anyone ever play BOTH SIDES of a baseball game?

[mace25]

i was looking a senerio ... where you would play both sides of a baseball game... runlines... -1.5 for each team.

both plays would be around +160 or so.


so as long as it wasnt a ONE RUN game... you would make 60 bucks ..... no matter who wins.


i was wondering how this would work over the course of a week... or a season. anyone ever try this?

yesterday if you were to play every game... it would be 13-2.



so that would be like winning 780 while losing: 400....

net profit of 380 if you did 100 dollar bets.


i dont know if this would actuall work or not.. but just thought i would try it out there.


the example for tonite would be:


Angels
-1.5 (+180)

AND TAKE......

White Sox -1.5 (+150)


so as long as it isnt a ONE RUN game at the end... you would win something.... either 50 bucks if whitesox win, or 80 bucks if the angles were to win.

[boondockst]

interesting...i'm sure someone will come and flame this idea but i'm gonna experiment with it for a bit..It sure puts a different spin on things

[llabb]

I think I remember vaguely reading some sort of study on this last year. It seems that you usually win a couple units most nights, like you said, but every so often there's a night that just kills you for double-digit unit losses. Evens out in the long run.

That's what I'd expect, because otherwise the books would tighten up the RL odds. If you end up trying it, though, let us know how your experience goes.

[mace25]

yea, i am going to experiment with it for a week or two.......


i wrote down all the lines for tonites games.

i am going to "pretend bet" 100 bucks on each team... just to make it easy to track.

so tonite........ risking 1800 dollars. i will post back at the end of tonite, or tommorrow AM... what the results were.

[mrbaseball]

The arithmetic is generally against you. Ever do the math to see how often one run games happen? You will quickly discard this strategy if you do.

When the price is right I will sometimes try for a middle. Meaning I bet one team to win and the other team +1.5 runs. Sometimes when the lines move the runline doesn't move as fast and there is an opportunity. Typically you need the spread inside of of 60 cents. An example would be a favorite of -130 (or less) and a plus 1.5 runline at -130 (or less). The smaller that spread the better and then you have to do the handicap and math for those particular teams to see if it is worthwhile for that particular game. But that spread has to be inside of 60 cents before I'll even look at it.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Angels
-1.5 (+180)

AND TAKE......

White Sox -1.5 (+150

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets do the math! Sox and Angels are two heavy one run gamers. 44% of Sox games have been one runners so far while 36% of Angels have been. That's a lot! We don't need it to occur quite that often to show just how bad this bet is. So we will use 32% chance of a one run game which is about the AL average over the past few years.

At least 32% of the time you will lose both sides or $200. This equates to: $200 x .32 = -$64

But if you win (68% chance) you get either $50 or $80. We will assume in this example to each have and equal chance. That would mean a 34% chance to win $50 and a 34% chance to win $80. This equates to: $50 x .34 = $17 plus $80 x .34 = $27 for a total of $17 + $27 = $44.

So the bottom line is every time you make this play you can expect to win $44 and lose $64 for a net loss of $20 per play.

I believe I'll be staying away from this one /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[The13atman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Angels
-1.5 (+180)

AND TAKE......

White Sox -1.5 (+150

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets do the math! Sox and Angels are two heavy one run gamers. 44% of Sox games have been one runners so far while 36% of Angels have been. That's a lot! We don't need it to occur quite that often to show just how bad this bet is. So we will use 32% chance of a one run game which is about the AL average over the past few years.

At least 32% of the time you will lose both sides or $200. This equates to: $200 x .32 = -$64

But if you win (68% chance) you get either $50 or $80. We will assume in this example to each have and equal chance. That would mean a 34% chance to win $50 and a 34% chance to win $80. This equates to: $50 x .34 = $17 plus $80 x .34 = $27 for a total of $17 + $27 = $44.

So the bottom line is every time you make this play you can expect to win $44 and lose $64 for a net loss of $20 per play.

I believe I'll be staying away from this one /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I did these type calculations earlier in the year and they should be expected to lose in the long run. This idea sounds much better than it really is. If it worked, there wouldn't be a (smart) handicapper in the world who wouldn't use this. Trust me, you're not the first person to ever think of this (no offense).

Like I said, I've tracked it before and mathematically it will lose in the long run. What is considered a true "long run" and how much variance would be involved in this strategy, however, I do not know.

[blownheadgasket]

Correct - you have to take into account that roughly 30% of all MLB games are 1 run contests. Yes, certain teams may go through a variance where the RL is 14-2 or something - but for entire season its going to be a losing proposition.

Good luck!

[mace25]

yea....... figured so. i knew i wouldnt be the first person to think of this.

[boondockst]

great job coming in late on the replies..I donkishly tried out the ANA-CWS proposal so that i could blow money on one of the 4 of 12 one-run games today

[mace25]

yea.... i kept track all tonite.... and would have lost money.

and after listening to everyone on here.... i agree this is not a smart move.

proablly better to just play a -300 moneyline or something for the amount of return on the cash.


thanks for all the replies.

[Jibbs]

I did this for a while over the last two years. I think you would have to study results from about 50 years to figure out whether it is profitable or not. There were points where I would be up about 40 units and then have it all wiped out in a week of 1 run games. All in all for me it was about a break even proposition.

[GFunk911]

[ QUOTE ]
I did this for a while over the last two years. I think you would have to study results from about 50 years to figure out whether it is profitable or not. There were points where I would be up about 40 units and then have it all wiped out in a week of 1 run games. All in all for me it was about a break even proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, it wasn't