Leans 5/26

I really enjoyed the last week without gambling on baseball. I'm just really not all that into this. I only have a paltry 14x left in my bankroll, so once that's gone, I'll probably sit out until football season. In any case, I'm back on the horse today.

705p CLE (Pavano) +115 vs. TB (Garza)
805p PIT (Snell) +148 @ CHC (Marshall)
805p TEX (Millwood) +11 vs. NYY (Chamberlain)
810p MIN (Blackburn) +105 vs. BOS (Lester)
810p DET (Jackson) +145 @ KC (Greinke)
840p COL (Cook) -150 vs. LAD (Milton)
1005p OAK (Braden) -138 vs. SEA (Washburn)

Washington, Florida and Baltimore should all be on this list if I was going by straight consensus numbers. Why should I be fading Hernandez, Blanton, and a team that has been swept in the their last two series? I can somewhat see the case for the Nats, only because perception (and reality) is that Mets >> Nats, but the other two don't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Streak for the Cash
1000a BK Hacken vs. Other Swedish Soccer Team
Current Streak: 0

The 830a total between S. Williams and K. Zakopalova (!) is set at 19 with the juice slightly favoring u19 (-111/-105). I have no idea how much a half point is worth in tennis, but I imagine it is more than enough to flip the proper play to o18.5. Either way, I'm passing.

I've actually heard of Rochus, so I was somewhat surprised that the public is on Santoro at a 85/15 clip. If the line is right, Santoro has a JA 55.2% chance of winning. I guess that's good enough.

For this afternoon, it looks like BK Hacken is the play at 57% using 5Dimes' lines, but since Pinny has the game offline, I'm concerned there is injury news or something. Hopefully someone will post their numbers this afternoon.

Good luck.


Anonymous said...

I found your site through RMMB, very useful. I have a quick question, though.

When trying to fade the public, how much do you account for the line?

For example, the PIT play. Yes, they are getting only about 35% of the action (per SportsInsights), but they are also +150. 35% at +150 does not seem like anything out of the ordinary. Aren't the books "hedging" all the money on the Cubs by making the public pay -160 to play them?

In other words, if PIT were, say, +110, wouldn't they then be a much stronger play, in theory?

am19psu said...


VW and I discussed that here

Anonymous said...

So you assume that someone betting a -190 line is risking $190 to win $100, as opposed to risking $100 to win $52.60?

am19psu said...

It's definitely not a valid assumption if you are looking to calculate the actual risk a book has, but I think that it gets you closer to the right answer than assuming money is being bet proportionally.

I still do think about "the publicness" when the line is large, but it doesn't bother me nearly as much as it used to before I did the math.