MLB Underdog Wagers – Success under 50%
The worst team often finishes around or In such a short season, this makes for a game disparity. Basketball - The top NBA team usually wins at least 60 games in an game season.
The league's worst club often wins just 20 contests or less, making for about a game difference. Baseball - Major League Baseball's best team normally wins around games. The least successful club usually finishes with around 60 wins or so, which is a difference of 40 games. Based on the schedule size and disparity between the best and worst teams, baseball gives underdogs a better chance to win.
Going further, those who are into MLB betting can definitely find a good strategy by continually looking for value in underdogs. Of course, you can't simply wager on underdogs every time and expect to come out ahead in the long run. The following seven-year study shows that much:. Despite favorites winning But as we just alluded to, you've got to pick quality underdogs in order to be a profitable bettor. That said, here are some points to keep in mind when wagering on underdogs.
Taking this into account, even major underdogs can offer good value in the right situations. The value you stand to get by winning such a bet may be better than how much of an underdog the team is. Seek Underdogs with Good Starting Pitching - This might seem like the most obvious piece of advice, but it's still worth mentioning.
After all, bookmakers create lines that will convince the public to equally bet on both sides of the line - not what they think will actually happen.
Not only that, but the bookie actually knows it, but is willing to put up with it to make more money from the favorite bettors. Bookies could go even further — skew the line even more towards the favorite — to try to make even more money again, at higher risk. But at some point, the advantage to the underdog bettors becomes so great that they wind up betting much more than they would otherwise, and the bookie loses his advantage.
At that point, the wisdom of the "you can make money betting on underdogs" rule would become so well-known that the bookies would no longer be able to depend on customer ignorance. The study was published almost three years ago. Has the market adjusted to the new information? Maybe, but Levitt thinks that home underdogs are still profitable.
This appears to be the case in baseball as well, although a strategy of betting pure home dogs would still be unprofitable. Since the record in the past 10 has little to no predictive value, you might think a profitable strategy could be derived, since the general betting public likely overvalues a "hot" team. Well, not the case. Great stuff, Dackle, thanks! I guess we shouldn't be surprised to see that the market knows that streakiness is overrated FWIW, it has also been written that the home underdog effect in football is related to late-season weather.
See here and here. I would like to know the sample size of this data and what the standard error is. Conventional wisdom is that HFA is worth 3 pts, but it's not that simple. I looked at scores from recently. I noticed that the average winning score was about 24 pts regardless of being home or away. The average losing score was about 14 for visitors and 17 for home teams.
So when you lose at home you lose by less. That would explain why home underdogs are more likely to beat the spread. Sorry webmeister but your maths needs some work. I know this is an older article, but I think the insights are still relevant - I do NFL handicapping and have noticed that home underdogs do seem to have lines that are a good value.
I use teasers to increase the odds for teams, so I can sometimes get ridiculous odds for home teams. Thanks for the info! You can read more about it on my blog if you wish: Webmeister, The author looked at 20, hypothetical wagers placed by "bettors" at a rate of five games per week in the NFL season 85 total games.
The bettors won points based on whether they beat or tied the spread, and lost points if they lost the spread bet. Barely one-third of the participants played every week So this is a very flawed study - small sample size of one season, further limited by only using five games per week, and the betting isn't real betting like gamblers do but rather was part of a long term game. Not to mention that every "bet" placed was exactly the same value which isn't close to realistic.
People bet dollars, they don't bet for points. Hey look I'm sorry to burst the bubble here but most of the math here is off. I noticed that one of the main correct things is that you have to win I don't know where you guys are getting your numbers from but its physically impossible for "Road Favs" to win Whoever posted this wasn't think or is just being silly.
If you have a Road Fav you also have a Home Dog. I hope that you all will pay attention to simple things like this in the future. Also, I've broken down the numbers on the payouts and a 3-team straight parlay is far and away the best to bet on.
I haven't really stumbled upon something like what I've done but I'm a math major and have deemed the term "factor of payout. It makes lots of sense when looking at the payout. First we need to know the basics of probability. The odds are then sliced in half. All you need to do is pay attention to when the payout stops more than doubling to make up for your odds splitting in half with every additional pick. Basically what it all boils down to is this: I hope this helps any bettors out there I know it's proven me successful.