Walk it off, why some runs cost more than others.

Why Did It Cost So Much To Buy The +1.5 Runs (Runline) With The Atlanta Braves At The Philadelphia Phillies On 6/10/21 (Warning: TWL Options Theory Ahead)

When we are discussing buying runs/points/pucks/goals, etc., we are discussing increasing the probability of a "winning bet" that is paid for by a decreased potential Return On Investment (a "debit position"). When we are discussing selling runs/points/pucks/goals, etc., it is the opposite because we are then decreasing the probability of a "winning bet" and are rewarded for that by an increased potential Return On Investment ("a credit position"). The example here of the underdog Atlanta Braves visiting the favored Philadelphia Phillies (on the moneyline) will be addressed in terms of "mid-market"/"fair-value" probability percentages (which some readers with experience in Options Greek Risk Variables will recognize as the King Greek called "Delta"...the probability of a speculation/bet/contract/game finishing "In the Money"..aka winning.)

Here were the relevant closing Full Game prices for this contract. 

Moneyline 

Phillies -135 (56.5% chance of winning)
Braves +125 (43.5% chance of winning)
Total number of runs expected (Implied Volatility) 7.5

Runline 

Phillies (-1.5) +150 (38.5% chance of winning)
Braves (+1.5) -170 (61.5% chance of winning)
That 1.5 runs cost 18% mid market/fair value. If you bought the 1.5 you paid for it in potential ROI and if you sold the 1.5 you were credited for it in potential ROI.

For MLB, that is a relatively high price to pay for that 1.5 runs. There are 2 main factors that affect the probability/ROI proportion in Baseball Betting.

1) The total number of runs expected. The lower the amount of runs expected, then the more that 1.5 runs will cost because runs are at more of a premium so a one run game is more probable than if the total number of runs expected was higher. In this case we saw a relatively low expected runs scored of 7.5 so that increased the price that the market would price the +1.5/-1.5 runs going from the Moneyline to the Runline (In Options Trading, this is represented as the relationship that Implied Volatility has on "Gamma" and eventually on "Delta", but that is a discussion for another time)

2) When you are buying runs with the away team you will pay (be debited relatively more potential ROI). Conversely, when you are selling runs with the home team, you will receive (be credited relatively more potential ROI). This is because of the a) Potential of the one run walkoff win by the home team where the game ends with home favorite winning Moneyline but away dog winning Runline (1.5) and/or b) The away team, in essence getting an "extra at bat". Meaning that if the away underdog is able to finish their 9 at-bats within a one run deficit, the home favorite does not bat in the 9th inning because they won Moneyline but lost RunLine (-1.5)

What Happened.

The one run walkoff. Phillies win 4-3. Phillies win Moneyline (a $100 return for every $135 bet) and Braves win RunLine (a $100 Return for every $170 bet), and game stays under 7.5 (short volatility). It is possible to win both of these bets and this scenario happens quite often with an away underdog +1.5 and a relatively low runs expected/Implied volatility which makes this a more expensive trade/bet. Had the Phillies been the away team, they would have continued to try to score runs and that is why an away favorite does not get as much potential ROI credit when selling the 1.5 Runs and vice/versa with the underdog when being the home team.

Hopefully Mr WolfLine is helping make Sports Bettors into Financial Traders and Financial Traders into Sports Bettors, because they are exactly the same thing...there only needs to be the appropriate education and analytics/tools provided for this to be universally understood