Mac,

I don't have the numbers to back up this argument but that system seems flawed. There are nights were KC would be favored. Especially when Greinke pitches which over a course of a season would maybe be 35-40 games (25%) So far this year, KC is 10-12 in games he started. I would venture to say that if you bet KC on those games (which I woluld bet KC was the favorite) you would of been on the losing end. Given that sample, you can hypothesize that his remaining starts will be 8-10. In total, that would be 18-22. Assuming that KC was a 110-100 favorite, you would be down 6.2 units (22 x 1.10 - 18).

Okay the games where KC plays without Greinke on the bump will be about 122 games. 40% winning clip on the season would be about 64 wins. Subtract the potential wins tha Greinke would be a part of have to be excluded because he was probably a favorite. That would be 46 (64 (40% of 162) - 18). That leaves you with 76 losses (98 (60% of 162) - 22).

46-76 is the record on the remaining games. Assuming that KC wins at a 40% clip for the year. Now the hard thing to calculate is what your payoff would be on these 46 games. They won't all make you 2-1 odds. For instance, tonight KC is +135 with Bannister on the bump. To break even, you need to make up the 6.2 units from Greinke's starts. So you need to win 82.2 units. On 46 wins, you need to average odd of +1.786 per night they win.

But there are many factors that can skew the numbers: The highest payouts could all be lost and KC's 46 wins could be the least payoff or vice versa. That is a huge range that can sway one way or the other But the law of numbers usually work out to an average of both. So the question is: Does the average payoff come to +178? I would say no because there would be some home games agains a similar foe where they would actually be favored and for every game they are favored, they have to have a +250 to +300 game.

So in summary, I don't think that the idea of betting every KC game would actually turn up profitable.

But what do I know.. It is just an opinion. Good luck to you mac

I would think that any strategy that involves betting on the Kansas City Royals is most likely a bad one.

_________________

Op is correct, I did try and txt this point even including citation to Mac, but he didn't read it, maybe because I didn't sign it

YTD if you were to bet 100 dollars on the royals moneyline on every game they played you would be
-$2555

As for comparison
the White Sox are +280
Cubs are -340

Texas rangers +1331
and the Angels +1989

granted these are provided by bodog, who generally have stale lines, but you get a decent guesstimate.

IIRC in 2005, had you used the same system on games Jose Contreras pitched, you would have been in the upwards of +1600 dollars.

I wasn't talking about the money line. Playing odds only. As of two weeks ago, the Royals were something like five games above .500 as a favorite... and only about a half dozen games below .500 as a dog. I haven't bet them once this year. My point was, in baseball, in which lousy teams like K.C. win 40 % of the time... they're a safe play... especially when they often are considerable dogs. They were +180 vs. Cliff Lee and beat him earlier in the season. Against any good pitcher, they'll go off as big dogs. And betting big dogs in baseball pays a nice return when they win.

Not quite sure your what you're getting at by saying "playing odds" and not the moneyline?

Playing the Royals in particular this year at any clip of the time has not been profitable.
I don't see how it would even be possible with the royals being over 20 games under .500
for them to be a positive 5 games games when favored and only 6 below as dog.

I don't even cap baseball, but the argument just seems sketchy when you posed it, and I'm still skeptical. especially when you preface it to disregard the moneyline?? how else would you bet? runline? alternate runline? hah.

::confused::

It is one or the other. If you are playing the runs line, then you only win what you put up, just like football or basketball. You don't get the benefit of the moneyline bets, like you mentioned.

I really just threw the runline question out there because I'm not quite sure of any other way to bet a side on baseball? I doubt that's what he was talking about either.

I think Mac was really just trying to throw something out there to the avg meatball listener who might know a guy, so that the next time the person get's ahead he might think "hey dat dere Mac said the Royals pay out big sometimes"

nothing more, and fairly harmless.

It just kind of irked me, because of all low profile, sucky to semi sucky teams, he could have used a better example.

I think you are referring to the money line, based on your comments that I've heard where you get the Royals at +110 on a bad night, and sometimes at +175 and so on against some of the better teams they play..

well the average "meatball listener" may hear this and say, 'Hey, I can't lose' and then start betting everyday on the Royals and then next thing he knows, he is getting his nuts in a vice as he starts chasing to break even. There are those degenerates out there that are looking for a quick score and may take this "conversation piece" to heart.

Just to reiterate, Mac says he wasn't speaking of the moneyline but that is exactly how baseball lines arer normally bet. He is basically saying that because the Royals suck so bad, that the payoffs on the moneyline are worth the bet. (but I disproved that therory) You can place bets with giving runs just like giving points in football but this is not the standard in Vegas.

I put $100.00 on a 4 team parlay this weekend, hit it, and banked $2068.00. Very nice, but have to devote 1/2 my winnings to cover my latest property tax increase. Love this state.

Any meatball who would take to heart what a radio guy says and blind bets is and most likely will be a degen at worst and a fish at best. square money makes the world go around.

Runline bets are available in vegas,
online books feature a wide array of runlines and alt runlines.
Unknown about locals, I've never dealt with them, and never will.

Even a team a shitty as the Royals you're not going to get a line better than even money for +1.5 unless they are playing the Yankees or Sox and are over +200 dogs.
So that would squash the theory he was referring to the moneyline.

Oh hey look at that. Royals closed at +200 and smashed the Twinkies.

MAC IS A GENIUS!

Variance is all I have to say about that.