I've searched several forums on the stoffo system and it the results were not so hot. Although I never found someone who bet it for the entire year. Seemed it was so hot and cold that whoever started it only last a month and they gave up on it. I would be interested to see how it faired over an entire season.
Yes.
First the best teams in the league will play around .600 ball and the worst teams will play about .400 ball.
Every team in the league will very likely win 50 and lose 50 games, meaning dogs and favs win every night.
Now, let's say you go 60-40 playing favorites (which is unlikely considering the best teams in the league play .600). But let's give the benefit of the doubt to the bettor, for let's say $100 each and lay an average of -1.40,
60 wins x 100 is 6000
40 losses at -1.40 is 560.00.
By going 60-40 and you would profit 400. for the year. Not so good considering you hit 60%
Now let's reverse that and say you go 45-55 with the dogs at an average takeback of +1.30
55 losses is 5500
45 wins at +1.30 = 5850 for a profit of +350.
By playing under 500 you would still show a profit with a much less risk.
If the bettor playing favorites doesn't hit 58-60% he's in trouble.
Let's take 2 out of 3 wins in a night laying -140.
win 200 lose 140 for a profit of 60.00.
Win 2 out of 3 with the dogs at +1.30 and you get this:
1 loss at 100 = -100
2 wins at +1.30 = +260
for a profit of 160 as oppose to 60 for winning the same two out of three games. Big difference.
The absolute best pitchers in the game win between 15 and 20 starts all year. Those pitchers are usually -1.60 or better. They start between 35-40 games and will win about half those starts. You want to be tied or down a run laying 1.60 or better in the late innings or would you rather be on the other side of that coin?
You're much better off laying the 1½ runs with a take-back then laying big juice on the top pitchers but should only do so on the road because the home team does not bat in the ninth up a run and only need one run should the game go into extra frames.
Good luck and stick to dogs for the first month and see how you're doing. Playing favorites will destroy your bankroll. I should know, it destroyed mine about 25 years ago every year but since I've switched to playing dogs it has shown a big profit. Not every year but even when you lose in a year it's a small loss.
First the best teams in the league will play around .600 ball and the worst teams will play about .400 ball.
Every team in the league will very likely win 50 and lose 50 games, meaning dogs and favs win every night.
Now, let's say you go 60-40 playing favorites (which is unlikely considering the best teams in the league play .600). But let's give the benefit of the doubt to the bettor, for let's say $100 each and lay an average of -1.40,
60 wins x 100 is 6000
40 losses at -1.40 is 560.00.
By going 60-40 and you would profit 400. for the year. Not so good considering you hit 60%
Now let's reverse that and say you go 45-55 with the dogs at an average takeback of +1.30
55 losses is 5500
45 wins at +1.30 = 5850 for a profit of +350.
By playing under 500 you would still show a profit with a much less risk.
If the bettor playing favorites doesn't hit 58-60% he's in trouble.
Let's take 2 out of 3 wins in a night laying -140.
win 200 lose 140 for a profit of 60.00.
Win 2 out of 3 with the dogs at +1.30 and you get this:
1 loss at 100 = -100
2 wins at +1.30 = +260
for a profit of 160 as oppose to 60 for winning the same two out of three games. Big difference.
The absolute best pitchers in the game win between 15 and 20 starts all year. Those pitchers are usually -1.60 or better. They start between 35-40 games and will win about half those starts. You want to be tied or down a run laying 1.60 or better in the late innings or would you rather be on the other side of that coin?
You're much better off laying the 1½ runs with a take-back then laying big juice on the top pitchers but should only do so on the road because the home team does not bat in the ninth up a run and only need one run should the game go into extra frames.
Good luck and stick to dogs for the first month and see how you're doing. Playing favorites will destroy your bankroll. I should know, it destroyed mine about 25 years ago every year but since I've switched to playing dogs it has shown a big profit. Not every year but even when you lose in a year it's a small loss.
Sherwood,
Great information. Thanks.
Your reasoning why I was looking at playing strictly dogs. A team is considered to have a great season when they win 100 games, so that means you are still losing 62 of those games. As mentioned, a big time pitcher like Santana and Sabathia will be huge favorites and in the NL, if the game is tied late 6, 7, 8, it becomes anyones game and now your -200 vs +180 is riding on middle relief instead of Santana.
Love the breakdown you gave and the reasoning, I think I will be rolling this way all year.
Great information. Thanks.
Your reasoning why I was looking at playing strictly dogs. A team is considered to have a great season when they win 100 games, so that means you are still losing 62 of those games. As mentioned, a big time pitcher like Santana and Sabathia will be huge favorites and in the NL, if the game is tied late 6, 7, 8, it becomes anyones game and now your -200 vs +180 is riding on middle relief instead of Santana.
Love the breakdown you gave and the reasoning, I think I will be rolling this way all year.
The only reason that betting underdogs provides marginally better value than betting favorites is that the public tends to over bet big favorites, driving the price out of the "value" range.
Contrary to what most people are saying here, I firmly believe that for any given range of odds (e.g., +120 vs. -120) you will find AT LEAST as many favorites providing value as you do dogs - probably more. In other words, you'll find as many or more favorites underpriced at 120 as you'll find dogs overpriced at 120.
Contrary to what most people are saying here, I firmly believe that for any given range of odds (e.g., +120 vs. -120) you will find AT LEAST as many favorites providing value as you do dogs - probably more. In other words, you'll find as many or more favorites underpriced at 120 as you'll find dogs overpriced at 120.
I very rarely lay more than -120, and never lay more than
-130,most of my plays are underdogs via the moneyline or parlays which result in dogs (two good-sized favorites), I NEVER play Runline Dogs, I try to avoid runline Favorites, but if I do play it the team has to have a great pitcher on the mound along with a great offense and a great bullpen (not may teams qualify),, stick to dogs and favorite parlays though, and you will get what I call reverse vig, I also avoid the first week of the year so some things can kick in (it is NOT statistical based, as in NOT raw statistics, but a different shade of math mixed with some human factors (me)
-130,most of my plays are underdogs via the moneyline or parlays which result in dogs (two good-sized favorites), I NEVER play Runline Dogs, I try to avoid runline Favorites, but if I do play it the team has to have a great pitcher on the mound along with a great offense and a great bullpen (not may teams qualify),, stick to dogs and favorite parlays though, and you will get what I call reverse vig, I also avoid the first week of the year so some things can kick in (it is NOT statistical based, as in NOT raw statistics, but a different shade of math mixed with some human factors (me)
Last edited:
