Guys, maybe we should be looking to bet baseball differently ...

gander1 · Mar 15, 2019

Please hear me out on this. In the past, we were taught that baseball handicapping revolved around the starting pitcher matchups which could make up to anywhere from 65%-75% of our decision to bet a game. Indeed, all the online betting sites and local bookmakers still give you the choice of "listed pitchers must start." Yet today's top pitchers rarely go beyond 7 innings of work with most #4 and #5 starters in the rotation going in the 5 to 6 inning range. And throw in the success that Tampa had with "The Opener" (starting a reliever) and we're likely to see other small market teams emulate this as well. The depth of MLB bullpens has taken on an increasing role in determining the outcome of the game.

Yet the majority of baseball bettors still seem to wager on the full nine inning outcome (versus the 5 inning wager). Why is that?

I don't have the answers but I wanted to start a dialogue. Seems to me maybe we should be focusing more on bullpen factors (talent, depth, recent usage, injuries, etc.) to bet on the full nine inning games and stick to the top #1 and #2 starters on each team for five inning wagers.

Thoughts and comments are appreciated. :think2:

doctor9 · Mar 15, 2019

Sports are no where near what I used to bet in the 80’s- 2000’s.defense is a thing of the past. No more legitimate centers in basketball, running qbs, starting a middle reliever, the ridiculous overshift for lefty’s. Every one of the big 4 in sports has evolved into a different game. So why not adapt with the game to try to exploit some coin from them? I’m in for new ideas

Enfuego · Mar 17, 2019

gander1 said:
Please hear me out on this. In the past, we were taught that baseball handicapping revolved around the starting pitcher matchups which could make up to anywhere from 65%-75% of our decision to bet a game. Indeed, all the online betting sites and local bookmakers still give you the choice of "listed pitchers must start." Yet today's top pitchers rarely go beyond 7 innings of work with most #4 and #5 starters in the rotation going in the 5 to 6 inning range. And throw in the success that Tampa had with "The Opener" (starting a reliever) and we're likely to see other small market teams emulate this as well. The depth of MLB bullpens has taken on an increasing role in determining the outcome of the game.

Yet the majority of baseball bettors still seem to wager on the full nine inning outcome (versus the 5 inning wager). Why is that?

I don't have the answers but I wanted to start a dialogue. Seems to me maybe we should be focusing more on bullpen factors (talent, depth, recent usage, injuries, etc.) to bet on the full nine inning games and stick to the top #1 and #2 starters on each team for five inning wagers.

Thoughts and comments are appreciated. :think2:

Or, to look at it a different way, how about betting the 1st 5 innings with the more dominant starting pitcher?

gander1 · Mar 18, 2019

Unfortunately, the money line would be the great equalizer when betting on the top tier starting pitchers indiscriminately. We'd be laying greater than -140 in most of these type wagers and the juice would eat the bankroll. Still requires more in-depth handicapping of the starting pitchers such as current form and how does he fare against this opponent for example.

TrackGabe · Mar 18, 2019

I Love betting FFs

SPs only 60% of equations nowadays. 40% of pitches made by BP guys.

doctor9 · Mar 19, 2019

Gander is correct. The sp will def. reflect the price of the ff. I love the first half of the game but should be playing totals to reduce a bigger loss

DMD252 · Mar 28, 2019

My 2 cents: I never bet a game +1.5, and last year I wondered if I was doing the right thing. On a facebook group a number of guys would bet the +1.5, so I tracked 40 plays, randomly from about 7 guys. I didn't keep the results, because it told me what I wanted to know. But from memory the results were: +1.5 lost money, however if the same wagers were on the ml, the loss was a lot less. However if those teams were bet on the -1.5 line it showed a profit. less winners but at a bigger payout. Don't take my word for it. If you are inclined to bet +1.5, track your results and compare against ml and -1.5. Best of Luck.

CoolBreeze22 · Mar 28, 2019

Aren't around 20% of games decided by exactly 1 run? Correct me if I'm wrong but if that's still the case I'd think betting -1.5 would usually be the best way to go long term.