.

does the ML need to be around -120 to -130 or can it be slightly lower/higher

Example tomorrow's game with Bos/Oak

Bos ML -115
Bos RL -1.5 +145

 

[nropp11]

does the ML need to be around -120 to -130 or can it be slightly lower/higher

Example tomorrow's game with Bos/Oak

Bos ML -115
Bos RL -1.5 +145

Basically any team you can get -130 or cheaper is going to give you a positive vig (underdog) on the -1 runline.

In this case, you're taking Red Sox -1 +115. These come in handy especially where I like to use em when you have a virtual PK or one team's ML is at -104, when the RL is around +180 or so, thus laying the -1 +140 ish = value.

 

[NickelAndDimer]

gotcha....thanks

 

[cubsker]

what books offer -1? I don't think DSI/Bookmaker do. Pretty sure Bodog doesn't b/c they suck. I'm guessing The Greek does.

 

[mogo]

:tiphat: bump for reference.

 

[Fondybadger]

what books offer -1? I don't think DSI/Bookmaker do. Pretty sure Bodog doesn't b/c they suck. I'm guessing The Greek does.

5 Dimes

 

[Administrator]

5 Dimes

use them almost exclusively for bases...2 years running...but i've yet to find a -1 RL there.

opcorn:

 

[Blue_Chip]

what books offer -1? I don't think DSI/Bookmaker do. Pretty sure Bodog doesn't b/c they suck. I'm guessing The Greek does.

Fondy says 5dimes offers it, but I do not use 5dimes, so I cannot attest.

You can calculate the -1 RL yourself. Use the example nropp gave above where you wager X amount on the ML then rollover the potential profit from ML cash to the RL.

If I get time tonight I will make a -1 RL calculation spreadsheet for the mods to sticky at the top of the MLB forum.

 

[pigeon]

-1.5 will show greater profit in the long run because you are paying extra juice on the 2 bets just to possibly get a refund if they win by 1... bad topic.

 

[Blue_Chip]

just to possibly get a refund if they win by 1... bad topic.

Good topic

Over the last 3 years, 27.4% of all games have been decided by a one-run differential.

Hell, the last baseball wager I lost was a 2-1 loss.

When this topic covers over 1/4 of all games over the last three years, I wouldn't call it a bad topic.

 

[pigeon]

Good topic

Over the last 3 years, 27.4% of all games have been decided by a one-run differential.

Hell, the last baseball wager I lost was a 2-1 loss.

When this topic covers over 1/4 of all games over the last three years, I wouldn't call it a bad topic.

"You won’t find many opportunities beginning of the season, but you do find some nice opportunities if you can find the consistent -120 to -130 ML, b/c their runlines on the -1.5 are in the +150’s to +160’s. For Example:
Cubs ML -120 ($100 to win $83)
Cubs RL -1.5 +155 ($83 to win $129)
Thus, you’re risking $183 to win $212, game lands on 1, push again.
Thus, Cubs -1 is at +112."

in this case you are giving up 33 cents to break even (cubs -1 +112 compared to cubs -1.5 +155)

so please tell me how giving up 33 cents would make sense in the long run if only 27.4% games are decided by 1 run

 

[Blue_Chip]

in this case you are giving up 33 cents to break even (cubs -1 +112 compared to cubs -1.5 +155)

so please tell me how giving up 33 cents would make sense in the long run if only 27.4% games are decided by 1 run

You are using one price; the price is not constant

 

[tuck321]

Tend to agree with pidgeon. They do not make these options to help you. They are calculated to make you pay more for the option then it is actually worth.

 

[pigeon]

You are using one price; the price is not constant

the difference in -1 and -1.5 is always within the same distance, give or take a few. this makes choosing the -1.5 option over -1 far more profitable in the long run given that 27.4% games are decided by 1 run

 

[CapTwo]

opcorn: