[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by BigBollocks

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]

Originally Posted by Utah

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?