[jjgold]

So many games decided by one run in the big leagues, also many times teams do not bat in the bottom of the 9th and those home teams usually laying the runs.

Stay away from them

[pico]

So many games decided by one run in the big leagues, also many times teams do not bat in the bottom of the 9th and those home teams usually laying the runs.

Stay away from them

talking about the cleveland game?

[Senator7]

I think the exact number of 1 run games is 30%, Coach.

[BigBollocks]

I've known some folks to profit long-term in utilizing the +1.5 coach...

[Ganchrow]

Based on 19,681 games worth of Covers data from the 1999-2006 seasons, 27.6% ended with a MOV of exactly 1 run and 15.16% ended with a money line favorite MOV (or home team MOV if neither team was favored) of exactly 1 run.

[BigBollocks]

Hey Hanky on a different subject could you please tone down the profanity a notch or too in lieu of more substantance? I say this for two reasons....#1) having the sound turned up if ladies are around, and #2) in your last video posted yesterday I watched for five minutes and left not having a clue what you were talking about.

Looking forward to your reality show....

[Ganchrow]

If you're using a book such as Pinnacle, which deals dime run lines, then you'll typically see a reduction in vig when moving away from a money line between relatively evenly matched teams and an increase in vig when moving away from a money line with one team a relatively large favorite.

For example, look at tomorrow's Houston/Philly game. Philly's a -111 to +103 favorite on the money line, for 1.833% vig. On the run line Philly's -169 to +159 for 1.415% vig.

Conversely, look at tomorrow's Tampa Bay at Minnesota game, where the Twins are -201 to +185 faves on the money line for 1.831% vig. and -1½ +101 faves to -111 on the run line for 2.304% vig.

Another issue is that run line dogs are offered at shorter odds than the same side on the money line, and run line faves at longer odds than the same side on the money line. Hence, from the perspective of expected growth maximization, were the +EV (same) sides of money lines and run lines sufficiently closely valued, there would then be incentive both to betting the +1½ in preference to the money line, and to betting the money line in preference to the -1½.

Of course this latter argument will hold little weight for those that subscribe to the lottery mentality of sports betting, but for advantage bettors (whom we'd generally expect to avoid such ultimately detrimental staking strategies) it's clearly the superior option from the perspective of growth maximization and risk minimization.

Now this isn't to say that other factors won't be involved in determining whether to bet the money or the run line (factors such as those indicated by RickySteve and The HG), but rather that clearly lacking these other factors the decision can be made easier by the above.

So a couple of examples to summarize. All else being equal,

Florida -104 -1½ +155
Atlanta -104 +1½ -165

if you like Atlanta, then based on the above you should clearly go with the +1½ -165.

And all else being equal,

Washington +174 +1½ -120
N.Y. Mets -182 -1½ +110

if you like the Mets you should clearly go with the -182.

REPOST

[BigBollocks]

Terrific post and numbers Ganch. I'm beginning to realize that you're quite the wiz

[spliff]

great run on the numbers Ganchrow, thanks. I have to agree with JJ here, those -1.5 runlines are a hosejob.

[Senator7]

Terrific post and numbers Ganch. I'm beginning to realize that you're quite the wiz

Ganch is SBR's resident genius though sometimes he's too smart for his own good...

[Utah]

So a couple of examples to summarize. All else being equal,

Florida -104 -1½ +155
Atlanta -104 +1½ -165

if you like Atlanta, then based on the above you should clearly go with the +1½ -165.

And all else being equal,

Washington +174 +1½ -120
N.Y. Mets -182 -1½ +110

if you like the Mets you should clearly go with the -182.

Does this work in reverse as well? If I like Florida I should take the ML and if I like Washington I should take PS?

[Ganchrow]

Does this work in reverse as well? If I like Florida I should take the ML and if I like Washington I should take PS?

Great question.

In the case of Florida, although (all else equal) the money line would provide a better opportunity from a bankroll growth perspective (shorter odds), that market is offered at higher vig than the run line market (1.92% vs. 1.46%). As such without knowing some measure of edge¹ the superior bet is indeterminate.

If we assume a zero-vig edge of 3%, the money line win probability would be 51.5%², and the run line probability would be 39.8%³, corresponding to edges of 1.02%⁴ and 1.50%⁵, respectively. This implies expected log utility for the money line of 0.0054%⁶ and expected utility for the run line of 0.0072%⁷. So in this case the run line would be superior.

However, if we assume a zero-vig edge of 10% ,the money line win probability would be 55.0%, and the run line probability would be 42.5%, corresponding to edges of 7.88% and 8.40%, respectively. This implies expected log utility for the money line of 0.3240% and expected utility for the run line of 0.2253%. So in this case the money line would be superior.

So the idea is that when comparing short odds/high vig to long odds/low vig the preferred bet would indeterminate without looking at edge. If the edge were relatively small then the lower vig bet would dominate; while if the edge were relatively large the shorter odds bet would dominate.

---

1. Any measure of edge for either of the markets would work -- remember we're assuming that two markets ex-vig are priced to yield equivalent edges. I do want to stress that in the real world this may very well not be a valid assumption. In this post I use zero-vig (i.e. mid-market) edge.
2. -104/-104 (dec: 1.9615) implies a zero-edge win probability of 50%, so at 3% edge:
   prob = (1+3%)×50% = 51.5%
3. +155/-165 (dec: 2.5500/1.6061) implies a zero-edge win probability on the dog of of ~38.6%, so at 3% edge:
   prob = (1+3%)×38.6% ≈ 39.8%
4. edge ≈ 1.9615 × 51.5% ≈ 1.02%
5. edge ≈ 2.5500 × 39.8% ≈ 1.50%
6. E(U) = prob * ln(1 + edge) + (1-prob) * ln(1 - edge/(odds -1))
   ≈ 51.5% × ln(1 + 1.02%) + (1-51.5%) × log(1 - 1.02% / 0.9615)
   ≈ 0.0054%
7. E(U) = prob * ln(1 + edge) + (1-prob) * ln(1 - edge/(odds -1))
   ≈ 39.8% × ln(1 + 1.50%) + (1-39.8%) × log(1 - 1.50% / 1.5500)
   ≈ 0.0072%
   
   etc. ...

[MrX]

Leave it to Ganchrow to take a typical jjgold platitude and turn it into an econ thesis.

[jjgold]

I think the only time a run line might be worth a play is a very strong offensive team alying less than -120.

[Dark Horse]

Dividing a wager over the ML and RL is often a good way to bet bigger favorites.

[Utah]

that market is offered at higher vig than the run line market (1.92% vs. 1.46%).

I get 1.92% on the ml but I also get 1.92% on the run line. How are you getting 1.46%?

The true line is +160 and you are getting 155. At 160, you expect to win 38.5% and lose 61.5%.

160x38.5% - 100x61.5% = 0

Substituting 155 yields:
155*38.5% - 100x61.5% = -1.92%

What am I missing here?

[Ganchrow]

I get 1.92% on the ml but I also get 1.92% on the run line. How are you getting 1.46%?

The true line is +160 and you are getting 155. At 160, you expect to win 38.5% and lose 61.5%.

160x38.5% - 100x61.5% = 0

Substituting 155 yields:
155*38.5% - 100x61.5% = -1.92%

What am I missing here?

The methodology you're using to calculate vig is incorrect.

+155 => 100/(100+155) ≈ 39.22% prob
-165 => 165/(100+165) ≈ 62.26% prob

market overround ≈ 39.22% + 62.26% ≈ 101.48%
Vig = 1 - 1/overround
≈ 1 - 1/101.48%
≈ 1.46%

market probability = 39.22%/101.48%
≈ 38.64%

mid-market price (i.e.. "zero-vig price") ≈ ±100 × (1/38.64% - 1)
≈ ±158.8

See the thread An introduction to expectations and theoretical hold for the way to properly calculate theoretical hold in general or check out my Scalp/Vig Calculator. (Enter +155 into "Outcome 1 Line" and -165 into "Outcome 2 Line". The negative of "% Profit" corresponds to the vig.)

[rjp]

Dividing a wager over the ML and RL is often a good way to bet bigger favorites.

And also a way to force yourself into -EV situations with laying the 1.5 runs. Seems like the right thing to do, but it isn't.

[Utah]

The methodology you're using to calculate vig is incorrect.

+155 => 100/(100+155) ≈ 39.22% prob
-165 => 165/(100+165) ≈ 62.26% prob

market overround ≈ 39.22% + 62.26% ≈ 101.48%
Vig = 1 - 1/overround
≈ 1 - 1/101.48%
≈ 1.46%

market probability = 39.22%/101.48%
≈ 38.64%

mid-market price (i.e.. "zero-vig price") ≈ ±100 × (1/38.64% - 1)
≈ ±158.8

Ah...I get it. It took me an hour to understand the math and read your other post but it is pretty straightforward. I was making the stupid and lazy mistake of just taking the midpoint as the zero-vig price when a little math with show that it obviously isn't. I actually had the excel already setup to do it as I had separate calculators for favorites and underdogs. I simply needed to tie the two together to yield an equivalent EVs. Once I did that I got the same numbers as you.

Thanks.

[Ganchrow]

Ah...I get it. It took me an hour to understand the math and read your other post but it is pretty straightforward. I was making the stupid and lazy mistake of just taking the midpoint as the zero-vig price when a little math with show that it obviously isn't. I actually had the excel already setup to do it as I had separate calculators for favorites and underdogs. I simply needed to tie the two together to yield an equivalent EVs. Once I did that I got the same numbers as you.

Yeah, exactly. US-style odds, while convenient for eye-balling purposes, are of little use quantitatively.

You might fund this Excel template with some commonly-used (by me, anyway) VBA odds functions: http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...tml#post256487

[RickySteve]

Ah...I get it. It took me an hour to understand the math and read your other post but it is pretty straightforward. I was making the stupid and lazy mistake of just taking the midpoint as the zero-vig price when a little math with show that it obviously isn't. I actually had the excel already setup to do it as I had separate calculators for favorites and underdogs. I simply needed to tie the two together to yield an equivalent EVs. Once I did that I got the same numbers as you.

Thanks.

7th grayd alegebraz shur iz tuff!

[SBR_John]

Great explanations Ganch!

Personally, I look to lay the 1.5 run for good plus money when the total is 10.5 or higher. I dont think you can make money long term taking the 1.5 run and having to put up -140 or higher.

[hhsilver]

ganchrow wrote:

********
Based on 19,681 games worth of Covers data from the 1999-2006 seasons, 27.6% ended with a MOV of exactly 1 run and 15.16% ended with a money line favorite MOV (or home team MOV if neither team was favored) of exactly 1 run.

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

And I thank you Ganch for all the great info in so many threads.
I wonder if your program that got the above results would be able to consider only games where the home team is the favorite (but not an extremely heavy favorite). Maybe, -110 to -180 on ML. What % of these games end with home team MOV = 1?

Thanks

hhsilver

By the way, this is my first post. I am confused about the "quote message in reply" option. Which message? there are many in this thread. In this case I just copy/pasted Ganch's message. Had I checked the box , would I have been prompted as to which message?

Anyway, great site guys. I've been lurking for a couple months - finally joined.

[Ganchrow]

I wonder if your program that got the above results would be able to consider only games where the home team is the favorite (but not an extremely heavy favorite). Maybe, -110 to -180 on ML. What % of these games end with home team MOV = 1?

I get 1,286 games out of 7,264. That's 17.70%

And welcome to SBR. :-)

By the way, this is my first post. I am confused about the "quote message in reply" option. Which message? there are many in this thread. In this case I just copy/pasted Ganch's message. Had I checked the box , would I have been prompted as to which message?

To quote a message, just click the label entitled "Quote Post" at lower right of that message.

[hhsilver]

Thanks Ganchrow -- That % is pretty close to what I got by grinding the data out from a site that made such data available. Of course I have a much smaller sample, but large enough that I considered it significant (or at least hoped it was).

I have some ideas about betting against a 1 run home-fav MOV by taking +odds on both the run line and money line if the odds are sufficiently high in each case. At Pinnacle, which I can't use anymore :-( , in '05-'06, I found many games with high enough odds that non 1 run home MOV >or= about 81 or-82% of the time would lead to profit. Roughly, by the way I was betting , I felt I the break even pt was about 4.3 "small wins" for each loss of both bets (Mov=1).

Actually I was betting very small for the entertainment value of having action in a sport I haven't enjoyed since I used to go to see Clemente, Groat, Law, Friend , Virdon, Maz,.....at Forbes Field as a kid. As a result, I got a little more intersted in baseball for the first time in years.

I won in '05 doing this. Lost in '06, but was encouraged by a significant comeback after a horrible first month. The loss for the season was pretty small. Made me wonder if there were more 1 run home-fav wins early in season. In '05 I didn't start until well into June. I haven't been keeping data, but it seems there are many such 1 run games so far this year.

Any thoughts on this?

[hhsilver]

Also, Ganchrow wrote:

To quote a message, just click the label entitled "Quote Post" at lower right of that message.

*******************
I don't see that "quote Post" label. Can't figure out why. I looked in options/settings and didn't see anything that might apply. what I see is "options -----__ Quote message in reply?" at the bottom of the entire thread. I can't understand which message of the thread this applies to. I assure only the bottom one.

No problem , I can copy/paste. But I like the way other users quote are in a shaded box.

hh

[Ganchrow]

Thanks Ganchrow -- That % is pretty close to what I got by grinding the data out from a site that made such data available. Of course I have a much smaller sample, but large enough that I considered it significant (or at least hoped it was).

I have some ideas about betting against a 1 run home-fav MOV by taking +odds on both the run line and money line if the odds are sufficiently high in each case. At Pinnacle, which I can't use anymore :-( , in '05-'06, I found many games with high enough odds that non 1 run home MOV >or= about 81 or-82% of the time would lead to profit. Roughly, by the way I was betting , I felt I the break even pt was about 4.3 "small wins" for each loss of both bets (Mov=1).

Actually I was betting very small for the entertainment value of having action in a sport I haven't enjoyed since I used to go to see Clemente, Groat, Law, Friend , Virdon, Maz,.....at Forbes Field as a kid. As a result, I got a little more intersted in baseball for the first time in years.

I won in '05 doing this. Lost in '06, but was encouraged by a significant comeback after a horrible first month. The loss for the season was pretty small. Made me wonder if there were more 1 run home-fav wins early in season. In '05 I didn't start until well into June. I haven't been keeping data, but it seems there are many such 1 run games so far this year.

Any thoughts on this?

Your hypothesis is that the likelihood of a game ending with a moderate home favorite's MOV of exactly 1 is lower than that anticipated by the market.

So let's break this down. With this hypotheis what you're saying is that on average in the case of a moderate home fave, either the home -1½ run line is undervalued, or the visitor money line is undervalued, or both. Furthermore you're saying that you expect this to be true regardless of the total.

Now ostensibly if you're making both these bets it would be because both have value, or else you'd only be betting one. (Although as per Kelly even if only one had value it might still make sense to bet the other in smallish size as long as it didn't have that much negative value -- but I don't get the impression that that's what you're doing here).

But what I don't get is why exactly we should expect that in the case of every moderate home fave that there exists value in not one but two very common market bets. We're not talking about some difficult-to-uncover phenomenon, we're talking about a very straightforward pair of bets that would be simple to identify. What I'm getting at is that if you plan to continue making these bets you should definitely think long and hard about 1) why this mispricing exists; and 2) what fundamental flaw exists in the market such that it would be rationale to expect this gross mispricing to persist.

Personally, I'd be skeptical.

You'd also meed to properly test your hypothesis which I'd urge to do "out-of-sample". This means that you need to test your hypothesis on a segment of data different from that used to formulate your hypothesis (this is called "in-sample"). If not then you run the risk of data mining.

[Ganchrow]

Also, Ganchrow wrote:

To quote a message, just click the label entitled "Quote Post" at lower right of that message.

*******************
I don't see that "quote Post" label. Can't figure out why. I looked in options/settings and didn't see anything that might apply. what I see is "options -----__ Quote message in reply?" at the bottom of the entire thread. I can't understand which message of the thread this applies to. I assure only the bottom one.

No problem , I can copy/paste. But I like the way other users quote are in a shaded box.

hh

Check out the arrows in the attached .jpg.

[Lenny7]

Baseball Runs Lines

Betting the Run Line in Major League Baseball



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is designed to present information regarding wagering on the Run Line in Major League Baseball. Over 20,000 Major League baseball games played since 1989 have formed the data base used for this study. It takes a great deal of time to go through all of the data and analyze what has happened and we shall be presenting the data to you in segments over the next few weeks, including results broken down by price range.

We begin with an Overview of Run Line betting.

Unlike football and basketball in which pointspreads are used to determine the winners and losers of wagers, baseball has historically been a sport in which bettors merely wager on which team will win the game. As the perceived difference between two competing teams grows, money line odds are used to 'equalize' the chances of a bettor showing a profit over the long run. Two evenly matched teams will be involved in a 'pick em' game. In Sports Books that feature a "ten cents line" you would lay $105 to win $100 on the team you think will win the game. A team that is more moderately favored might be priced as a -140 favorite in which case you would wager $140 to win $100. If you bet on the opponent, the Underdog, you would wager $100 to win $130. As the price of the favorite rises, the 'spread' between the favorite and underdog prices also increases. For example, a -200 Favorite often returns +180 on the Underdog.

Run Line wagering attempts to introduce the pointspread element found in basketball and football wagering to a very limited degree. The Run Line wager involves the laying or taking of one and a half runs with a corresponding adjustment in the price. When you wager on a Favorite and lay the run and half you are wagering that the Favorite will win by two runs or more. A wager on the Underdog at plus a run and a half means that you are wagering on the Underdog to either win the game straight up or lose the game by exactly one run. Obviously you do not have tie games in baseball.

The price adjustments in run line wagering depend upon whether the favored team is at home or on the road. A larger adjustment occurs for Home Favorites since they will often only get at bats in 8 innings if they have the lead after the visiting team hits in the ninth. If the home team trails or is tied in the middle of the ninth inning the odds that they will win the game by more than one run are greatly reduced since it would take a multiple run home run to win by at least two runs since the game would normally end after the go ahead run crosses home plate in the event of any run producing event other than a home run. The road team will ALWAYS bat in the top of the ninth inning regardless of the score so it is easier for the road team to win by more than a run in tight ballgames. In the ninth inning and in extra innings there is no limit on the number of runs the road team can score -- they continue to bat until there are three outs.

A typical example of how the price adjustment works is as follows. A Home Favorite of - 125 often is transformed into an Underdog of roughly + 145 when laying the run and a half, a spread of 70 cents. The corresponding Road Underdog, priced at + 115 straight, is often a Favorite of - 165 when getting the plus run and a half, a spread of 80 cents. If the roles were reversed, a Road Favorite of - 125 would be priced at + 120 when laying the run and a half, a spread of just 45 cents. The corresponding Home Underdog, priced straight at + 115, would be a Favorite of about - 140 when taking the run and a half, a spread of 55 cents.

It is our contention that playing the Run Line and converting a Favorite into an Underdog makes great sense but doing the reverse, taking the run and half with the underdog, is not efficient. Consider the following --

The ONLY way you are hurt when you lay the run and a half and convert a Favorite into an Underdog is when that Favorite WINS BY EXACTLY ONE RUN! In all other situations you are benefitted. When the Favorite wins by 2 runs or more, thereby covering the Run Line, you WIN MORE than if you just played the game straight. You win as if you had played on an Underdog (+ 145 vs. + 100 in the Home Favorite example above or + 120 vs. + 100 in the Road Favorite example). If that Favorite should lose the game you would LOSE LESS than by playing straight (- 100 vs. - 125 in the case of our Home and Road Favorites in our above example). Only when the Favorite wins by exactly one run are you hurt by playing the run line. In such an instance the straight bettor wins while the bettor who laid the run and a half loses.

Conversely, the ONLY way you are helped by taking the runs and a half is when your team LOSES BY EXACTLY ONE RUN. In all other situations straight plays on Underdogs are more beneficial. When your Underdog loses, as they are expected to do, you LOSE MORE by taking the run and a half (-$165 in the case of our Road Underdog above or - $120 in the case of our Home Underdog) than by playing the team straight (lose just $100). When that team pulls the upset and wins you WIN LESS by taking the run and a half since you would normally be getting, for example, + $115 on a straight wager but are getting just + $100 when taking the run and a half. When the team loses by exactly 1 run the straight bettor loses while the bettor who played the plus a run and a half wins.

The central questions to be asked and answered are "How often do Favorites win by exactly 1 Run?" and "How often do Favorites win by 2 Runs or more"?

We have studied the results of over 20,000 Major League Baseball games and in the next few weeks we shall be presenting data that looks into these questions and the many sub-questions. But for starters let's share with you the following data that shows, by percentage, just how often the four possible scenarios have historically broken out for both Home Favorites and Road Favorites --



Percentage of games which produce
the following Result . . . . . HOME FAVORITES ROAD FAVORITES
----------------------------------- -------------- --------------
Win by 2 Runs or More 39.1 % 43.6 %

Win by Exactly 1 Run 18.4 % 11.6 %

Lose by Exactly 1 Run 11.0 % 16.4 %

Lose by 2 Runs or More 31.5 % 28.5 %


Note that we have split the losses into groups of exactly 1 run and more than 1 run. There really is no need for this distinction since a loss is a loss is a loss when it comes to playing the Favorite. Only the 1 Run win has significance. What we want to show is that although between 28% and 30% of all games are decided by 1 run, ONLY those in which the FAVORITE WINS BY 1 RUN have an impact of the result of betting the Run Line!

Look for our next installment in about a week in which we will delve further into these numbers to examine their impact on Run Line betting.

[Ganchrow]

I don't even know what to say here. I hope no one takes real stock in this irresponsible article. It's making a claim, haphazardly throwing around some numbers, and then intimating that those numbers support the initial claim. They don't. They don't even address the initial claim.

It certainly could be true that due to baseball market-specific infrastructure there's generally more value in playing the -1½ than the money line, and more value in the money line than in playing the +1½, but the article doesn't present either evidence for or logical arguments in support of that hypothesis.

Where did you find this article, anyway?

It is our contention that playing the Run Line and converting a Favorite into an Underdog makes great sense but doing the reverse, taking the run and half with the underdog, is not efficient. Consider the following --

The ONLY way you are hurt when you lay the run and a half and convert a Favorite into an Underdog is when that Favorite WINS BY EXACTLY ONE RUN! In all other situations you are benefitted. When the Favorite wins by 2 runs or more, thereby covering the Run Line, you WIN MORE than if you just played the game straight.

-snip-

Conversely, the ONLY way you are helped by taking the runs and a half is when your team LOSES BY EXACTLY ONE RUN. In all other situations straight plays on Underdogs are more beneficial.

-snip-

Of course you win less per unit bet when taking a bigger favorite or a smaller dog ... but that's because there's a greater likelihood of a bigger favorite winning or smaller dog winning. But that by itself doesn't make a shorter odds wager an inferior bet.

In fact, all else being equal, as I've already explained in a previous post it makes it a more attractive wager.

The central questions to be asked and answered are "How often do Favorites win by exactly 1 Run?" and "How often do Favorites win by 2 Runs or more"?

Obviously that is indeed the relevant issue. However, generalizing across all home/away favorites, as the author has, is grossly inappropriate.

What we want to show is that although between 28% and 30% of all games are decided by 1 run, ONLY those in which the FAVORITE WINS BY 1 RUN have an impact of the result of betting the Run Line!

You think?

Where did you find this beast?

[Lenny7]

Andy Iskoe, the greatest capper in Vegas

[Ganchrow]

Andy Iskoe, the greatest capper in Vegas

He wrote this? Really? Well that certainly does not speak well of the "greatest capper in Vegas".

Anyway, completely irrespective of the author, whether it's Andy Iskoe, JR Miller, Bozo the Clown, or anyone else, the article is nothing more than a very poor, very vacuous attempt at quantitative analysis.

The reason I get so worked up about this is because I used to see these types of tout-pieces all the time when I was in finance. They were typically works of so-called technical analysis (aka "charting") written by authors trying to come off in a quantitative and in depth manner. But at their core, exactly like Iskoe's run line foolishness, these articles are absolutely nothing more than fluff pieces designed to snare the unwary, and trick them into forking over their money.

As I said before, the underlying claim of the above article certainly could be true, but the article gives absolutely no evidence or rationale whatsoever that a careful reader could use to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.

You know what? Maybe the promised next part of this article, if it exists, contains usable argument or statistics. But without that? Pure gobbledy-gook.

[rjp]

That article made me giggle inside.

[crackerjack]

Bottom line is don't bet baseball...wait for football season