Advertisement

Mike DiMauro: In the midst of football, we sneak in this baseball betting tutorial

mike dimauro, the day, new london, conn.
·4 min read

Oct. 29—Sports talk radio has been popping this week about the familiar travails of baseball. If all the hyperventilating could be condensed into a brief but pithy question, it might go, "Why would I want to sit there for 4 hours, 6 minutes (as we did Tuesday) watching two teams I don't care about — even if it is the World Series?"

Baseball has a boring problem. It is uneventful and tedious to the modern attention span, leading to paltry ratings — embarrassing, almost — when compared to football.

Such woes have inspired every Tom, Dick and Harriet to weigh in on how they'd speed up the game and make it more interesting. Their whims recall the old line, "the difference between pizza and your opinion is that I actually asked for pizza."

So here's my $.02: Fixing baseball's boring problem is tied to gambling. It's not as easy for Joe/Jane Average Sports Fan to figure out how to gamble on baseball. It's more complicated than football. And so instead of those inane DraftKings commercials begging us to "make it rain," perhaps they could provide 30-second tutorials on how to bet on baseball. Personal investments always get more people watching.

There are three ways to bet on baseball: The money line, the run line and the over/under. I'll try to explain them here:

Let's say the Yankees are at home against the Red Sox. The line reads:

Yankees: Cole -115/-11/2 (+140)/9 1/2 (-110)

Red Sox: Eovaldi +105/+11/2 (-160)/9 1/2 (-110)

I know. It looks like algebra.

The Yankees are a -115 favorite and the Sox are a +105 underdog. It means that if you bet $100 on the Sox, you'd win $105. For every $100 you bet on the Yankees, you must be lay $115.

The Run Line is the next set of numbers (+11/2 -160) on the Red Sox line. This is best explained by the William Hill sportsbook website: "The Run Line is similar to the point spread in other sports, except the payouts vary according to the money line odds. In this mythical Yanks/Sox wager, the bettor is getting 1 1/2 runs with the Red Sox, by laying $160 for every $100 he or she wants to win. The Sox could lose the game by one run and the player would still win. The bettor may wish to give 1 1/2 runs with the Yankees and win $140 for every $100 wagered. The Yankees must win by two runs."

The over/under is the total number of runs scored in the game — 9 1/2 for this example. The price is set on this game is set at -110, referring back to how the money line rules are applied for payout. To win $100, you'd have to bet $110 and pick either the over or under.

I told you it wasn't easy. This is why it needs to be explained. But if people knew how lucrative this really is, they'd bet more.

Baseball's rhythms are such that even the best teams lose 60 games over the 162-game regular season and the worst teams win at least 60. It means underdogs win a lot and money line bets on underdogs come through quite frequently.

Example: The Yankees were only 16-15 in games Gerrit Cole started this season. Yet about 25 of the 31 times he started, the opponent was at least a +200 underdog. If you bet against Cole at the right times, you could have made some nice lunch money.

I hope this helped.

OK. Now on to football. Here are the best bets of the week from The Day sports staff:

— Gavin Keefe: Bengals (-9 at Jets): "Why the Bengals? They're playing the J-E-T-S. Jets! Jets! Jets!"

— Dave Davis: Bengals (-9 at Jets): "This has nothing to do with the Bengals. The Jets are just that bad. Can't wait for the two upcoming Dolphins-Jets games. Must not see TV."

— Chuck Banning: Lions (+3 at home vs. Eagles): "The Lions have actually been competitive in most games this season and finally reward Dan Campbell with his first head coaching victory."

— Vickie Fulkerson: Rams (-14.5 at Texans): "The Texans are 1-6 with six straight losses and traded their leading rusher this week, not exactly the winning edge. Plus, I'm mad at all sports teams from Houston right now."

— Ned Griffen: Bengals (-9 at Jets): "I'm going for the cheap win."

— Mikey D: Ohio State (-18.5 v. Penn State): I'm guessing most of the public thinks Penn State can cover the number. If the wiseguys make the line this big, they think the Buckeyes roll. Which they will.

— Bonus best bet: I'm not sure why North Carolina is only getting 3 1/2 at Notre Dame. That line should be bigger. Notre Dame has one loss. It is at home. Carolina has been one of the most disappointing teams in the country. I'm thinking the public will lay it in on the Irish. So I'll take Carolina and the points. The line stinks.

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro