I am not sure if this stat still holds.. but in general, MLB favorites win about 55%-60% of the time. That may sound like an amazing number, but it isn't.
If you always play -180 favorites thinking that they will win 60% of the time, then oops, you are bleeding money. That's because at -180 you gotta win 64.29% of the time just to break even!
Check the attached file.... I made it & posted it on theRX sometime in 2007.
* CalvinTy
If you always play -180 favorites thinking that they will win 60% of the time, then oops, you are bleeding money. That's because at -180 you gotta win 64.29% of the time just to break even!
Check the attached file.... I made it & posted it on theRX sometime in 2007.
* CalvinTy
Specifically about parlays, well, my view is this when I try to compare various sports' ML:
-7 NFL/NCF favorite; ML tend to be uhh -250?
-8 NBA/CBB favorite; ML around -350?
But in baseball, a team with a winning record putting their ace out vs a team with losing record's 5th starter would finally go over -220 (KC always seemed to be an exception getting +250 to +300 against the likes of Yanks, Red Sox). I feel that in this case, the better baseball team is much more likely to win the game outright rather than a 9 point college basketball team as they can lose outright.
I don't play the ML's in hoops or football but I think MLB actually have good reasonable ML's.
* CalvinTy
-7 NFL/NCF favorite; ML tend to be uhh -250?
-8 NBA/CBB favorite; ML around -350?
But in baseball, a team with a winning record putting their ace out vs a team with losing record's 5th starter would finally go over -220 (KC always seemed to be an exception getting +250 to +300 against the likes of Yanks, Red Sox). I feel that in this case, the better baseball team is much more likely to win the game outright rather than a 9 point college basketball team as they can lose outright.
I don't play the ML's in hoops or football but I think MLB actually have good reasonable ML's.
* CalvinTy
I won't take big MLB chalk ( like > -150, rarely even that high), I have to lay the -1.5, or -.5 for 5 innings, if I want that chalk, then over starts looking good ( usually).
Baseball chalk, ain't me, esp. early in the season.
Going against NYY, even blindly, should be +money, they won't win 130 games, more like 100, at best.
Baseball chalk, ain't me, esp. early in the season.
Going against NYY, even blindly, should be +money, they won't win 130 games, more like 100, at best.
Last year, the Yankees actually were the worst in playing the ML for all the teams who had been 10+ games over .500 for the season.
See the stat here: link (They were ranked #18 out of #30 overall).
* CalvinTy
No reason for this year to be different. I'd guess that using late Matchbook lines, playing $100 against NYY, ( or to win $100 if they are the dog), you'd win $2,000, or so in 2009. I can't see this losing, and that's totally blind betting against them every game.
I'll be looking to go against them automatically ( almost), esp. early on, can't see them starting 35-5.
If someone has to play parlays, what you are doing is the closest way to do it. A 2-pick parlay gives you the closest odds to TRUE odds (around 2.6 to 1 as opposed to true odds of 3 to 1). Any bigger parlays are much worse off.
I do feel that MLB 2-pick parlay (ML and/or total) is probably the parlay that would hit the most in any sport.
* CalvinTy
