FINAL: STL 2 — CIN 4. Our Monte Carlo simulation projected STL 3.1 - CIN 4.5 (CIN at 55.6% win probability). The run line is -1.5 and the total is 8.0. Model projects 7.6 total runs.
STL
3.1
Projected Score
VS
O/U 8.0
CIN
4.5
Projected Score
Win Probability
STLCIN
-1.5
Run Line (STL)
8.0
Total Line
10,000
Simulations
CIN W4STL L5
Calibrated accuracy at this confidence: 56.8% (2,978 games)
Projected Runs Range 10th – 90th percentile
CIN
346
STL
135
Projected
STL 3.1 — CIN 4.5
Actual
STL 2 — CIN 4
Pick Results
CIN @ STL F5 UNDER 4.5f5WIN+1.40u
Starting Pitcher Matchup
Hunter Greene R
CIN
usagewhiffbar labels show usage · mph
FF52%99 mph12% whiff
SL33%89 mph47% whiff
FS10%87 mph29% whiff
Andre Pallante R
STL
usagewhiffbar labels show usage · mph
FF31%95 mph12% whiff
SL30%88 mph28% whiff
SI18%95 mph10% whiff
Weather Impact
Busch Stadium
73°F2 mph wind
HR: 1.027 Total: 1.014
neutral
Bullpen Comparison
CIN
4.59ERA
5.23FIP
8.86K/9
5.87BB/9
1.53WHIP
STL
4.30ERA
4.29FIP
8.27K/9
4.08BB/9
1.36WHIP
Betting Edges
RUN_LINE HOME -1.5
-32.6% EV
+146
F5_ML HOME
-26.6% EV
-164
F5_ML AWAY
+25.2% EV
+130
ML HOME
-18.0% EV
-152
RUN_LINE AWAY +1.5
-17.8% EV
-175
TOTAL OVER 8.0
-17.0% EV
-106
First 5 Innings & NRFI
CIN F5
2.3 runs
50.2% win
STL F5
1.6 runs
31.0% win
F5 Total
3.9
NRFI
62.4%
YRFI
37.6%
Avg 1st Inn Runs
0.75
HR Spotlight
Avg HRs
1.9
Over 0.5 HR
84%
Over 1.5 HR
56%
No HR
16%
Pitcher Strikeout Projections
Hunter Greene
0.0 K projected
CIN | K/9: 0.0
Andre Pallante
0.0 K projected
STL | K/9: 0.0
Injury Report
CIN6 injured
Matt McLain 2B10-DAY-IL
Nick Lodolo SP15-DAY-IL
Brandon Williamson SP60-DAY-IL
Blake Dunn CF10-DAY-IL
Tony Santillan RP15-DAY-IL
Graham Ashcraft RP60-DAY-IL
STL4 injured
Ramon Urias 3B60-DAY-IL
Max Rajcic RP60-DAY-IL
Pedro Pages CDAY-TO-DAY
JoJo Romero RP15-DAY-IL
AI Intelligence Analysis
LEAN +1
STL UNDER 8.0 at 58.2% model probability (12.3% edge) combined with STL/CIN ML edge 10.3% (CIN away, 47.6% model vs 43.1% market) creates dichotomous edges: model favors UNDER full-game but AWAY dog directionally. This mismatch suggests model is confident on low-scoring environment despite favoring road team ML. May (B-, 0.497 grade, 8.3 K/9) vs Lowder (C+, 0.414 grade, 7.1 K/9) slightly favors STL pitcher. Model projects 7.43 total (12.3% edge under 8.0) — 0.57-run gap is meaningful. Both bullpens weak (STL 4.3 ERA, 1.047 quality; CIN 4.59 ERA, 0.98 quality) — relief parity with STL slight edge. NRFI edge 7.9% (55.1% prob) suggests low first-inning scoring. LEAN on UNDER 8.0 with focus on first-inning value as well. Use 1.0 unit due to strong edge in sweet 10-15% historical support.
Key Factors
- SP quality: May (B-, 0.497, 8.3 K/9, 0.077 BB rate) slight edge over Lowder (C+, 0.414, 7.1 K/9, 0.097 BB rate) — pitcher advantage STL but modest
- Total projection: 7.43 vs market 8.0 — 0.57-run gap (12.3% edge) exceeds calibration max (8%) but validated by NRFI data
- NRFI edge 7.9% (55.1% model prob) with NRFI historical support GREEN (a supportive track record, B grade) — first-inning scoring suppressed, validating low-total thesis
- Bullpen parity: STL 4.3 ERA (1.047 quality) vs CIN 4.59 ERA (0.98 quality) — negligible relief advantage either way
- Park factor neutral (Busch 1.0) + weather neutral (78.7F, minimal wind 5.3 mph)
Risk Factors
- Edge 12.3% above calibration safe historical support — elevated risk; recent 10-15% totals only a supportive track record (sample 39)
- historically mixed totals (a supportive track record) show no advantage; market may be correct at 8.0
- Both teams have mediocre offenses (CIN, STL both mid-tier) so low-scoring makes sense, but market at 8.0 already accounts for this
Edge Analysis
Moneyline
CIN 55.6%
-32.6 pts
Run Line
-1.5
-32.6 pts
Total
8.0
+7.5 pts
How this prediction was generated: This page shows output from the Olympus Bets MLB Baseball Monte Carlo engine. Each game is simulated 10,000 times using real-time team data, injury reports, and current odds. Probabilities are calibrated using Bayesian methods and sized via the Kelly Criterion. Probabilities are calibrated using Bayesian methods and sized via the Kelly Criterion. Full methodology →