969 SEA +136

#41
Re: 969 SEA +136

Arent a large portion of MLB games won by exactly 1 run?

Doing the math, it gives him an extra 30% chance to push or something like that.?

Seems like a bad bet going from +130 to -150 for just one run.

When people throw stats around it is nice to know how to use them.

My database has 17995 games in it (current up to yesterdays games) Dogs (the closing lines I used) lost by exactly 1 run 2872 times so 2872/17995 is 16%. Which is right in line with the yearly expectations as well. So it is a pretty consistent probability.

Now my database also give average lines. Which isnt perfect but gives an idea. Average dog line in those 18K games is +136. Ave dog line of the dogs that lost by exactly one run is +138. 2 cents doesnt sound like much but it is a nice jump. But also factring in you would have to lay about -150 to 155 on those dogs to get them on the +1.5 RL would mean quite a different set of returns. Also the favs in those game were only -151. So anything over that you had to pay on the dog (per average) would make taking the dog mathematically 'wrong'.

Looking at it that way really doesnt prove much since it is in a vacuum. But to get theoretical "value" you have to look at all examples and go from there. But as I always say past results dont predict future successes or failures. But if people really want to try and use math in sports betting (other than figuring out their balance) they have to look at all the angles available.

I am not a big believer in worth or value of points or half points or any of that, be it baseball, football or hoops. I just look at the teams, the prices available and go from there. Baseball simply differs because most of the times no points are involved. But when they are, either the -1.5 or the +1.5 RL you have to know how they equate out. Now obviously these numbers also work for favs losing to the -1.5 RL. So you can work backwards (or forwards) depending on what you want to do.

As far as MLs in football (NFL). I say take the ML on any dog of 6 or less that you think will 'cover'. But on games with a -3 line shop around, see where the MLs are skewed, how the vig is on the 3. (-3 -110 and -3 -130 for example) and how that equates to the ML. Because even though the ML is a separate pool it is skewed, and sometimes point spreads are set to have a more accurate ML rather than point spread. Dogs of 6 or less points since 1992 are 1075-1590-3 SU, and 1309-1269-90 ATS. Obviously ATS results can vary, I have one DB where the dogs are 1367-1235-66 So a huge difference. But that one basically shows extremes and getting the best available number. But Su numbers never change.

On those games the average ML was +147 on the dog. So mickey mouse math would be 1075 x 1.47 = 1580. 1580 -1590 = -10. So as close to proofed as you can get. With the ATS you get 1367 x .909 (will use -110) = 1242. 1242 -1235 = 7. So a pretty good proof out there also. But that is also the best case scenario set of numbers.

Either way dogs that cover games in the NFL end up winning SU 77-83% of the time (depending on your ATS results). Once you dip to 2.5 point dogs and less the numbers improve even more, as you go to 376-419-1 SU and 397-392-7 ATS. in those cases only 19 more dogs 'covered' than won SU. Which is easilly outwieghed by the ML you would have gotten betting them on the ML.
 
#42
Re: 969 SEA +136

The Mariners have been overvalued all season, and for the most part their overvaluation went ignored by the market. During their losing streak (up until the Yankees series) books valuation of the Mariners appeared to remain constant, while the streak did provide a wake up call to the market who aggressively picked off weak openers books continued to give out (especially in the Jays and Rangers series). Booksmaterially changed their valuation on the Mariners at the beginning of the Yankees series after being whipsawed yet again on their weak Pineda/Wakefield opener. Books and the market alike have the propensity to overvalue the emotional aspect/prolonged streaks providing value going the other way. But with the Mariners, it needed a combination of a prolonged losing streak, facing an overvalued team in the Yankees, and books getting buried by sloppy openers in 3 straight series for the Mariners to finally trade below FV.

Should be interesting to see how books open the Mariners on Friday. Certainly hope they go back to their original valuation.
 

IrishTim

EOG Dedicated
#43
Re: 969 SEA +136

Taking the average ML? Ouch. Logistic regression brother. If you don't have the slightest clue how to price RLs, you have no business telling people who bet them that they're retarded. As for when to take points or ML, it 100% depends on the price. People who ignore prices (implied win rates) are going to have a tough time winning. Nice hit FK. Unfortunately for the guys still stuck in the stone age of sports betting, they missed out on a decent play.
 
#44
Re: 969 SEA +136

What a tool.

I bet a winner, that's all that matters to me.

I very, very rarely bet underdogs +1.5. But if I can get Felix/Halladay/Sabathia on the road and lay -150 or less to get +1.5, it becomes a solid bet in my opinion.

If it's Alfredo Simon at home vs. the Beckett and the Red Sox, for instance, I'm not touching the +1.5.

Blanket statements about "all +1.5's are retarded" is the only retarded thing in this thread. You can go jack off to your 17000 game database, I'll stick to my situations and matchups.
 
#45
Re: 969 SEA +136

Taking the average ML? Ouch. Logistic regression brother. If you don't have the slightest clue how to price RLs, you have no business telling people who bet them that they're retarded. As for when to take points or ML, it 100% depends on the price. People who ignore prices (implied win rates) are going to have a tough time winning. Nice hit FK. Unfortunately for the guys still stuck in the stone age of sports betting, they missed out on a decent play.
Thank you Tim, i knew somebody smart enough would come in and set him straight for me.
 
#46
Re: 969 SEA +136

What a tool.

I bet a winner, that's all that matters to me.

I very, very rarely bet underdogs +1.5. But if I can get Felix/Halladay/Sabathia on the road and lay -150 or less to get +1.5, it becomes a solid bet in my opinion.

If it's Alfredo Simon at home vs. the Beckett and the Red Sox, for instance, I'm not touching the +1.5.

Blanket statements about "all +1.5's are retarded" is the only retarded thing in this thread. You can go jack off to your 17000 game database, I'll stick to my situations and matchups.

A win is a win but if you expect to make money long term that 40 cents (per dollar) you didnt get by just betting the mariners ML will add up very quickly. But anyone bragging about winning a bet and getting 40% less of a return might want to watch out what names they call people.

Because it isnt about wins or even losses but the prices you pay under both circumstances. And obviously getting 1.00 versus 1.40 is a HUGE difference.
 

munson15

I want winners...
#47
Re: 969 SEA +136

I know the yanks and their 'mentality' they arent playing like 'killers' in every game in the reg season. if they win, great, if they lose, great, no worries. That's the mentality Girardi has instilled in this team, that any one game isnt all that important its the collection of games that matter.

I have to imagine that NYY management is hitting the roof at this performance, its pretty embarrassing losing to a team like this regardless of pitcher.

Time for Hughes to be dropped in the rankings and maybe put in the bullpen. He just cant pitch anymore. I think sabermatricians would tell you that Hughes record wasnt nearly as good as his actual performance was last season and this year he's been a huge flop with really no excuse. He didnt get himself ready in the offseason and missed time with a 'tired arm' wtf, you had all off season to get in shape.

I know they dont give MVPs to pitchers, but take CC off the Yanks and they're barely a .500 team. Just what he means to that staff emotionally and in the clubhouse is off the charts. This team would be in panic mode if he ever got hurt.
I agree with most of what you wrote, Kid, but Hughes was suffering from a 'dead arm' not a tired arm. There is soreness involved and it is very difficult to pinpoint the cause. In the case of a 24-year old pitcher with decent potential, they erred on the side of caution. Certainly, the stint on the DL had little to do with off-season conditioning.
 

Flamingo kid

Everybody's hands go UP!
#48
Re: 969 SEA +136

I agree with most of what you wrote, Kid, but Hughes was suffering from a 'dead arm' not a tired arm. There is soreness involved and it is very difficult to pinpoint the cause. In the case of a 24-year old pitcher with decent potential, they erred on the side of caution. Certainly, the stint on the DL had little to do with off-season conditioning.
You're right that a dead arm and a tired arm are two different things. I'm just 'blaming' the entire 'situation' on Hughes just not getting himself ready the proper way in the offseason. In other words, i'm blaming Hughes for this and not just feeling that its a 'random' thing that could have happened to anyone.
 

Flamingo kid

Everybody's hands go UP!
#49
Re: 969 SEA +136

When people throw stats around it is nice to know how to use them.

My database has 17995 games in it (current up to yesterdays games) Dogs (the closing lines I used) lost by exactly 1 run 2872 times so 2872/17995 is 16%. Which is right in line with the yearly expectations as well. So it is a pretty consistent probability.

Now my database also give average lines. Which isnt perfect but gives an idea. Average dog line in those 18K games is +136. Ave dog line of the dogs that lost by exactly one run is +138. 2 cents doesnt sound like much but it is a nice jump. But also factring in you would have to lay about -150 to 155 on those dogs to get them on the +1.5 RL would mean quite a different set of returns. Also the favs in those game were only -151. So anything over that you had to pay on the dog (per average) would make taking the dog mathematically 'wrong'.

Looking at it that way really doesnt prove much since it is in a vacuum. But to get theoretical "value" you have to look at all examples and go from there. But as I always say past results dont predict future successes or failures. But if people really want to try and use math in sports betting (other than figuring out their balance) they have to look at all the angles available.

I am not a big believer in worth or value of points or half points or any of that, be it baseball, football or hoops. I just look at the teams, the prices available and go from there. Baseball simply differs because most of the times no points are involved. But when they are, either the -1.5 or the +1.5 RL you have to know how they equate out. Now obviously these numbers also work for favs losing to the -1.5 RL. So you can work backwards (or forwards) depending on what you want to do.

As far as MLs in football (NFL). I say take the ML on any dog of 6 or less that you think will 'cover'. But on games with a -3 line shop around, see where the MLs are skewed, how the vig is on the 3. (-3 -110 and -3 -130 for example) and how that equates to the ML. Because even though the ML is a separate pool it is skewed, and sometimes point spreads are set to have a more accurate ML rather than point spread. Dogs of 6 or less points since 1992 are 1075-1590-3 SU, and 1309-1269-90 ATS. Obviously ATS results can vary, I have one DB where the dogs are 1367-1235-66 So a huge difference. But that one basically shows extremes and getting the best available number. But Su numbers never change.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent post, thanks for taking the time to write.

I think the general thought to sportsbetting and picking winners is to pick underdogs and bet them outright to win. If you have an edge on a dog (like this game, hypothetically) you just bet the dog to win and take the plus money and move on. I'm not going to call out W2W for laying in a game like this, to each his own, but for me, if i like a dog, i'm just betting them outright. Same in the NFL, i'd prefer to take the ML on a dog rather than points.
 

JHU Dad

EOG Dedicated
#50
Re: 969 SEA +136

Dead arm or tired, I was at the game today and was not impressed with Hughes' stuff. He seemed to top out at 92, but got very few swings and misses. His ball had velocity but little movement.
 

Flamingo kid

Everybody's hands go UP!
#51
Re: 969 SEA +136

Dead arm or tired, I was at the game today and was not impressed with Hughes' stuff. He seemed to top out at 92, but got very few swings and misses. His ball had velocity but little movement.
You gotta have movement in the bigs or its going to be a short time in the bigs.

Hughes is close to being finished as a major league pitcher, he's just not good enough at this point. He has to reinvent himself and be a "pitcher" he can't get guys out with 'stuff'.
 
#52
Re: 969 SEA +136

Heim, good call on this game even though I couldn't have touched it with a 10ft pole... I never bet on losing teams.
 
#53
Re: 969 SEA +136

A win is a win but if you expect to make money long term that 40 cents (per dollar) you didnt get by just betting the mariners ML will add up very quickly. But anyone bragging about winning a bet and getting 40% less of a return might want to watch out what names they call people.

Because it isnt about wins or even losses but the prices you pay under both circumstances. And obviously getting 1.00 versus 1.40 is a HUGE difference.
I didn't get 40% less of a return you retard. I made a different bet.
 

Flamingo kid

Everybody's hands go UP!
#54
Re: 969 SEA +136

Heim, good call on this game even though I couldn't have touched it with a 10ft pole... I never bet on losing teams.
Betting on losing teams is the way to go.

Baseball is a long season that if you can sniff out a bottom level team who's ready to go on a 'run' that's how you can inhale cash.

Even some of the worst teams in history win 60 games.
 
#55
Re: 969 SEA +136

Betting on losing teams is the way to go.

Baseball is a long season that if you can sniff out a bottom level team who's ready to go on a 'run' that's how you can inhale cash.

Even some of the worst teams in history win 60 games.
I don't doubt you at all, to me its just hard to know when to bet on them...
 
#56
Re: 969 SEA +136

Betting on losing teams is the way to go.

Baseball is a long season that if you can sniff out a bottom level team who's ready to go on a 'run' that's how you can inhale cash.

Even some of the worst teams in history win 60 games.
I'm not talking about losing teams, I'm talking about losing and winning streaks... betting on a losing team can give you a lot of value, I was speaking of streaks only...
 
#57
Re: 969 SEA +136

Nice win, but I too would have (and) did pass on betting a team that lost 17 straight.

But if it works for you .. who am I to say it was a bad bet.
 

IrishTim

EOG Dedicated
#59
Re: 969 SEA +136

Wantitall, who is most likely to win a game by one run:

a) Home Team -335
b) Home Team -106
c) Road Team -335
d) Road Team -106
 

John Kelly

Born Gambler
Staff member
#60
Re: 969 SEA +136

The Mariners have been overvalued all season, and for the most part their overvaluation went ignored by the market. During their losing streak (up until the Yankees series) books valuation of the Mariners appeared to remain constant, while the streak did provide a wake up call to the market who aggressively picked off weak openers books continued to give out (especially in the Jays and Rangers series). Booksmaterially changed their valuation on the Mariners at the beginning of the Yankees series after being whipsawed yet again on their weak Pineda/Wakefield opener. Books and the market alike have the propensity to overvalue the emotional aspect/prolonged streaks providing value going the other way. But with the Mariners, it needed a combination of a prolonged losing streak, facing an overvalued team in the Yankees, and books getting buried by sloppy openers in 3 straight series for the Mariners to finally trade below FV.

Should be interesting to see how books open the Mariners on Friday. Certainly hope they go back to their original valuation.
Great points, buffet.

I see Seattle -102 vs. Tampa Bay (Bedard-Niemann) for Friday.

Any thoughts?
 
#61
Re: 969 SEA +136

Wantitall, who is most likely to win a game by one run:

a) Home Team -335
b) Home Team -106
c) Road Team -335
d) Road Team -106

You want me to run the numbers to see historical returns? If I had to guess I would say theyll all be close to the same. odds are not predictors of anything. I suppose most people would try to logically think that a small favorite would have the better chance to win a close game. But that isnt the case, and that is why people lose money gambling. They look at odds and try and extrapolate that out to 'chance' of winning', or chance to win close or in a blow out.

But I will run teams of -320 to-350 and -101 to -110

For games -320 to -350, there have been 36 since 2004.

Favs are 26-10 SU

Faves won by one run 5 times
Faves lost by one run 6 times

Since the sample size is way too small to matter I wont differentiate between road and home. Since overall 36 games is a small sample size already.

For teams -101 to -110


Favs are 1545-1509 SU

Faves won by exactly 1 run 419 times

Since there are a few examples I will break it down for road versus home.


Overall home team was 768-743 road team was 777-766
Of the 419 1 run games... 258 were by the home team, 161 road.

There are actual results back to 2004 do with them what you will. And interpret them as most people do...usually incorrectly.
 

IrishTim

EOG Dedicated
#63
Re: 969 SEA +136

I have the data too wantitall, I'm trying to make a point that was missed. Use -180s vs. -110s then to broaden the sample size. I'll save you the time, there are two correct answers:

a) you need the total; obviously way more 1-run games with a total of 7 than a total of 11
b) the higher the favorite, the more likely they are to win by 1 run because you need to win before you can win by just 1 run.

I'm sure your data set will verify this.

But wait, you really don't think the odds correlate to win probabilities? So -200s don't win more often than -130s? Oh boy, first averaging moneylines for a 17k count sample and now this.
 
#65
Re: 969 SEA +136

I like Seattle tomorrow night (/29) not the Mariners....the Storm. In the WNBA game they should easily beat Minnesota by 5. Don't know if I would take the full 7 point spread, however. I'd go Norelco and shave it to 5.
 
#66
Re: 969 SEA +136

Great points, buffet.

I see Seattle -102 vs. Tampa Bay (Bedard-Niemann) for Friday.

Any thoughts?
I have the line valued at -101/+101. Not surprised the market has been less aggressive at picking off books Mariners opener in this one. But tomorrow is where I think books may slip up, as they have yet to make any real downgrade in Pineda's pricing despite recent struggles and the market aggressively betting against his rich opening valuation in his last couple of outings.

I have Cobb/Pineda valued at -119/+119. I am expecting bookmaker to open it at -105/-115 (which would be around a 10 cent downgrade from their recent Pineda valuations) and Pinnacle to open around -101/-105. The market will probably reverse Pinnacles open into close.

Given the huge disconnect in my pricing of the Mariners and Pineda relative to books and the market, I may be off with book expectations on this one, but am expecting to attack Greek or Pinny's Rays opening ask.
 

John Kelly

Born Gambler
Staff member
#67
Re: 969 SEA +136

I have the line valued at -101/+101. Not surprised the market has been less aggressive at picking off books Mariners opener in this one. But tomorrow is where I think books may slip up, as they have yet to make any real downgrade in Pineda's pricing despite recent struggles and the market aggressively betting against his rich opening valuation in his last couple of outings.

I have Cobb/Pineda valued at -119/+119. I am expecting bookmaker to open it at -105/-115 (which would be around a 10 cent downgrade from their recent Pineda valuations) and Pinnacle to open around -101/-105. The market will probably reverse Pinnacles open into close.

Given the huge disconnect in my pricing of the Mariners and Pineda relative to books and the market, I may be off with book expectations on this one, but am expecting to attack Greek or Pinny's Rays opening ask.

Thanks BG.

EOG needs more from buffetgambler and less from the guy (The Meatman) who devours buffets.
 

John Kelly

Born Gambler
Staff member
#68
Re: 969 SEA +136

I like Seattle tomorrow night (/29) not the Mariners....the Storm. In the WNBA game they should easily beat Minnesota by 5. Don't know if I would take the full 7 point spread, however. I'd go Norelco and shave it to 5.

I'm with Biff41.

Let's get the cheese.
 
Top