Noob Q re: run line bets

[composite]

Noob question re: runs lines. I've tracked runs lines for big favorites vs pick em games and I don't understand something:

The big favs giving a -1.5 run line give up 100 points or so. For example, Boston over Oak was -200. Boston -1.5 over Oak though was +100.

On the other hand, smaller favorites give up less odds for the -1.5 run line. For instance, Boston today was -130 over KC. But Boston -1.5 over KC was +125 or so. A difference of 55.

This makes no sense. Logically, a stronger favorite would be MORE, not LESS likely to beat a dog by more than one run.

If Boston > KC is a more even matchup than Boston > Oak, then you would think the -1.5 run line would make LESS of a difference in the Oakland game. It's harder for Boston to beat KC by 2 runs than it would be to beat Oak by 2 runs.

The odds should've been Boston -1.5 over Oak @ -150 or so. Not +100.

This is just one example. It gets even worse with really big favs. Az was -280 over Pitt ML. But Az -1.5 was -130 or so. That's a 150 point difference!

So, why do get much better odds for giving the run line for a BIG fav than you do a SMALL fav? What am I missing????

 

[ExtremeNole]

Noob question re: runs lines. I've tracked runs lines for big favorites vs pick em games and I don't understand something:

The big favs giving a -1.5 run line give up 100 points or so. For example, Boston over Oak was -200. Boston -1.5 over Oak though was +100.

On the other hand, smaller favorites give up less odds for the -1.5 run line. For instance, Boston today was -130 over KC. But Boston -1.5 over KC was +125 or so. A difference of 55.

This makes no sense. Logically, a stronger favorite would be MORE, not LESS likely to beat a dog by more than one run.

If Boston > KC is a more even matchup than Boston > Oak, then you would think the -1.5 run line would make LESS of a difference in the Oakland game. It's harder for Boston to beat KC by 2 runs than it would be to beat Oak by 2 runs.

The odds should've been Boston -1.5 over Oak @ -150 or so. Not +100.

This is just one example. It gets even worse with really big favs. Az was -280 over Pitt ML. But Az -1.5 was -130 or so. That's a 150 point difference!

So, why do get much better odds for giving the run line for a BIG fav than you do a SMALL fav? What am I missing????

i think alot of it is to intice betters to bet the rl so it will trap bettors into making a better odds bet that has ALOT worse chance of hitting

 

[Mr.Cover123]

Depends what teams you look at. The Diamondbacks don't score alot of runs so you will get better odds while the Red Sox score alot of runs especially at home.

 

[seriousaddiction]

i think alot of it is to intice betters to bet the rl so it will trap bettors into making a better odds bet that has ALOT worse chance of hitting

its not alot about trapping bettors....its all about trapping the bettor...oddsmakers know exactly what they are doing

 

[Illini]

It's because Boston was at home in the first matchup, and on the road in the second matchup. It's much easier for a road team to cover -1.5, for obvious reasons.

 

[TruthBTold]

Not every game follows the same pattern. Some favorites at -130 might get -1.5 at +165. Another day a -130 favorite might be -1.5 at +115 only. If the betting game is all about logic, alot of us would be rich and vegas lights wouldn't be as bright.

 

[composite]

It's because Boston was at home in the first matchup, and on the road in the second matchup. It's much easier for a road team to cover -1.5, for obvious reasons.

Thanks for the input. I had no idea that home vs away made such a difference but that makes a lot of sense. But that just means I used a bad example. There was a game that was -105 on each side. The home team got +155 on the run line. A difference of 60 points.

Again, what's perplexing is why RL bets are heavily discounted off the big favs. I can even understand home vs. away or even big favs w/ the ace pitching but weak bats.

But even past all that, it almost seems that big favs get more value for the RL than small favs.
------------------------
To draw a football analogy, imagine if New England has a -800 ML over Oakland. But suddenly, NE -3 has only -110 odds.

On the flip side, Pittsburgh has a -150 ML over Jax. But Pitt -3 pays only +200 or something.

Intuitively, the gap between NE / Oak ML and -3 handicap should be smaller than Pitt / Jax ML and -3.

 

[composite]

its not alot about trapping bettors....its all about trapping the bettor...oddsmakers know exactly what they are doing

if this were the case, then shouldn't people TAKE the run but give up more odds?

 

[crzbrave]

I bet Webb on the RL at -135 the other day, never seen a RL line that high.

 

[MtrCtyPimp]

Strictly road and home, period.

Home teams get much better odds on the run line because the game has to be won in after 8.5 unless you get the rare walk off homerun with men on base.

On the road you can cover the 1.5 at anytime...that is why you get the better odds.....there is no other reason.

Now if 2 road teams were -130 and one RL was +115 and one was +130 it might depend on the total.....the lower the total the higher the chance of a 1 run outcome and hence the line.

Dont look too much into it...playing runlines is trouble anyways.....I sometimes use it as insurance on huge dogs splitting my wager between the RL and ML and sometimes to eat some juice with a -1 line by splitting the wager on a fav with ML and RL but playing either just strictly RLs is inviting trouble.

PEACE

 

[Illini]

if this were the case, then shouldn't people TAKE the run but give up more odds?

As a general rule, if you are betting favorites, expect the home fav's RL price to be about 90 cents better than the ML. Expect the road fav's RL price to be about 50 cents better. Most games fall closely to these guidelines.

 

[Illini]

if this were the case, then shouldn't people TAKE the run but give up more odds?

If there was a system that could win, people would be doing it. Every game is independent of the others.