Lay to WIN or "RISK to Win

On baseball moneyline wagers is it better to RISK the same amount(flat betting a certain %age of one's BR) on each wager or is it better long term to Lay to WIN so you make the same amount on every wager. For example if you like 2 games, one team at +150 odds and another game you like the favorite at -130. If risking the same amount on both wagers you would bet $100 to win $77 on the -130 play and bet $100 to win $150 on the dog bet.

If instead you want to LAY to win, so you would instead bet $130 to win $100 on the fav.(so you are betting more on the favorite to win more but risking more) and wager $100 to win $150 on the dog.

Is one method better than the other if all wagers placed were +EV?

Quote: dogman

On baseball moneyline wagers is it better to RISK the same amount(flat betting a certain %age of one's BR) on each wager or is it better long term to Lay to WIN so you make the same amount on every wager. For example if you like 2 games, one team at +150 odds and another game you like the favorite at -130. If risking the same amount on both wagers you would bet $100 to win $77 on the -130 play and bet $100 to win $150 on the dog bet.

If instead you want to LAY to win, so you would instead bet $130 to win $100 on the fav.(so you are betting more on the favorite to win more but risking more) and wager $100 to win $150 on the dog.

Is one method better than the other if all wagers placed were +EV?

I'm not sure I understand the question, but in general underdogs are the better bet, in every sport. However, if you must bet on a favorite on the money line, just bet whatever you're comfortable with. If you want to look experienced at the window, bet an amount so that the winnings will be a round number. In your example, something divisible by $13.

Quote: dogman

On baseball moneyline wagers is it better to RISK the same amount(flat betting a certain %age of one's BR) on each wager or is it better long term to Lay to WIN so you make the same amount on every wager. For example if you like 2 games, one team at +150 odds and another game you like the favorite at -130. If risking the same amount on both wagers you would bet $100 to win $77 on the -130 play and bet $100 to win $150 on the dog bet.

If instead you want to LAY to win, so you would instead bet $130 to win $100 on the fav.(so you are betting more on the favorite to win more but risking more) and wager $100 to win $150 on the dog.

Is one method better than the other if all wagers placed were +EV?

The best way to do this is to flat bet according to the odds. In other words if you wanted to average a $20 wager, the total amount risked plus the the amount to win should equal $40. The amount you risk, of course, is based on the odds. You'll wager more on favorites than you will on dogs, but your amount of exposure will be the same and your variance should decrease.

See here for more info.

That's the way I mostly have played the games over the years and find that the best way.

Thanks