If Your Book Has a "Will Any Team Score in the First Inning" Bet - Read On.

[Riceman]

I've been tracking this bet from the beginning of the season and this is what I've found. In the A.L. the "Yes" a run will be scored in the 1st. inning is 26 to 12 against "No" a run will not be scored. That's 68% so far. In the N.L. the "Yes" is only very slightly ahead 25-24. Focusing on the A.L. this is how it works out.

Date
April 2 (5-2)
April 3 (1-2)
April 4 (4-2)
April 5 (3-1)
April 6 (4-2)
April 7 (5-1)
April 8 (4-2)
--- ---
Total (26-12)

Also I have noticed that Oakland in all of their seven games has yet to score in the 1st. inning and their opponent has also not scored. Making all of Oakland's 7 games a big part of the 12 "No" games shown above.

Bottom line - Bet all A.L. games to have a run scored in the 1st. inning, excluding all Oakland games. If you so choose you could bet "No" runs scored in Oakland games.
Hoping all the above makes some sense.


Riceman ~

 

[B.A.R.]

Good reserach Riceman

 

[TheGarfather]

Good research, but too small of a sample size. Let's see where this is at in July.

 

[Gorgolon Lives]

Fuck it! Let's start riding it starting tomorrow. Take a gamble!!!

 

[brewer]

i have a problem with this proposed system in that there is no logical explanation, or at least that i can find, in why this is in fact happening.

systems that work in the long run have their reasons why they work.

this appears to me to be more of chance.

 

[CollegeKingRex]

I don't agree.

7 out of 12 games in one league involving one team have no runs.

THe rest are 26-5?

That is not an accident, not something that is 80-plus percent...

Good shit Rice, and if I get a chance to do it tomorrow, I WILL bet those AL "YES THERE WILL BE A 1ST INN RUN" in all games not involving the A's.

 

[brewer]

31 game sample is nothing. gl to you guys tailing.

 

[CollegeKingRex]

brewer - i would normally agree with you. However, I watched at least 3-4 innings or more of at least HALF of those games last week.

I am telling you, the runs were not accidents. These AL pitchers are overmatched by the hitters, at least so far.

This is not anything that will last throughout the year, as once the scouting reports come in on some of these young hitters (Think Young for Tampa, for example), then it will be much easier to pitch to them.

But for at least another week, I forsee another big week for "YES" in this same prop - as well as game totals to go flying OVER in the AL....

 

[BetCrimes1984]

The other thing to remember, as a contributing factor towards the small pool size being a misleading agent, is that in all this time theres only been 2 series for each team (and with wash-out games to boot).

My point being that theres the obvious observation that its simply the case of the right teams having come across the right rotation sequence, to date, to generate these AL results. Obviously the next sequence of AL results are going to involve match-up and venue collaborations that havent yet existed, and thats on a large scale, which could easily provide the reverse results. Add into that fact it's beyond the first week (pitchers getting into 2nd & 3rd starts) and the picture becomes clearer, IMO.

I think you needed to be onto this after 2 or 3 days of results, not a weeks worth.

For instance, if I had the option of doing so, I'd look very closely at the A's coming match-ups and, (if) seeing what I liked, I'd green light chasing a yes for them.

 

[TeamPlayer]

One possible explanation is the cold weather. Assuming that the cold weather affects hitters more than it does pitchers (I heard that from a baseball commentator/ex-player recently), then the cold weather could explain why hitters are not scoring runs in the first inning. It is as if they need time to get warmed up.

The weather is supposed to heat up by the middle of this week so beware

 

[TeamPlayer]

sorry guys, I had that reversed. If the cold weather is the reason, then it would be affecting the pitchers more than the batters. Anyhow, I wouldn't be surprised if the weather had something to do with it all

 

[JPicks]

Somebody over at the other place actually did the research on this one offseason for all gaves over the course of the season. They came up with about a 52-54% or +52 unts (really wish I could remember) for the yes a run will be scored in the first inning. I'm not 100% clear on all the #'s as it's been awhile since I saw it. I do remember that you will be much better off only betting the games that have +juice on the yes. It's not worth betting on the -100's for a Yes bet.

 

[bluemyboy]

Somebody over at the other place actually did the research on this one offseason for all gaves over the course of the season. They came up with about a 52-54% or +52 unts (really wish I could remember) for the yes a run will be scored in the first inning. I'm not 100% clear on all the #'s as it's been awhile since I saw it. I do remember that you will be much better off only betting the games that have +juice on the yes. It's not worth betting on the -100's for a Yes bet.

"No there will not be a run in the first" is about as sucker as they come. As the season continues the no becomes a bigger and bigger (-). good thread.

 

[HUNT]

awesome stuff rice..way to research it.

 

[rolub]

At sportsbook.com, today's AL props are all + odds on scoring a run in the first... except, of course, the A's-White Sox, which has +110 odds to score in the first.

in my opinion, if you want to chase the A's 0-7 start, today is a great time to do so going against the 53-year-old Jose Contreras.

 

[dfresh]

I might take no run being scored in the first of Baltimore/Detriot at +100

hmmmmmmmmm