syzgy
05-21-2004, 07:52 PM
Hey guys, I just read this interesting article form the guys at vegasexperts.com Thought I would pass it along, and see what you thought about it. He basically talks about how he thinks it is much easier/profitable to bet the over/under in baseball.
1) You can be only half right and still win your bet.
This is the #1 reason why I like betting baseball totals. Let’s say Randy Johnson of Arizona and Matt Morris of St Louis are slated to face one another, with a total of 7.5 for the game. With two of the top pitchers in the NL on the mound, it’s easy to make a case for the Under. But even if one of the two starters gets hit hard, a 6-1 final score going Under the total is still well within the range of possibility. It’s a similar story with poor pitchers. If the Pirates Josh Fogg matches up against the Giants Brett Tomko, the total would probably be around 9 or 9.5 considering that neither team is overly potent at the plate this season. Both Over bettors can cash their tickets even if Fogg pitches a rare gem, because Tomko could still get rocked, and a 9-3 final is certainly not out of reach.
2) You don’t have to lay big prices to bet on or against any pitcher.
The Rockies Scott Elarton has arguably been the worst starting pitcher in the major leagues in 2004. The linesmakers aren’t idiots by any stretch of the imagination, as Colorado was a substantial underdog in seven of his first eight starts, so betting against Elarton would require the side bettor to lay a big price. But you didn’t have to lay more than -110 betting Elarton Over the total in those eight starts, and you would have cashed repeatedly by doing so. Similarly, the linesmakers consistently install high prices on the favorite when the ‘A’ list starters take the hill. Why lay a big price to support Carlos Zambrano of the Cubs or Roger Clemens of the Astros when you can bet the Under at -110, assuming much less risk with the same potential reward?
3) The linesmakers don’t have much wiggle room to adjust their totals.
Baseball totals at every ballpark except for Coors Field range between a low of 7 and a high of 11.5, with the occasional 6.5 or 12. Even when two hot hitting teams face off against two mediocre starters, the total is not going to come 14. Similarly, when two cold hitting teams face off against two dominant starters, the total is not going to come 5. In other words, it’s very difficult for the linesmakers to compensate enough within the limited confines of the standard range of totals. The linesmakers don’t hesitate to price a dominant favorite at -300, but they don’t have that same ability to adjust when setting baseball totals.
4) The linesmakers are not that confident in their numbers.
Each sportsbook sets limits on the amount that can be bet on any particular wager. The casual bettor rarely runs into the sportsbook limits, normally several thousand dollars or more on side wagers in bases, football and hoops. But the bookmakers do not set high limits like that for baseball totals, and many sportsbooks are reluctant to take wagers above $500 or $1000. Why not? Part of the reason stems from the issues noted above, in #3. Part of the reason comes from the fact that the books get very little ‘square’ money on MLB totals, meaning they’re up against the wiseguy professional bettors, and you don’t remain a professional bettor for very long unless you are beating the bookmaker with relative consistency. That means that the books don’t get balanced action on the majority of baseball totals that they hang. But as much as anything, the low limits on totals are for one reason alone – the linesmakers aren’t as confident that their numbers are good enough to withstand high stakes wagers from informed bettors.
5) Streaks don’t get noticed by the public or the linesmakers.
When any baseball team wins eight straight games, they’ll be catapulted to the lead story on ESPN, and noted by bettors and linesmakers rather quickly. The hot team might have been priced as a -140 favorite in their first game of the streak, but with the same two pitchers on the mound following eight straight wins, the hot team would be much closer to being a -200 favorite, because of the added public money backing that club. But the general public doesn’t notice Over/Under streaks, nor do the national media. St Louis opened the season with eight consecutive Overs; the Expos have gone Under the total in 27 of their 38 games this season. These type of streaks tend to feed upon themselves, extending onwards indefinitely. In 2003, the Dodgers went Under the total 99 times, but Over only 53 times. The Red Sox, on the other hand, went Over the total 95 times while going Under the total only 63 times. I know a handicapper who took a three week vacation last summer, betting just the Dodgers Under and Red Sox Over every game while he was gone. By the time he returned to his daily ‘capping, he was up more than 15 units, just riding the streaking teams again and again, and this makes perfect sense. Teams who are struggling at the plate tend to press, lose confidence, and get out of their normal rhythm. Teams that are hitting well gain confidence, are more selective with their swinging, and generally have better at bats. Likewise, teams that are getting good starting pitching don’t overuse their bullpens, leaving the pens much fresher and better than the teams that are getting lousy starting pitching, who are forced to rely on overused and tired bullpens. A run of Unders produces more Unders; a run of Overs produces more Overs, and the linesmakers simply can’t adjust.
6) Home plate umpires have Over/Under tendencies as much as teams do.
In basketball and football information about the referees is difficult to obtain. There is no one single ref who has more influence that the others, and finding out which refs are slated to officiate which games is not always easy information to obtain. In baseball, the home plate ump has a huge impact on the game, more so than any other referee in any major sport, and home plate umpires are no secret. You can easily find out which ump is slated to be behind the plate for any given game. There’s no question that different umpires have different strike zones. Umps that have a slightly wider strike zone allow the pitchers to get ahead in the count more often, while umps with a tighter strike zone force pitchers behind in the count on a consistent basis. Pitchers get rattled when close calls at the plate don’t go their way, while they gain confidence when they are getting those close calls. John Hirschbeck is a well known Under type umpire, with a relatively wide strike zone that frustrates batters and rewards pitchers. Hirschbeck recently had a two year run in which Unders cashed in 41 of the 63 games that he called. Mike Reilly, on the other hand, has a smaller strike zone, resulting in a 40-24 mark to the Over when he was behind the plate over a two year span.
It’s not that baseball sides can’t be beat, or that football and basketball totals are unbeatable. But for the reasons outlines above, baseball totals can be a consistent and profitable part of any handicapper’s arsenal, worth examining closely on a daily basis throughout the baseball season. In 2003, I had profitable results with my baseball total wagers for six consecutive months to close out the season. After a slow start in 2004, May has proven highly profitable with the totals as well. I expect this type of steady success to continue, making the case that baseball totals are something any astute ‘capper should take advantage of.
1) You can be only half right and still win your bet.
This is the #1 reason why I like betting baseball totals. Let’s say Randy Johnson of Arizona and Matt Morris of St Louis are slated to face one another, with a total of 7.5 for the game. With two of the top pitchers in the NL on the mound, it’s easy to make a case for the Under. But even if one of the two starters gets hit hard, a 6-1 final score going Under the total is still well within the range of possibility. It’s a similar story with poor pitchers. If the Pirates Josh Fogg matches up against the Giants Brett Tomko, the total would probably be around 9 or 9.5 considering that neither team is overly potent at the plate this season. Both Over bettors can cash their tickets even if Fogg pitches a rare gem, because Tomko could still get rocked, and a 9-3 final is certainly not out of reach.
2) You don’t have to lay big prices to bet on or against any pitcher.
The Rockies Scott Elarton has arguably been the worst starting pitcher in the major leagues in 2004. The linesmakers aren’t idiots by any stretch of the imagination, as Colorado was a substantial underdog in seven of his first eight starts, so betting against Elarton would require the side bettor to lay a big price. But you didn’t have to lay more than -110 betting Elarton Over the total in those eight starts, and you would have cashed repeatedly by doing so. Similarly, the linesmakers consistently install high prices on the favorite when the ‘A’ list starters take the hill. Why lay a big price to support Carlos Zambrano of the Cubs or Roger Clemens of the Astros when you can bet the Under at -110, assuming much less risk with the same potential reward?
3) The linesmakers don’t have much wiggle room to adjust their totals.
Baseball totals at every ballpark except for Coors Field range between a low of 7 and a high of 11.5, with the occasional 6.5 or 12. Even when two hot hitting teams face off against two mediocre starters, the total is not going to come 14. Similarly, when two cold hitting teams face off against two dominant starters, the total is not going to come 5. In other words, it’s very difficult for the linesmakers to compensate enough within the limited confines of the standard range of totals. The linesmakers don’t hesitate to price a dominant favorite at -300, but they don’t have that same ability to adjust when setting baseball totals.
4) The linesmakers are not that confident in their numbers.
Each sportsbook sets limits on the amount that can be bet on any particular wager. The casual bettor rarely runs into the sportsbook limits, normally several thousand dollars or more on side wagers in bases, football and hoops. But the bookmakers do not set high limits like that for baseball totals, and many sportsbooks are reluctant to take wagers above $500 or $1000. Why not? Part of the reason stems from the issues noted above, in #3. Part of the reason comes from the fact that the books get very little ‘square’ money on MLB totals, meaning they’re up against the wiseguy professional bettors, and you don’t remain a professional bettor for very long unless you are beating the bookmaker with relative consistency. That means that the books don’t get balanced action on the majority of baseball totals that they hang. But as much as anything, the low limits on totals are for one reason alone – the linesmakers aren’t as confident that their numbers are good enough to withstand high stakes wagers from informed bettors.
5) Streaks don’t get noticed by the public or the linesmakers.
When any baseball team wins eight straight games, they’ll be catapulted to the lead story on ESPN, and noted by bettors and linesmakers rather quickly. The hot team might have been priced as a -140 favorite in their first game of the streak, but with the same two pitchers on the mound following eight straight wins, the hot team would be much closer to being a -200 favorite, because of the added public money backing that club. But the general public doesn’t notice Over/Under streaks, nor do the national media. St Louis opened the season with eight consecutive Overs; the Expos have gone Under the total in 27 of their 38 games this season. These type of streaks tend to feed upon themselves, extending onwards indefinitely. In 2003, the Dodgers went Under the total 99 times, but Over only 53 times. The Red Sox, on the other hand, went Over the total 95 times while going Under the total only 63 times. I know a handicapper who took a three week vacation last summer, betting just the Dodgers Under and Red Sox Over every game while he was gone. By the time he returned to his daily ‘capping, he was up more than 15 units, just riding the streaking teams again and again, and this makes perfect sense. Teams who are struggling at the plate tend to press, lose confidence, and get out of their normal rhythm. Teams that are hitting well gain confidence, are more selective with their swinging, and generally have better at bats. Likewise, teams that are getting good starting pitching don’t overuse their bullpens, leaving the pens much fresher and better than the teams that are getting lousy starting pitching, who are forced to rely on overused and tired bullpens. A run of Unders produces more Unders; a run of Overs produces more Overs, and the linesmakers simply can’t adjust.
6) Home plate umpires have Over/Under tendencies as much as teams do.
In basketball and football information about the referees is difficult to obtain. There is no one single ref who has more influence that the others, and finding out which refs are slated to officiate which games is not always easy information to obtain. In baseball, the home plate ump has a huge impact on the game, more so than any other referee in any major sport, and home plate umpires are no secret. You can easily find out which ump is slated to be behind the plate for any given game. There’s no question that different umpires have different strike zones. Umps that have a slightly wider strike zone allow the pitchers to get ahead in the count more often, while umps with a tighter strike zone force pitchers behind in the count on a consistent basis. Pitchers get rattled when close calls at the plate don’t go their way, while they gain confidence when they are getting those close calls. John Hirschbeck is a well known Under type umpire, with a relatively wide strike zone that frustrates batters and rewards pitchers. Hirschbeck recently had a two year run in which Unders cashed in 41 of the 63 games that he called. Mike Reilly, on the other hand, has a smaller strike zone, resulting in a 40-24 mark to the Over when he was behind the plate over a two year span.
It’s not that baseball sides can’t be beat, or that football and basketball totals are unbeatable. But for the reasons outlines above, baseball totals can be a consistent and profitable part of any handicapper’s arsenal, worth examining closely on a daily basis throughout the baseball season. In 2003, I had profitable results with my baseball total wagers for six consecutive months to close out the season. After a slow start in 2004, May has proven highly profitable with the totals as well. I expect this type of steady success to continue, making the case that baseball totals are something any astute ‘capper should take advantage of.