Yesterday, MJ posted a great post in his thread bout ML v. RL. Really good stuff. What I like most about the RL plays is you are not laying as much so less of your BR is exposed.
BTW, and I think this is amazing, of all of our losses, our team lost outright. It wasn't a loss because our RL pick only won by one run, they just lost the game. So take the money we saved into account by playing the RL instead of ML and our profits seem even larger.
I know he did (and I have posted there as well), however since the claim that bookies assume 70% will cover the spread made in the article isn't backed with evidence I presume it's more of a guess.Therfore I only play the RL for the part where the teams beat it more often than average (so over 72.5%) and so my cutoff-line for the ML vs RL is -140 or higher. Since most lines I got yesterday were slightly under that line I took the ML's. It would be interesting to see whether the small dogs (-140 and lower) accuscore selects will cover the spread over 72.5% as well; since it seems fairly accurate so far I guess I'll play those smaller favs on the RL as well for the time being.
And yes, indeed it's somewhat of a safer feel maybe to have less of your bankroll at stake per game