Early HRR @ BB
Jones HRR Under 2.0 -114
Goodrum HRR Under 2.0 -114
Moncada HRR Under 2.0 -114
T. Hernandez HRR Under 2.0 -114

What about Villareal -0.5 @ 2.62?

Going with the take all the overs of every Phillies player in Colorado strategy

HRR:

Freeman o2 -114
Rendon o2 -114
Moncada o2 +127
Judge o2 -114
Villar o1.5 -114
Bellinger o2 -114
Yelich u2.5 -114
Joc Pederson o2 -114
Rhys Hoskins o2 -114
Blackmon o2 -114
McCutcher o2 -114
Realmuto o2 -114
Harper o2 -114
Pujols u2 -114
Wil Myers o1.5 -114
Votto o1.5 -114

K:

Corbin u7.5 -114
German o6 -114
Zach Davies o4 -114
Freeland u5 -115
Eflin u5 -114
Felix Hernandez u4 -114
Tanner Roark o5 -114
Chris Paddack u5 -114

In my view all the Villarreal corners side has value.

If you have the volume, the question is not what the best number is, the question is the number that allow to put the max without changing it.

Arenado TB -115 over Harper Greek

TB:
Puig +110 over Machado (BM)
Harper +104 over Arenado (BM)
Bellinger -115 over Yelich (BM)

Using the Chart (TM) these appear to be good RSIF

SFN @ WAS Yes @ 115 (1.22% of BR)
CHA @ DET Yes @ 100 (2.76% of BR)
TOR @ MIN Yes @ 105 (1.92% of BR)

Godspeed

one more TB

Rendon -120 over Belt

Why are these more profitable closer to game time?

Wouldn’t as lines moves away from the opener, that’s when you would see a disparity in the score in first line?

Also what’s the deal about bankroll if you have $50k plus. Don’t you just max bet it all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've had a few people PM me. Instead of responding to each individual message, I'll just address everything in the open since that's how we roll in this syndicate. To be clear, I don't run this syndicate. No one does. It's open and crowdsourced. If you want to contribute, please post in this thread and introduce yourself to everyone. Tell us about your skills, interests, background, and betting outs.

A few opportunities we're currently looking for

1) Parsing Retrosheet 2018 game logs so we have public data on popular bets such as run in first, team to score first, R+H+E, 5i total-ML-RL, full game total-ML-RL, alternate runlines, team totals, and 2nd half bets.

2) XML feeds or scraping of our more popular betting outs which are currently 5d, Greek, Bookmaker, Jazz, BetOnline and getting those organized to display props on a single page.

3) MLB and NHL Correlated parlay data and analysis has been requested from some members.

Any other requests?

People betting up the NO side close to game time looking for quick action and not realizing statistically more runs are scored in the first innings than any other inning.

I do, but do most people have bankroll to max bet it? Bet sizing is key if you have a small bankroll to build to a big bankroll, so i just posted that to help people. but the big bet lost so hopefully no one did that. 2 out of 3 aint bad tho. Also these are lines i cant bet because theyre at 5d or pinnacle. I bet it occasionally locally in vegas or on sites i can, but isn't available as much

Straight unit betting only works if you're hitting the max limit. Most people don't have bankroll to do it, so knowing your edge and betting appropriately is the key to maximize bankroll growth IMO
Also I agree tomG, a majority of the bets from the Chart (TM) are on YES

how does this make any sense? why would there be more runs scored in the first inning when a game has a total of 9 than a game with a total of 9.5? doesn't this make you question if the data is accurate or if the sample size is too small?

Hmm interesting. I wouldn't have thought an action junkie betting at game time would prefer no to yes.

This is what the Rays figured out last year with their opener strategy so be careful about betting this for Rays games. They are actively trying to nuke the runs scored in the first

UEFA - EUROPA LEAGUE CORNERS

Chelsea (Corners) -2.5 @ 1.89

UEFA - EUROPA LEAGUE

Eintracht Frankfurt to win @ 1,79

I dont know about that...I would think that some random degen betting blindly looking for quick action would almost certainly be on the YES side. Why do you think it would be the other way around?

It also shows that games with totals of 10.5 have less runs in the first inning than ones with a total of 10, and the 10.5-total games arent that much more than the 9-total total games.

I dont think that sigs' data is wrong so it is interesting. Is the market not as efficient as we thought? Or a sample size problem? it does seem like enough games though. Maybe not all runs are distributed in the same way? I wonder if the new way the game is played now has an effect (starters pitching less and more and more specialized bullpen arms?)

It's a good point and great to be skeptical since in general recreational bettors do prefer action and bets that can win early such as overs. I'll admit I don't fully understand the mindset but it's my understanding they think of all the scoreless frames in a MLB game not realizing the first inning scores the most. You can search through old threads on SBR or other square forums and see discussion how popular the NO side is among recreational bettors. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The point is, close to game time the overwhelming movement on that bet is toward the NO side and sometimes it's enough to create value on the YES side.

Interesting. Now that I think about it it does make sense. The kind of "recreational" bettor that we're talking about is probably different than your average degen. Real squares probably never bet on something like that at all. The kind of square that bets on derivatives does probably consider himself sharp and "knows" that unders and NO's typically have value but they dont/cant do any of the work.

I actually never understood why that 9/9.5 is true either. It would make sense in 8/8.5 because you can have ties at 4-4 which means it would always go over. And you see that behavior with 10/10.5

At first I thought it was because there was a period where Pinnacle would stick at a number no matter what and you'd see things like u9.5 -190, but that data was pre-2014 (which is why I started the chart then). If anyone could think of a qualitative reason why it would be interesting.

It's actually a trend that continues every year.


If I switch it to > 2015, it's actually worse

Total: 6.5 (n=271) Over: 134 (42.8) Under: -134 (57.2)
Total: 7 (n=870) Over: 105 (48.74) Under: -105 (51.26)
Total: 7.5 (n=1635) Over: 108 (48.07) Under: -108 (51.93)
Total: 8 (n=1545) Over: -103 (50.68) Under: 103 (49.32)
Total: 8.5 (n=2047) Over: -108 (52.03) Under: 108 (47.97)
Total: 9 (n=1626) Over: -121 (54.8) Under: 121 (45.2)
Total: 9.5 (n=904) Over: -109 (52.1) Under: 109 (47.9)
Total: 10 (n=380) Over: -136 (57.63) Under: 136 (42.37)
Total: 10.5 (n=269) Over: -126 (55.76) Under: 126 (44.24)

2016 on

Total: 6.5 (n=98) Over: 133 (42.86) Under: -133 (57.14)
Total: 7 (n=416) Over: 111 (47.36) Under: -111 (52.64)
Total: 7.5 (n=1045) Over: 114 (46.7) Under: -114 (53.3)
Total: 8 (n=1175) Over: -101 (50.21) Under: 101 (49.79)
Total: 8.5 (n=1709) Over: -108 (51.84) Under: 108 (48.16)
Total: 9 (n=1433) Over: -120 (54.57) Under: 120 (45.43)
Total: 9.5 (n=845) Over: -107 (51.6) Under: 107 (48.4)
Total: 10 (n=354) Over: -141 (58.47) Under: 141 (41.53)
Total: 10.5 (n=242) Over: -120 (54.55) Under: 120 (45.45)

2017 on

Total: 6.5 (n=52) Over: 126 (44.23) Under: -126 (55.77)
Total: 7 (n=230) Over: 111 (47.39) Under: -111 (52.61)
Total: 7.5 (n=594) Over: 115 (46.46) Under: -115 (53.54)
Total: 8 (n=761) Over: 104 (49.01) Under: -104 (50.99)
Total: 8.5 (n=1207) Over: -105 (51.28) Under: 105 (48.72)
Total: 9 (n=1028) Over: -114 (53.31) Under: 114 (46.69)
Total: 9.5 (n=669) Over: -103 (50.67) Under: 103 (49.33)
Total: 10 (n=283) Over: -150 (60.07) Under: 150 (39.93)
Total: 10.5 (n=196) Over: -131 (56.63) Under: 131 (43.37)

2018 on

Total: 6.5 (n=33) Over: 136 (42.42) Under: -136 (57.58)
Total: 7 (n=165) Over: 126 (44.24) Under: -126 (55.76)
Total: 7.5 (n=379) Over: 119 (45.65) Under: -119 (54.35)
Total: 8 (n=459) Over: 104 (49.02) Under: -104 (50.98)
Total: 8.5 (n=683) Over: -101 (50.22) Under: 101 (49.78)
Total: 9 (n=516) Over: -111 (52.71) Under: 111 (47.29)
Total: 9.5 (n=279) Over: -102 (50.54) Under: 102 (49.46)
Total: 10 (n=120) Over: -131 (56.67) Under: 131 (43.33)
Total: 10.5 (n=88) Over: -110 (52.27) Under: 110 (47.73)

With the YES, it's true that most of the bets on YES appear < 1 hour before the first pitch. Occasionally one on open (or something on NO on open). Usually the NO's that appear later are in games with high totals. Or if the total line moves a lot close to first pitch

Those three that appeared before opened fine, but then about 40 minutes before all moved to bettable.

What's weird is for RSIF Yes is almost the bet whereas HRE it's almost always under. So people like over for HRE under for RSIF. It ends up with some interesting situations where I want the RSIF to happen but also under (in MIN/TOR game. I had YES (Which won) and under 26.5 -105 (which lost), but going into the 8th it was actually only at 20 HRE)

I went through and checked since 2014 how many bets would be on over vs. under and got:

Over: 2827 Under:133

The ROI was slightly higher on over, but that just could be because of the increased sample size

Also it was essentially 50% 1466-1494-0(49.53%)

So bet sizing and the + odds are important

Some HRR H2H:
D. Gordon -115 over Lucroy
D. Santana -110 over Pujols
Mancini -105 over Y. Diaz
Schebler +115 over Hosmer
Hoskins -120 over Arenado (Based on the market I think I'm the only one who loves the Phillies tonight)
BRaun -115 over Turner
Pollock -115 over Moustakas

All this launch angle stupidity ruined RSIF which used to cash far more often for a given total in years past as you can see from Rsigley's data. A runner on third with 0 out was a guaranteed run a few years ago, now there's a good chance the next three boneheads all strikeout.

How are you approaching the strikeout props, Rsigley?