The Washington Nationals do not have, never had, and never will have any value. You people are complete squares that are betting on them.When, in fact, I said:
I'll still stand by that statement. This whole post came about because some anonymous dick failed at making a joke about the Nationals. I was reasonably sure when I did the analysis I would find that Washington juice was greater than their third order winning percentage. When it didn't come in that way, I needed some way to explain it. Of course, why let the scientific method get in the way of good snark.
I'm not entirely sure what this means, other than I have likely been betting on Washington (n=34)... too much, when they don't actually have value.
There is zero doubt the analysis was flawed. I thought it was going to be a quick and dirty analysis that showed up "anonymous." A lot of the data points were not valid because of sample size considerations. But that's not what I'm getting hammered on. It's Washington. And I'm being misquoted at that.
When, as contrarians, have we ever bet on a team in 77% of their games? Are we to think that the books are shading their lines every single day against whichever team the Nationals are playing? I find that unlikely. And because of that, I came to the conclusion that betting on the Nats every single day is likely -EV.
Obviously, with a team as terrible/underrated as Washington, there are going to be days where they have value. I've never made a statement otherwise. I came closest in the comments here:
Well, yeah, except that Matchbook gamblers have them pegged as a .430 team in the 35 games I've wagered (with no trend to the juice) and PCT3 had them pegged as a .430 team through 49 games (when pitching matchups and HFA are smoothed out over the sample). Is PCT3 not the expected number of wins and losses given their base runs and SoS? If expected winning percentage = odds received, how is that not a sign of no value? What am I missing here?But once again, this is making the point that betting on the Nats every single day is not +EV (assuming you substitute PCT2 for PCT3) or that if it is (as Vegas points out later in the thread), it's not terribly +EV. It's better to pick your spots.
And this all gets back to why I stopped playing Washington. I readily admit that baseball is not my strongest sport. I'm having a difficult time deciding when Washington does and does not have value, since their lines always seem so off because their real winning percentage right now is around 27%. If I feel like I've proven to myself that betting on Washington every single day is not a good bet, and if I feel like I can't pick the good bets from the bad, then doesn't it make sense to completely pass them totally?
Or we could just say that Washington has no value at all. Either one.
11 comments:
It doesn't particularly matter exactly what you said. You have not bet on the Nationals since that post, despite the fact the Mets averaged about 70% on Wagerline in that series (that is the only relevant thing I can still check). It's not like Zimmermann's start against the Giants or Stammen's start against the Mets were borderline contrarian plays.
"If I feel like I've proven to myself that betting on Washington every single day is not a good bet"
Then that is fine if you've proven that to yourself, but both ML and I strongly disagreed with the relevance of the method used in that post, and I would even more strongly disagree with its relevance going forward. If you want to try to handicap games rather than do what you've always done, go ahead, but realize that is what you're doing here.
If you want to try to handicap games rather than do what you've always done, go ahead, but realize that is what you're doing here.
Right, passing = handicapping. Of course. Handicapping implies I think I can tell the relative strength of each team. In fact, I'm admitting exactly the opposite here; that I have no idea what to make of the Nationals, other than the 25x I've already lost.
If you think attempting a statistical methodology for college football is a sign that I've become a permanent handicapper and forgot everything I knew about contrarianism, I don't know what to tell you. It's like you think that the second I said the word "handicap," you and MoneyLine immediately discounted everything I've ever done as a contrarian.
The college football thing is simply an idea and if it fails, I'm never going to speak about it again. I'm not even going in with the expectation that it's going to work. Sorry that trying something new and quantitative has made your opinion of me change.
I would even more strongly disagree with its relevance going forward.
Exactly how many units do I need to lose to prove the point that I know the contrarian handbook says there is value on the Nats on some days but I can't figure out which days those are? Why does admitting defeat = square to you? It's like risk analysis is not a good attribute for a gambler to have.
The college football thing has nothing to do with anything, and I never mentioned it. The fact is that if you have never done that "Am I getting value" post -- which obviously had nothing to do with contrarian methodology -- you'd still be betting on the Nationals at least frequently, since every square in the world goes against them constantly. That is where you are "handicapping", or whatever you want to call that, vs. being a contrarian.
Handicapping, in my mind at least, implies that you are doing something other than trying to determine which is the "public" side. I don't think there's any doubt that that is the case here; if it wasn't, I just don't see any possible way you wouldn't have played the Nationals at least a couple times last week.
"It's like you think that the second I said the word "handicap," you and MoneyLine immediately discounted everything I've ever done as a contrarian."
You're being more sensitive than me, which is quite the accomplishment.
Bottom line: You decided that you didn't want to bet on the Nats anymore and for some reason felt the need to justify this decision to us which was dumb because there was a) no need to and b) no way to.
"The college football thing is simply an idea and if it fails, I'm never going to speak about it again. I'm not even going in with the expectation that it's going to work. Sorry that trying something new and quantitative has made your opinion of me change."
I have no clue why you would think the guy (me) who has had 200+ chicken garbage ideas on how to improve/evaluate the process over the last 3 years would judge you for this.
wow, someone actually coming to their senses on the nats, quite a feat, lol!
let vegas and moneyline call you all the names they want -- and let them continue to lose all those units betting on the worst team in baseball, by far, at shit lines.
the echo-chamber type of thinking in this little "community" is quite astounding. determining who you place your bets on by relying on wagerline -- wagerline! i can barely contain my hysterics! -- is the most remarkable thing i have ever heard. you realize those aren't actual bets, right??? it's like play poker for fun! and you use these "numbers" as the focal point of placing your actual bets? think about that for a second!
vegaswatch, i hope you play on matchbook, you've already funded one of my vacations this year, i'm looking into another one in the fall, lol! hope you continue to play the shit nats, the books "must" be backing them, so you must too!!!! use your head for once!
"you've already funded one of my vacations this year"
Where do you vacation? Des Moines, Iowa?
They pay people to take vacations there?
"They pay people to take vacations there?"
Either that, or he must only be filling your action on the Nats and more specifically when they lose.
Genius!
put away the calculators fellas, lol!!!
is this the same moneyline who quit gambling because he was losing so much? LOL!!!
"is this the same moneyline who quit gambling because he was losing so much?"
The one and only.
Washington Nationals should be always competitive enough to keep pace with the others. I really like them; they’ve always been my favourite teams in MLB. Just read about them here:
http://www.nationalsclub.com
Post a Comment