Wow! i just did a quick analysis with some eye opening results.

First a quick primer on baseball betting. In baseball betting you have what is called the "moneyline".
Which is a negative number for the "favorite" and positive for the "underdog".
For tonights game the Giants were a -114 favorite to the Cards +104. It basically means to win 100$ you have to bet 114$ on the favorites (Giants)
and only 96$ on the Underdog (Cards).

Another example was the MADBUM start vs the rockies. The Giants were a -175 favorite to the Rockies +159. So to win 100$ you had to either bet 175$ on the Giants or 63$ on the Rockies.

I wont get into "vig" and stuff but you can see that when there is a higher degree of probability that a team will win... it cost more money to win that 100$. Obviously the Rockies looks like a good value "hey i only need to risk 63$ to win 100$!!" but you can see how it might seem like a sucker bet if it really looks like a guaranteed loss (think Kershaw vs Padres which would have dodgers at +275 something)

SO... from this you can sort of infer that Vegas moneylines can be used as a PRoxy for the collective analysis of the probable outcome in a matchup of 2 teams.

ANd....in my look at 12743 GAMES from 2011 to today. That has proven true.

When Vegas sets a moneyline favoring a team, that team does go on to win .... 56.37% of the time.

not bad right? if i just bet only on the favorites, ill win more than 50% of the time!

so i did the calculation starting with a bankroll of $1,000,000 and only bet enough on EACH favorite to win 100$

by the time i looped through the 12743 games.

i won 56.37% of those bets, but only had $415,628$ left.

now inversely ... if one only bets on EVERY UNDERDOG....

I would only win 43.63% of the time....but

at the end of i would have $1,690,545 in my bankroll.

woops didnt mean to get that involved. RIP Cassius :(