I guess it should be pretty obvious by now that I won't be posting much in the way of theoretical stuff over the next four or five months. I just don't have a large knowledge base for baseball. Plus, baseball is a sport that has been analyzed to death. It's not like my Excel spreadsheets are going to break new ground. Once football preparation starts, this will hopefully go back to being more than just a picks blog.
Leans
705p WAS (Zimmerman) +142 vs. ATL (Lowe)
705p OAK (Eveland) +170 @ NYY (Pettitte)
Both of these look like the types of games I might want to lay 3x on. Not that I know what that means, other than I had a strong reaction when I saw the lines.
Streak for the Cash
930a The Kenyan faster than The American (Boston Marathon)
245p Sheffield United vs. Burnley (English Championship)
Current Streak: 0
Sure, that might seem square, but cajuncook found a legit reason for it, too. There is almost no edge in the English Championship later today.
I clearly didn't expect The Kenyan to lose today. I literally flipped a coin at work to come up with Sheffield.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
great site, i check it daily. i had a quick question, though.
do you check anywhere other than wagerline to get your info on "public betting"?
i saw in your previous post that you seemed to shy away from betting the orioles today b/c not enough public action would be on the sox. as i check wagerline right now, it's at 68%.
just trying to pick your brain as to how you determine what situations are play-worthy, and which are not.
thanks.
Anon,
You have to consider the line.
I think Baltimore has rounded into a play for me along with Washington and Oakland. I'm still debating whether to add Pittsburgh to the card or not.
"You have to consider the line."
thanks for your reply. right now i see BAL at +196. here comes another stupid question: what would have made this a play for you? if the line was higher, or lower?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I look at how much risk the books have in terms of how much they pay should either team win/lose. If the +196 was lower, say +150, and the books were taking action on Boston without adjusting the line it would make me more inclined to take Baltimore.
do you check anywhere other than wagerline to get your info on "public betting"?
I also use SIA, but that book is more "square" so you can't interpret the numbers in the same way.
i saw in your previous post that you seemed to shy away from betting the orioles today b/c not enough public action would be on the sox. as i check wagerline right now, it's at 68%.
If the line is a true line at -210/+190, over the long run, the book would like to get 66.7/33.3 split action to just gain money off juice. So, in reality, 32% on the O's isn't anti-public at all.
Does that make sense?
right now i see BAL at +196. here comes another stupid question: what would have made this a play for you? if the line was higher, or lower?
I don't really have any thresholds, one, because I don't think hard and fast rules are particularly effective without some sort of mathematical justification, and two, because this is my first season in any sport dealing with moneylines. That said, JBD has the right idea. A shorter price on the O's, given the same splits, would have been more enticing for me.
"If the line is a true line at -210/+190, over the long run, the book would like to get 66.7/33.3 split action to just gain money off juice. So, in reality, 32% on the O's isn't anti-public at all.
Does that make sense?"
yep. thanks.
"If the line is a true line at -210/+190, over the long run, the book would like to get 66.7/33.3 split action to just gain money off juice. So, in reality, 32% on the O's isn't anti-public at all."Why would you assume that the average "square" bet on a +190 line is as large as the average bet on a -210 line? There's just no way this is true.
Also, wasn't Burnley favored? I looked at it really quickly but I ended up on them. It wasn't a win or win/draw thing.
Why would you assume that the average "square" bet on a +190 line is as large as the average bet on a -210 line? There's just no way this is true.
I think I see what you mean (risking 1x to win 1.9x versus risking 2.1x to win 1x, I think). I just did the math and I am clearly retarded. Getting a 50/50 split still presents a no-risk option to the book*.
Do you think you can let me in on the secret of what it means to "consider the line" then? I'm clearly mind-flipped because now I don't see any difference between this and point spread betting.
Also, wasn't Burnley favored? I looked at it really quickly but I ended up on them. It wasn't a win or win/draw thing.
I thought when I looked this morning, one of the teams was like +165, the other was around +175 and draw was +260ish. I didn't remember which and I ultimately didn't think that extra 1-3% made all that much of a difference since I was just doing it on the fly. I could just as easily be totally wrong, too, but it kind of sucks not to write this stuff down and have a job where you can't check lines.
* - If $2100 is risked on the favorite and $1000 is risked on the dog (realize that this is a 50/50 split in the betting patterns above), then:
E(x) = .667(1000-1000) + .333(2100-1900) = $66.7
There is definitely a correlation between how steep the line is and the Wagerline numbers, I just think it's been blown out of proportion recently. I take that slightly into account, but mostly just assume, as for ATS sports, that people prefer favorites at about a 60/40 clip.
It was Burnley +162, Draw +237, Sheffield United +200, at the site I just found.
It was Burnley +162, Draw +237, Sheffield United +200, at the site I just found.
If I'm reading SBRLines correctly, the lines moved offshore at 945a, which is why I didn't see it.
Post a Comment