Betting and beating baseball totals
Ted Sevransky
In this article, I’ll discuss the six primary reasons why betting baseball totals can be an extremely profitable endeavor, particularly in relation to betting baseball sides.
1) You can be only half right and still win your bet.
This is the No. 1 reason why I like betting baseball totals. Let’s say Ben Sheets of the Brewers and Jake Peavy of the Padres are slated to face one another in Milwaukee, with a total of 7 1/2 for the game. With two of the top pitchers in the NL on the mound, it’s easy to make a case for the under. But even if one of the two starters gets hit hard, a 6-1 final score going under the total is still well within the range of possibility.
It’s a similar story with poor pitchers. If the same two teams meet, but with Manny Parra taking the hill for the Brewers against the Padres Justin Germano, the total would probably be in the 9 1/2 or 10 range. Over bettors can cash their tickets even if Parra pitches a rare gem, because Germano could still get rocked, and an 8-3 final is certainly not out of reach.
2) You don’t have to lay big prices to bet on or against any pitcher.
Matt Morris was arguably the worst starting pitcher in the major leagues in the first month of the 2008 season, doing time with the Pittsburgh Pirates before he (regrettably, but mercifully) got released. The linesmakers aren’t idiots by any stretch of the imagination – the Pirates were a substantial underdog just about every time Morris took the mound, so betting against him would require the side bettor to lay a big price. But you didn’t have to lay more than -110 or -115 betting Morris Over the total in those starts, and you would have cashed repeatedly by doing so.
Similarly, the linesmakers consistently install high prices on the favorite when the ‘A’ list starters take the hill. Why lay a big price to support Brandon Webb of the Diamondbacks or Roy Halladay of the Blue Jays when you can bet the under at -110, assuming much less risk with the same potential reward?
3) The linesmakers don’t have much wiggle room to adjust their totals.
Baseball totals generally range between a low of 7 and a high of 11 1/2, with the (very) occasional 6 1/2 or 12. Even when two hot hitting teams face off against two mediocre starters, the total is not going to come 14.
Similarly, when two cold hitting teams face off against two dominant starters, the total is not going to come five. In other words, it’s very difficult for the linesmakers to compensate enough within the limited confines of the standard range of totals. The linesmakers don’t hesitate to price a dominant favorite at -300, but they don’t have that same ability to adjust when setting baseball totals.
4) The linesmakers are not as confident in their numbers.
Each sportsbook sets limits on the amount that can be bet on any particular wager. The casual bettor rarely runs into the sportsbook limits, normally several thousand dollars or more on side wagers in bases, football and hoops. But the bookmakers do not set high limits like that for baseball totals, and many sportsbooks are reluctant to take wagers above $500 or $1000.
Why not? Part of the reason stems from the issues noted above, in No. 3. Part of the reason comes from the fact that the books get very little ‘square’ money on MLB totals – they’re up against the wiseguy professional bettors, and you don’t remain a professional bettor for very long unless you are beating the bookmaker with relative consistency.
That means that the books don’t get balanced action on the majority of baseball totals that they hang. But as much as anything, the low limits on totals are for one reason alone – the linesmakers aren’t as confident that their numbers are good enough to withstand high stakes wagers from informed bettors.
5) Streaks don’t get noticed by the public or the linesmakers.
When any baseball team wins eight straight games, they’ll be catapulted to the lead story on ESPN, and noted by bettors and linesmakers rather quickly. The hot team might have been priced as a -140 favorite in their first game of the streak, but with the same two pitchers on the mound following eight straight wins, the hot team would be much closer to being a -200 favorite, because of the added public money backing that club.
But the general public doesn’t notice over/under streaks, nor do the national media. No pundit in the country could tell you that the Blue Jays have gone under the total in nine straight games heading into their matchup with Tampa Bay tonight, nor could any TV talking head tell you that the Pittsburgh Pirates have been the single strongest Over team in baseball over the first five weeks of the season. Both Carlos Zambrano and Aaron Harang are 6-1 to the Under in their first seven starts in 2008, while Cleveland’s Fausto Carmona is 6-0 to the over in his first six starts of the campaign. This ‘streak’ strategy works for both pitchers and teams.
These type of streaks tend to feed upon themselves, extending onwards indefinitely. A few years back, the Dodgers went Under the total 99 times, but over only 53 times. The Red Sox, on the other hand, went over the total 95 times while going Under the total only 63 times. I know a handicapper who took a three-week vacation that summer, betting just the Dodgers under and Red Sox over every game while he was gone. By the time he returned to his daily capping, he was up more than 15 units, just riding the streaking teams again and again.
And this makes perfect sense. Teams who are struggling at the plate tend to press, lose confidence, and get out of their normal rhythm. Teams that are hitting well gain confidence, are more selective with their swinging, and generally have better at bats.
Likewise, teams that are getting good starting pitching don’t overuse their bullpens, leaving the pens much fresher and better than the teams that are getting lousy starting pitching, who are forced to rely on overused and tired bullpens. A run of Unders produces more Unders; a run of Overs produces more Overs, and the linesmakers simply can’t adjust.
6) Home plate umpires have over/under tendencies as much as teams do.
In baseball, the home plate ump has a huge impact on the game, more so than any other referee in any major sport. And home plate umpires are no secret – you can easily find out which ump is slated to be behind the plate for any given game. There’s no question that different umpires have different strike zones.
Umps that have a slightly wider strike zone allow the pitchers to get ahead in the count more often, while umps with a tighter strike zone force pitchers behind in the count on a consistent basis. Pitchers get rattled when close calls at the plate don’t go their way, while they gain confidence when they are getting those close calls.
Ed Montague is a well known ‘over’ type umpire, with a relatively narrow strike zone that frustrates pitchers and rewards hitters. Since the start of the 2005 season, Montague has gone 56-33 to the over in the games where he is calling balls and strikes, good for 63 percent overs betting them blindly during a four year span. That stands in sharp contrast with an ‘Under’ ump like Doug Eddings, 65-41 to the under since the start of 2005, with a truly enormous strike zone for pitchers to work with.