-200+ MLB faves
sosoangry
Senior Member
Question: when playing big MLB faves (-200+), is it better to go with the ML or RL?
My loss last night on Pitt -1.5 runs was painful. Pirates are up 4-1 top of 9th and lowly Colorado manages to put up two runs before losing the game 4-3. Pirates win, I lose. Ugh. It's not the first 1/2-run loss for me this season. Although I am up 19.7 units for the season heading into last night, I believe I'm net negative a few units on my RL plays, but the real problem being these 1/2-point losses as they'd be wins with the ML.
Over the last 10 years, it has been better to play the RL than ML on -200+ faves. In that time, RL has been slightly positive whereas ML is clearly negative (ROI). However, I've noticed in the last 3-4 years, that has reversed with ML being the better bet. Example, since 2013, with nearly 500 plays, ML is at +3.6% vs. RL at +1.4%.
Of course, many may advise just don't play such big faves. Frankly, most of my plays are modest favorites and dogs. However, if my handicap has a big fave undervalued (it can happen!), I'm going to look to play on them. My process is agnostic: if I figure a -120 fave should be -140 or a -220 fave should be -250, I'm playing both.
So for me the question is the best way to play the big fave and it's always been RL, until more recently. Which means there's been more 1-run (close) victories for big faves in the last few years than in the past (when -1.5 RL was less of a factor in deciding the outcome of the bet). Not sure why this would be the case. Thoughts?
My loss last night on Pitt -1.5 runs was painful. Pirates are up 4-1 top of 9th and lowly Colorado manages to put up two runs before losing the game 4-3. Pirates win, I lose. Ugh. It's not the first 1/2-run loss for me this season. Although I am up 19.7 units for the season heading into last night, I believe I'm net negative a few units on my RL plays, but the real problem being these 1/2-point losses as they'd be wins with the ML.
Over the last 10 years, it has been better to play the RL than ML on -200+ faves. In that time, RL has been slightly positive whereas ML is clearly negative (ROI). However, I've noticed in the last 3-4 years, that has reversed with ML being the better bet. Example, since 2013, with nearly 500 plays, ML is at +3.6% vs. RL at +1.4%.
Of course, many may advise just don't play such big faves. Frankly, most of my plays are modest favorites and dogs. However, if my handicap has a big fave undervalued (it can happen!), I'm going to look to play on them. My process is agnostic: if I figure a -120 fave should be -140 or a -220 fave should be -250, I'm playing both.
So for me the question is the best way to play the big fave and it's always been RL, until more recently. Which means there's been more 1-run (close) victories for big faves in the last few years than in the past (when -1.5 RL was less of a factor in deciding the outcome of the bet). Not sure why this would be the case. Thoughts?
Comments
I don't believe in a two big favorite parlay although I know people that do and are a lot shaper then me.
As large favorites have been discussed recently if you feel that Pitts should have been -230 then lay the -200 or if you don't want that type of risk lay the -1 R line and if they win by one you push. For me maybe once a month or so the -1.5 Run line is for 4 and 5 team open spot parlay's which I hit two very nice ones this year. Anyway just my opinion. and of course know the feeling of the bad beat.
I agree and on occasion I had some success with Pittsbugh this year but only on the road. Got to have those 9 Ab's
After the season would like to see Road Favorites of -140 or more how they did -1 on the Road. It's not standard at least I don't think it is but they chopped between 40/50 cents off the price. I'm not talking regular diet now just being interested.
Many thanks for this -1 RL calculator, appreciate.
SU: 1740-789 (1.66, 68.8%) avg line: -231.8 / 197.2 on / against: -$7,159 / -$19,769 ROI: -1.2% / -7.8%
RL: 893-852 (0.20, 51.2%) avg line: -105.7 / -105.3 on / against: -$245 / -$9,120 ROI: -0.1% / -4.8%
Definitely a losing record on ML, but I don't see the -125 units, but rather -72 units....? and RL looks to be just below breakeven....?
But also I'm not arguing anyone should play big faves, period, much less home faves (never stated home or away preference), but rather spot (selective) plays where the handicap has a big fave undervalued (again, it's possible). I understand there is a historical headwind, which is why I would never advise playing many, and I don't, but again, if your trusted, proven process dictates a big fave is undervalued, play it.
In fact, assuming sportsdatabase.com is correct, away big faves eek out a profit since 2004:
SU: 218-98 (1.99, 69.0%) avg line: -218.5 / 187.1 on / against: +$600 / -$3,640 ROI: +0.9% / -11.5%
RL: 97-68 (0.95, 58.8%) avg line: -127.1 / 115.0 on / against: +$1,082 / -$1,901 ROI: +5.2% / -11.5%
There will always be a some differences in data because not everyone does closing lines the same way. They could have -200, I could have -198 so it wouldn't count, but I can tell their runline data is wrong just by looking at it so I don't know how much you can trust the ML data. The avg odds for runlines is about 10 cents too low(unless they are using Pinny's reduced juice RL's, which would put it still a little low but maybe acceptable). Also, why are there so many fewer runline games than SU. You can't push a runline.