And I would parlay it with the over.
It feels like a 4-1 kind of night.
Oh look, it was a 4-1 kind of night... after 3 innings. Good call on that over. [edit: Or not; 5-1 final.]
And to try to sum it up for 'stunner:
If a line is dead even (for example, betting heads/tails on the Super Bowl coin flip), then you'll typically be risking $110 to net $100. This is denoted as -110. You and a bunch of others bet heads, another group bets tails. It's heads, your group wins your $100 each. Meanwhile, the other group paid/lost $110 each. If the sizes of the groups were equal, then every loser's $110 will wind up as $100 to a winner, and $10 to the house. The oddsmaker's goal here is to find a line which will garner similar action on each side, guaranteeing them that 10% for each pair of wagers.
Now look at the line I posted earlier:
| Outcome | Run Line |
| CHICAGO N: R HILL | +1.5
-160 |
| SAN DIEGO: J PEAVY | -1.5
+140 |
In this case, there's a 1.5 run spread, but it isn't an 'even' -110. It will cost you $160 to net $100 (or $100 to net $62.5) if you were to take the Cubs coming within 1, or you could risk $100 to net $140 on the Padres winning by 2 or more. If there were going to be equal action on each side of the 1.5 run spread, these payouts would both be -110, but obviously, a lot more people are taking the Cubs to cover. The payout numbers are picked (and adjusted) so that the house will only pay $100 for every $110 they collect. (For these numbers, the math says there are roughly 3 Cubs bets for every 2 Padres bets.)
[edit: I believe that for the kind of system you're trying to test, each wager needs to be of the even variety. That means you have to find someone offering a spread with even payouts on both sides.]
kono
