![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Of course, you know some fish is going to suck out on you. Fortunately, there are no bad beat stories.
Dan
ps Sometimes it's done for a large crowd and wagers are placed on them. I suppose the winner gets a cut.
I laughed out loud when I read the words, "I like those odds!"
On the Simpsons, Krusty the Klown owns a chain of fastfood restaurants called KrustyBurger. One time he ran a promotion where you got a ticket with an Olympic event, and if the US won the Gold Medal in that event, you won a free burger.
Seconds after the contest was announced, the Soviets announced they were boycotting the Olympics, making the US a lock to take home most of the gold, costing Krusty millions.
About half-way through the Olympics, a KrustyBurger TV commercial showed a hang-dog Krusty smoking a cigarette, angrily yelling at the viewers, "You people are pigs!!! I, personally, am going to spit into every fiftieth KrustyBurger!!!"
Cut to Homer, sitting on his couch, surrounded by empty burger wrappers and free-burger coupons, licking his lips and saying, "I LIKE those odds!!"
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
Past performances came out today for the Belmont. At this time, it appears to be only a 2-horse race between Fusaichi Pegasus and Aptitude. The rest of these are dreamers, although I've been high on the stock of Wheelaway and Unshaded, but not convinced either one can get the distance.
Incidentally, you can get a free download of the Belmont PPs at http://www.drf2000.com/home/crown/bel_stakes_0530.pdf.
go with Fusaichi Pegasus. the off track really hurt him in the Preakness and he should recover in the Belmont. You wont get a great price but he's by far the class of the field.
James, I'd like to take a look at your program if you would care to share it with me. Can you e-mail it to me?
Thanks
BTW, think about this:
Assume that there's no taking numbers out. Just 5 random balls. The chances of ball number one being picked are 1 - (59/60*58/59*57/58*56/57*55/56) or 1- 55/60, or .08%. Right?
So when you're taking away ball number one for almost all of the second round of picking, and most likely all of the third round as well, and probably the fourth...how can ball number one be close to 8%?
Just something to think about. Thanks again in advance for sending me the program.
Dan
Dan,
You are right, I wasn't thinking straight. The program works correctly, but it simply enumerates all possible pick sequences. For that matter, my argument about why the number of sequences containing each number should be the same was basically correct.
The problem was that I was incorrectly inferring that the number of possible sequencies containing a ball determined the probability of that ball being picked. As you pointed out, the probabilities of the various sequences occurring are not equal.
Anyhow, since I already had the code to do the picking, I decided to go ahead and write a simple inefficient simulator function. The results of 10 million picks are summarized in the following table. As expected, the probability of any given number being picked goes up steadly with ball #, accellerating as we get closer to the top ball # (a graph of the probabilities vs. ball # looks a lot like an exponential function). [Note that this data is probably not the best, because I used a crappy random number generator. However, the general shape should be correct.]
After the table, you will find the code. Ignore the #include of stdafx.h, that's a Microsoft thing. Replace it with stdio.h if you want to use it on a normal machine. This is basically C with some C++ syntax.
--james
1 265078 2.7% 21 383232 3.8% 41 637789 6.4%
2 269448 2.7% 22 392127 3.9% 42 668578 6.7%
3 273622 2.7% 23 400582 4.0% 43 698198 7.0%
4 277874 2.8% 24 411344 4.1% 44 734092 7.3%
5 281631 2.8% 25 423038 4.2% 45 773849 7.7%
6 286007 2.9% 26 433584 4.3% 46 818352 8.2%
7 291107 2.9% 27 444347 4.4% 47 866406 8.7%
8 296270 3.0% 28 457390 4.6% 48 925332 9.3%
9 301223 3.0% 29 471254 4.7% 49 989648 9.9%
10 307305 3.1% 30 486134 4.9% 50 1064669 10.6%
11 312752 3.1% 31 502227 5.0% 51 1156381 11.6%
12 317203 3.2% 32 518548 5.2% 52 1264677 12.6%
13 323977 3.2% 33 477351 4.8% 53 1394164 13.9%
14 329545 3.3% 34 492372 4.9% 54 1561384 15.6%
15 337219 3.4% 35 507891 5.1% 55 1775520 17.8%
16 343120 3.4% 36 526780 5.3% 56 2060683 20.6%
17 349753 3.5% 37 545247 5.5% 57 2473411 24.7%
18 358096 3.6% 38 565530 5.7% 58 3115960 31.2%
19 366160 3.7% 39 587953 5.9% 59 4253884 42.5%
20 374224 3.7% 40 611605 6.1% 60 6866873 68.7%
// LotterySim.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//
#include "stdafx.h"
#include "stdlib.h"
#include "time.h"
const int num_balls = 60;
typedef enum { FREE, CHOSEN, REMOVED } status_t;
status_t status[num_balls];
long num_picks[num_balls] = {0};
long total_picks = 0;
bool pick(int n) {
// check if this ball is free to choose
if (status[n] != FREE)
return false;
// choose this ball
status[n] = CHOSEN;
// find out if this is highest ball
bool highest = true;
for (int i = n + 1; i < num_balls; i++) {
if (status[i] == FREE) {
highest = false;
break;
}
}
if (highest) {
// if this ball is the highest, replace all non-chosen balls
for (int i = 0; i < num_balls; i++)
if (status[i] != CHOSEN)
status[i] = FREE;
} else {
// otherwise, remove all lower balls
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
if (status[i] != CHOSEN)
status[i] = REMOVED;
}
return true;
}
void clear_status() {
for (int i = 0; i < num_balls; i++)
status[i] = FREE;
}
void print_status() {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < num_balls; i++)
printf("%2d", i + 1);
printf("\n");
for (i = 0; i < num_balls; i++)
printf("%2d", status[i]);
printf("\n\n");
}
void print_picks() {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < num_balls; i++)
if (status[i] == CHOSEN)
printf("%3d", i + 1);
printf("\n");
}
void tally_picks() {
total_picks ++;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < num_balls; i++)
if (status[i] == CHOSEN)
num_picks[i]++;
}
void print_tally() {
printf("%d total picks\n", total_picks);
int num_rows = 0;
int num_cols = 3;
if (num_balls % num_cols != 0)
num_rows = num_balls/num_cols + 1;
else
num_rows = num_balls/num_cols;
for (int r = 0; r < num_rows; r++) {
for (int c = 0; c < num_cols; c++) {
int n = r + c * num_rows;
printf("%2d: %9d ", n+1, num_picks[n]);
}
printf("\n");
}
}
void enumerate()
{
for (int a = 0; a < num_balls; a++) {
for (int b = 0; b < num_balls; b++) {
for (int c = 0; c < num_balls; c++) {
for (int d = 0; d < num_balls; d++) {
for (int e = 0; e < num_balls; e++) {
// clear status vector
clear_status();
// try each pick in order; only tally if picks are successful
pick(a);
if (pick(b))
if (pick(c))
if (pick(d))
if (pick(e)) {
tally_picks();
}
}
}
}
}
print_tally();
}
print_tally();
}
int rand_ball() {
int r = rand();
r >>= 6;
r %= num_balls;
return r;
}
void simulate() {
srand(time(NULL));
int i, j;
for (j = 0; j < 10000000; j++) {
clear_status();
for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
while (pick(rand_ball()) == false);
}
tally_picks();
}
print_tally();
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
// enumerate();
simulate();
return 0;
}
NY+5.5
another smooth pick...keep it up, I always go opposite of what you say...it was an easy score for me last night...my wallet thanks you...
Good for you,too bad not many games left...I also don't post halftime picks.
If you did post halftime bets, would they be accompanied by your usual, detailed, in depth analysis ?
What is analysis?
I just thought I would point something out since I overhear so much baseball betting analysis these days in the books. Way too many people are enamored with ERA's. Frankly over half the analysis of a pitcher by the linemaker when he judges the action on a game is what the pitcher's ERA is. Its considered more important that W-L and rightfully so. However to beat the numbers, you can't just look at what everyone else focuses on. Without a doubt, the most important pitching concept is the quality start. Now its getting some coverage, but its vastly overlooked. In this day of high scoring games, a pitcher that gives 6 innings and 3 runs is most times a winner. The key to winning your baseball bets is judging if your starter today is either more likely to put up a quality start than his opposing pitcher or in some cases, if his start is just not going to be as awful as his opponent and we sure do get some of those now.
A simple and effective way to matchup pitching that doesn't take too much time is to grade each start. You can do it subjectively looking at a lot of stats or even just judge by the innings and ER. Obviously the more stats and the more analysis you do, the better the ratings, but time is a factor for most. Have an "A" game be something like 7 or more innings, 2 or fewer ER. A "B" game can be quality start numbers 6 innings, 3 or less. A "C" is basically anything else except a terrible start. I would say a "D" is 6 or more ER over any length of time or 3 innings or less with 4 or more ER. You get the picture. Then when you get your matchups set, just look at the current form of each pitcher. If one guy has a line that reads BBBDB and another reads BCCDA, well you get the idea. The ERA of these two pitchers may not be all that far apart either if that A game was outstanding and the D of the first pitcher was really just a bad day for him. In this case the ERA can easily lie because what you are really after is what pitcher is going to do enough to win today, not necessarily if one pitcher is going to throw an A game. Kind of like poker, you don't have to have a big hand to win most hands, just a hand better than your opponent. What I do is give each rating a point value with A = 8, B = 5, C = 3, and D = 0. That is a good starting point for the year in a simple numerical term and then I look at recent form as well. A really simple method and FAR superior to doing what the public does, ie. what is the pitchers ERA and what is his ERA over the last 3 starts. In this method you are looking at the situation with better perspective, getting a sense of what pitcher is most likely to put up good performance based on percentages. If you are really lazy, grab a copy of Gaming Today. It lists the quality starts stats for each starter and get a percentage of quality starts for each pitcher. Then compare the percentages and focus on the dogs that have better percentages. Not as effective, but better than what most people do.
Follow this method and remember pitching is only half the equation and you will be a small winner over the course of the season. The more work you put into it, the more profit you get.
>>If you are really lazy, grab a copy of Gaming Today. It lists the quality starts stats for each starter and get a percentage of quality starts for each pitcher. Then compare the percentages and focus on the dogs that have better percentages. Not as effective, but better than what most people do.<<
That would be great if Gaming Today had accurate stats. They absolutely do not though.
You are right Frank,even though that's not the whole point of WildBill's great post,They(Gaming Today) are sloppy at times.
Forget about G.T.,one of their handicappers was on the radio and said he used the local newspaper's info for his stats.He said that when the local sports page makes an error,it takes him some time to get it fixed,for he does not use two sources for his stats! What makes it worse is that this writer is also a tout.
A good rule of thumb, if you are going to take sports betting seriously,is to have more then one source for stats.
As WildBill says,quality starts are an important part of the game,and keeping good records of stats should help you find these situations.
Strong or weak bullpens are also, always something that is nice to know.Take Baltimore for instance,no lead is safe with this team,even when they win the bullpen makes it close.Monday,they gave up 4 runs in the 9th,to escape with a 1 run victory.Tuesday, Buddy Groom Gives up a two run shot to the Crime Dog in the 8th to blow the game for Mussina.I have got some good prices going against this team.It will not last forever,but right now their bullpen is real bad.
Good Luck
Howard
Baltimore's games should have said Tue. and Wed.,not Mon. and Tue.
Also,My remark about the tout could have been clearer.If someone wants to charge money for their picks,that's fine.When they admit to sloppy handicapping procedures,is where I find fault.
Good Luck
Howard
Good point about the pens, I do use the pen stats, admittedly from two different sources that could possibly be incorrect. I think though that some people overrate the value of a bullpen, especially when it comes to the theory of a "tired" pen. I don't buy into that judgement, most pitchers in a pen are capable of two innings each, yet they often pitch to a batter or two before getting yanked. Bullpens are a relative thing and right now Baltimore is rather poor. It reminds me of Seattle in years past where they couldn't get one guy that could pitch, let alone get a stopper. After awhile the lines catch up, but also the pen starts pitching more effectively. Basically the best thing to do is to match the pitching up and then add a small consideration for the ERA of the pen and do a calculation to figure out the average innings per start of the starter to get an estimate of how much the pen should be expected to be in there. Most pens are within close range of each other, but its true there are a few notable exceptions.
As usual,I think your statements above are excellent.
I use a formula for handicapping baseball. Half of it is offense and the other half is pitching. What I do for pitching is handicap how I think how good the starter is (admittedly, this is guesswork and not perfect) and incorporate it into the ERA of the bullpen.
Most starter go about six innings or so and the pen pitches the rest. So what I do is take 2/3 of the starter's projected ERA (my guesstimate) and add it to 1/3 of the bullpen's ERA to get an overall team ERA for that game. I'll change the ratio to 7/9 and 2/9 for the small HANDFUL of elite pitchers.
I find that 5% of the starters are outstanding, 5% are truly horrible, and that there's not much difference among the other 90%.
No lead is safe with most bullpens in today's modern ballparks. And how can anyone justify LAYING odds on teams with truly horrible bullpens like Baltimore or the Chicago Cubs?
How can you justify it? Well there are times they are good bets and remember when you look at any game these teams play, you will generally see lots of value. Take today's game, I bet the Cubs as I thought the pitching matchup wasn't as one sided as the price stated and sure enough Tapani came through for me. I realized most of the value had to be because of the bullpen so I went ahead and bet it on the notion that the bullpen isn't as important as it may sometimes seem.
Another point I wanted to stress is the understanding of value. To be able to exploit value you have to have a sufficient bankroll. I took Tapani today, but if you asked me before the game who I thought would win the game, I probably would have said Braves. The reason why so few dogs get bet and why they have such value is its against most people's common sense to bet teams they figure to lose. Its easy in other sports as you can see a team staying within a spread, but to make a bet you expect to lose more times than win, thats a concept that goes over most people's heads. To be a winner long run in baseball you have to bet teams you don't think will necessarily win, but you think will win more times than the odds indicate. I know of NO successful pro or even semi-pro baseball bettors that don't understand and live by this concept. You will go broke or be marginal at best if you focus only on teams you think will any game you bet on, yet most people have limited bankrolls and can't do this. Further most people can even imagine the idea. Sure some bet on dogs occasionally, but its usually when they think they have the better side for the game in question. I regularly bet inferior teams that I figure will have a decent shot at winning and over time these edges will lead to profit. I know very few people that have cashed as many bets as I have betting buck fifty and higher dogs, yet almost every day I have one going. For example, take a game I have for Friday. On the overnight line at the Orleans Cincy is -185 over the Twins. I like the Twins here as Joe Mays showed a lot of talent last year and is slowly rounding into form after a horrendous start. Cincy comes with Rob Bell, a pitcher I use as my evidence as why Cincy has no chance when the playoffs come around. He has shown little so far with only almost 5 runs a game in support of him keeping his record respectable. So I have to like the pitching matchup. Add to that I think this is a series Cincy sleeps through. There is no motivation for this one and there won't be the intensity that there will be in New York, Oakland or Anaheim for interleague play. Having said all that, still you have to like the Reds to win the game. I mean there is little comparison taking a division contender against a losing team like the Twins, especially on the road. However all in all, I like the value here. Betting on teams that you think will more likely lose is an art that separates baseball betting for any other form of sports wagering.
Wild Bill: I also won with Tapani and also for the EXACT IDENTICAL reasons you stated. But, but, but we were taking odds and NOT laying them on that game. I wouldn't ever lay odds with the Cubs. I do bet the dogs most of the time looking for overlays. I went 5-0 on Thursday and they were all dogs.
I am flexible enough to know that some favorites are also overlays. For Friday, I have Texas, Atlanta, and Montreal because my formula has them as much larger favorites than the oddsmakers do. I laid off your game because I don't bet on/against rookie pitchers, so good luck.
5% good, 5% bad and not much difference in the other 90%? I guess if you change the credentials of what is considered good, bad, or in between, then maybe, but the pitching sucks. Maybe 5% good, 20% in between, and 75% bad. They spend all their time in the minors taking guys with live arms and trying to make them pitchers. Very few pitchers know how to pitch anymore. Obviously, the top guys do, and the 20% or so in between know how to pitch but don't have consistent stuff to reach the top level, and everyone else is pretty bad, and it starts with being "scared" to pitch inside. That starts in the minors, trust me, I've seen it first hand.
The ERA is the worst number to look at. I played in the minors for 4 years and have been handicapping for 6 years and I can tell you that there is one thing that is simple to tell in the stats but is totally overlooked, and that is how much of a wimp the pitcher is. What I mean is, not only what happens when he gets in trouble, but more so what happens when he gets in trouble that isn't his fault(which can't be measured by ERA). Look what happens when a defense fails behind the pitcher, what happens next. The "bulldogs" will get themselves out of it, the wimps will take the attitude that they aren't "his" runs. Does a two out error lead to 2 or more hits(or walks) that score more "unearned runs". Obviously there are some times where there is nothing they can do, a throwing error that allows a run or two to score, and then may give up a hit afterwards and sometimes more, but if it happens on a "regular" basis to a pitcher, you have your wimp. You have a guy you may want to back off on, or go against. Going 6 innings and giving up 2 earned runs may be nice, and he will be the "hard" luck pitcher to the fans and announcers because he is down 7-2, but find out why it got that way. Was it because of a major, multi-run scoring error that allowed other guys to get in scoring position, or was it because of a 2 out routine boot that allowed a guy to get on and then the flood gates open?
.
But that's the way it is supposed to be. I am ahead right now, and I know 1 other person that is ahead right now. I'm sure there are probably others, just 1 other that I know personally, not counting all those touts with the big names who want to make you think they win almost every game out there.
Not to brag since we're not even at the All-Star break, but I'm having a great season so far. I have a formula which points to the underdogs about 80% of the time.
It just isn't worth it to continually lay 2 to 1 on "automatic" games. Over the last 5 years, I have hit 56.8% of my bets at an average value of +115. Usually, when the opening line comes out on baseball games, they will normally put the ten cents on the favorite, not 5 and 5 like most people think, for example if they have the Braves -140 vs the Phillies, instead of making it -145 and +135, more often than not the line comes out -150 and + 140. Favorites are always a little higher because the "average" joe loves the favorites, they love the big name teams, big name pitchers. The hardest thing I had to overcome betting more dogs than favorites was the % win is lower, and when starting out, it can wreck havoc on your confidence, until you realize that it doesn't matter what your winning % is, just that you win money. You can win a higher % betting almost all favorites, and lose money. My friend hit close to 60% last year and lost money(average bet was -158. Losing streaks that eat you away taking too many or too big favorites.
Betting 80% dogs, keep it up, and even if you lose a season, it probably won't kill you, and those losing streaks that everyone hit during a season won't cost much either.
My thoughts on this race are mixed last year Behrens caught Running Stag(RS) at the wire. Behrens made a great stretch drive during this race and really impressed me. Needless to say he hasn't impressed me since that much.
RS I pick to win this race and I will bet him accordingly with JV riding him. Behrens stepped on a stone or some such thing so they don't know whether he is going to run. I will bet mostly Tri's mixing and matching since RS will probably be the favorite or second.
Good Luck Paul
GRADE II MASSACHUSETTS HANDICAP 61st Running-June 3, 2000 $600,000 Purse ($400,000 Winner's Share) 1 1/8 Miles
Betting # Horse Jockey AM Line
1 (post 1) Behrens Jorge Chavez 8/5
1a (post 8) Pleasant Breeze Jorge Chavez 8/5
2 (post 2) Gander Shaun Bridgmohan 15-1
3 (post 3) Vision and Verse Jerry Bailey 6-1
4 (post 4) The Groom Is Red Marlon St. Julien 15-1
5 (post 5) Makeyourselfathome Open Mount 30-1
6 (post 6) Out Of Mind Eddie Delahoussaye 9/2
7 (post 7) David Aaron Gryder 5-1
8 (post 9) Running Stag John Velazquez 5-2
a.-William L. Clifton Jr., & Rudlein Stable - William L. Clifton Jr., entry
No one really stands out to me in this race. I think Pleasant Breeze is ready for a big race. David has a chance to be in the exacta at a pretty decent price. I'll key those two. Throw out Vision and Verse.
Early Belmont pick: Wheelaway.
I have a question about baseball:
What adjustments should be made for interleague play that would not otherwise be factored into your handicapping?
Not many really. I think the main differences I have noted is that the fans tend to show up more and have more intensity so the home advantage increases a bit. In general, the first time around pitchers tend to have a little bit of an edge, but since so many players move now days and these teams have all played in recent years, I don't think there is much factoring needed for that. Pitchers have the edge since batters can easily be scouted out and a strategy is planned to get them out, whereas the batters may know what a pitcher throws, but still have to get used to their pitching styles, their velocities, and their delivery. Real small edges though.
I know quite a few handicappers that won't touch the games saying they can't beat them, but I think that in such a long season, it probably was more a negative fluctuation. Not only that, I have seen so much analysis done on the games from previous years, but frankly I think its crazy. With only 3 games against each team each year, how can you draw conclusions off that?
Totals are quite a different story. Obviously the DH makes a big difference, but the lines reflect that. You can find some NL teams that have a natural DH candidate on their bench and say they might succeed in the games a bit more, but once again if he isn't a starter already, he can't be that big of an impact player. Sure the Cards might use say Mac as their DH, but that means they still have to have a substandard bat in Dunston playing first. The real totals questions though come up in where to value runs. With the leagues playing completely different games, its sometimes is hard to place a solid total on a game. My strategy has been basically to ignore totals for the most part. Its really a crapshoot in a way to gauge an AL team output with their pitchers hitting and if an NL team goes more for the big inning when in an AL park. I do however look at the big rivalry series and play those totals. When two big rivals such as the Yankees and Mets play, tend to look under as teams play in playoff atmosphere and can come up a bit conservative. Its just an edge and I don't play all the games under, but I tend to look for under games and avoid the overs when these games are going.
Other than that, just treat them as regular games. Streaks, momentum, key hidden injuries, poor or strong form for pitchers...they all play the same no matter which league they are playing.
Thanks for the response. I have Mon, Tex, and Atl for Fri and may lay off Sat and Sun. It's a minefield out there. How does home field get factored into Ana/La? It's easier to lay off.
Also, the games which scare me the very most is those where I cannot make the case for the other team. Just a thought.
always bet against the phillies. the worst team. the worst pitching and pitching coach. the worst manager. the worst stadium. great livin in philly
I only bet on Phillies games whenever Schilling is pitching, and then it's to bet against them. Why lay serious odds by going against the Phillies when I can take odds by going against Schilling? I believe that fading Schilling is the best value in sports today.
And you're right about the Vet. I've been to eight MLB stadiums and the rat-infested Vet is the worst. What's up with that faded astroturf which has the same shade of green as the border on the left side of this screen?
The Phillies are over 1,500 games under .500 the past hundred years. As George Will put it, "Any team can have a bad century."
Hey, I heard George Will say that at my daughter's college graduation a few weeks ago. He spoke at Lafayette inEaston PA.
I worked part time at the Vet. It is horrible. In the sun, the surface always reaches 130. Everyone slips. And the management does not seem to care.
Your look at the Cardinals, for example, is the main mistake most people make betting on interleague play. Putting Mac in the DH slot doesn't mean they have to put a weak hitter in the lineup. Don't compare the inserted hitter to another hitter, compare him to their pitcher. They will be better than their pitcher so their lineup will be better, not worse than their normal lineup that has gotten them to the level(or lack of depending on the team) they are at. Also, you can put an everyday player with a suspect glove there and put a better glove in the field, and your stud pitchers can go farther, not worrying about being PH for. The complete opposite for the AL teams, they have to take one of their better bats out, or stick him in the field and lower their defense, and their bullpen(middle and set up) comes into play more. You are correct, don't bother playing many totals, you don't know how the teams or especailly mamagers will adjust to their "new" rules, but you can look for unders to play in major rivalries, and not always with the aces.
Wednesday night I was playing poker very late and some guy comes up and starts talking up the AZ-STL game that was played Thursday night. He was drooling over the pitching matchup talking about how many runs they were going to score. I had already done my basic analysis of the series and had no real opinion on the total as neither team had been tearing it up on offense early in the series. This guy kept talking about how bad Benes was, how Reynoso was the king of the gopher ball, how many Mac would hit in the game. Then he asked all these people at the table and they all were saying how much they agreed with him. Funniest thing, when everyone agrees, almost always run and bet the other side. They were talking about the line being 9 or 8.5 so when I saw the number at 10.5 over, I almost fell over. Add to that Mac didn't play after all, something I didn't realize at the time. I walked up and made a big bet on the under. Almost without thought even. Sure enough Reynoso pitches 7 innings of shutout ball and its a 4-0 final. These things are incredible, just remember when all the suckers agree on a game, its a sure thing the other way.
This just brings up the point that almost all successful handicappers state. Always try to make a case for the other side. Don't get caught up on one or two factors and forget about handicapping the rest. If you can't come up with a reason why the other side won't win or is not a good bet, then you surely aren't looking at enough factors. Baseball is too easy, of course you can come up with reasons why each team could win. Its a principle that should always be remembered though: there are always going to be very astute people betting the other side, figure out why they are doing it.
Amateur sports handicappers do that, they try to convince everyone around them, but they are really trying to convince themselves. If everyone agrees, even if they are agreeing just to keep the conversation short, that is enough for them. I have made my living on baseball the last 6 years(just a poker amateur), and the most obvious never happens.
I am just beyond belief. I read a few press stories and the line is that the Devils played terribly and the Stars could be in trouble. Huh? The Devils outshot and outchanced the Stars, but their two regular heroes Belfour and Hull came through again. The game I saw must have been different from what these people saw as I witnessed the Devils controlling the play much of the time and not making all that many mistakes with only a great setup by Modano and a nice deflection by Hull getting the win, paying dividends for another huge game in nets by the Eagle. Sure a lesser team might be in trouble, but this team, especially Belfour, just finds ways to win the games they need to win. Just ask Colorado about how you can outchance this team and still lose.
Now think of the mindset now. The Devils were far the better side in two games with many more shots and chances and what do they have to show for it? Lost home ice, thats all. When the pressure is on, no one responds like Dallas and now I think they might pour it on in Game 3. On home ice, the Stars other contributors seem to come up with bigger efforts. Modano always seems to find the net, Keane and Carbonneau come up strong efforts, and most of all the vaunted Stars forecheck starts to work again. Since we got the under, now look to the over to reassert itself. I think the Stars come out on fire and get a lead early and then pressure the Devils throughout. The big games in this series will be 4 and 5, but this one clearly favors the Stars. I thought Stars 2-1 or 3-1 for game two and was right on, I look for a Stars 4-1 or 4-2 win in game three. Play Dallas and the over. Neither team will feel urgency here yet so expect the champs to play strong on home ice and expect a more open ice game.
WildBill: I am just beyond belief. I read a few press stories and the line is that the Devils played terribly and the Stars could be in trouble.
This is typical Eastern-Conference bias in the hockey press. They'll be making excuses for the Devils even while Modano is hoisting the Cup. It happens every year, unless the Red Wings are in the finals, and that's only because the WingDings were one of the Original Six.
So anyway, what's the current line?
Without knowing, I'm inclined to take Dallas and under. I think game 3 will look a lot like game 2, except more so :). The bad ice in Dallas is going to make it hard for either team's offense to get past the D. Center ice will be clogged up for most of the game. If Dallas gets 4 goals, it will be because Marty Brodeur let in a couple easy ones or because of an empty-netter, not because Dallas is going to come out gunning. That's just not their style. Eddie the Eagle could easily get a shutout here.
because they were by far the best team both Cup winning years(and the year before but went with the wrong goalie in the playoffs, the year before that got hooked and held to death by the Devil's trap or it could have been 4), and they have had the deepest team the last 5 or 6 years. Dallas isn't by far the best team in this finals, may not even be the best(they probably are though, but, any of the top 4 in the West could win the Cup).
The line is Dal -160, 4.5 flat
The bad ice is a bit overrated if you ask me and remember there have been a bunch of 4-1 and 3-2 games in previous Stars home games, all overs. It certainly didn't hold down the scoring so far. The Stars style may not necessarily indicate a big open game, but they have been extremely effective at scoring goals this playoff year as their big guns have put up more than their share of points. Add to that the Stars power play has been deadly and it won't take much for this one to go over the total.
Dallas is a better team. Jersey is very good, but should have lost to Phila. Jersey will win just because the officials allow Jersey to interfere with every play behind the net and allow Stevens and Lemeiux and Brodeur to high stick everyone and hit from behind. If Bernie Geoffrion or Bob Clark were in the league, Stevens, Kasparitis and Lemieux would be eating the blades of sticks. I garantee those guys would have been speared out of the 1st game, and deservedly so.
The decision to announce Lindros will be back for game 6 and his play in games 6 and 7 were lethal. Whoever encouraged and/or allowed Lindros to play in 6 and 7 was irresponsible even before the hit by Stevens.
The NHL better wise up and not permit ANY head hunting against anyone. Players like LaFontaine, Modano, Lindros, Karyria, Jagr keep getting head hunted by thugs like Stevens and Kasparitis will make the game nothing more than Roller Derby or WWF in skates. Only Boxing allows "clean" head shots.
Anyone who thinks a sholder to the head is legal should feel one. Maybe Bettman should get his clock cleaned by one of those head hunters. Until hockey allows players to respect each other, it will always be a 3rd rate sport.
Must be a Dallas fan. It won't do any good whining about New Jersey hooking and holding(Dallas does it as well), they did it to the Red Wings when it was never called all year long 5 years ago. Believe me, no one wants to hear about it, even if it does happen. Dallas doesn't have any fire power, Modano, Nieuwendyk, and Hull(when the drifter gets the puck) are it. I can't see how they are the better team, they didn't play that well all year long, got 2 easy playoffs series, then played Colorado coming off their usual Red Wing series(Dallas wouldn't even be there if San Jose didn't get some great deflections in the St Louis series. Dallas would have had to have played Colorado in the 2nd round, and if they won that, would have had to deal with the ST Louis/Detroit winner, that's a lot tougher road than they had). Head hunters? You left out a major head hunter, Derian Hatcher. Shoulder to the head? The only way you can hit someone in the head with your shoulder is if you are taller than they are(nothing you can do about that), or if they are bending over. As long as you don't follow through with your arm, or throw the elbow up, it is legal. Stevens hit on Lindros was clean. That's what happens when you come through the middle with your head down.
Dallas is much better than they have showed, but after game 3 I just backed off of them. They don't seem to have the fire right now and just folded up so fast tonight. Surely they can come alive and possibly win 3 straight (two on the road) just like the Devils did last series, but I wouldn't count on it. They are getting outshot because they aren't playing their game. Their forecheck is not the weapon that it normally is. On paper their weapons don't seem to be so hot, but really when you cause turnovers and keep the game down to just a real grind out affair, you don't need weapons. Keane and Carbonneau are not playing well at all and they are key contributors. Nieuwendyk finally found the net, still has to be seen if he can get it going. Belfour played a great two periods and then fell apart.
I really don't know what to say. I think in this spot though, Dallas really has the edge for game 5. I don't think the Devils are a strong closeout team and the Stars being the champs are very unlikely to just lay down. If they can get their forecheck going and Belfour can put together a solid 60 minutes then they can smother the Devils and send it to game 6. I am going to tread lightly and play Dallas in game 5 because I think they will be getting a very nice price unlike the somewhat high prices they faced at home. Also felt like game 4 might be an under as it figured to be the most important of the series. Game 5 is the opposite, much more likely to produce some goals as I don't think it will be the tight affair that we saw in Dallas with a team being up 3-1. Right now if I had to make the call, I would say the Devils will win it in 6.
Dallas just doesn't impress me, never have, not on paper, not in watching them. Yeah, they are a good defensive team. They remind me of Buffalo, if Hasek doesn't stand on his head, they lose. I live in the city that had(until about a month ago), Dallas minor league team, I have seen most of their young guys here, and they were solid players, but nothing that stands out. Modano(I like him and I hate him, he is a great player but he whines if someone looks at him wrong, go ahead and retire you puss) and Nieuwendyk are legitimate offensive threats, as his Hull if he has someone to get him him the puck(I give him credit for seemingly always being able to find an open spot in the slot, but since he spends his time drifting, he should be able to. I know what the "experts" say, he is a two way hockey player now, Bullshit!). Lehetenan is a great two way player. Defensively they are slow and it is showing. The problem in the west is match-ups, Dallas seems to have it over Colorado(still trying to figure that one out), Colorado has it over my Red Wings(it may seem that it would be hard for a Wings fan to give Colorado any credit, but most real Wings fans don't hate Colorado now because Claude is gone, but we are hoping he wins a cup now because we don't to see Dallas like we did because this team couldn't hold those back to back champs jocks. Also, it was the Wings fault Roy is in Colorado to begin with, if we wouldn't have put a 9 spot on him in Montreal, he wouldn't have demanded a trade), and the Red Wings have it over Dallas(who hasn't had to play them in the playoffs the last two years). But saying that, 4 of the 5 best teams in the NHL are in the Western Conference(I have a lot of respect for St Louis over the past few years, felt really bad at all those bad bounces they got in the playoffs, they didn't deserve that).
You think Devils in 6 now? You think Dallas will get enough to win in New Jersey, and lose it when they go back to Dallas? If Dallas wins game 5(don't think they will though, but it's the playoffs., anything is possible), it is going 7. You seem to be taking your "fans" thought of your Stars and putting it in your picks, betting with your heart. You haven't once taken a game against them that I have seen. That is usually bad news. I will rarely bet on the Wings, it's tough to look at "your" team subjectively, especially playing someone you don't want to see them lose to, but if I do bet a Wings game, more than half the time, it will be against them. There are always the times where, from watching them all the time, you can pick out games that they will win pretty much all the time(that have good odds), like coming off a bad game(pretty much automatic for them), but for the most part, betting on "your" team when you feel they can't lose, or betting on "your most hated team" when you feel they can't win is a losing proposition
My team? As a fan I absolutely hate the Stars!!! I was a season ticket holder for the Sharks up to this year when I moved back to Vegas and was just as loud as anyone in saying "Belfour sucks". I haven't bet the Devils because they haven't been in a situation where I have liked them. Series betting is really a science. There have been times in the past where I liked one team to win a series and then haven't had a spot where I either liked the team or the price and subsequently passed on betting them. Every team has its situations and I just haven't seen the Devils in a good spot. I thought the first game was a big fluke and a blowout win is usually a price killer.
As for why Devils in 6, well the stats speak for themselves. The Devils are in an absolute zone when on the road and a so so home team. The situation plays that the Devils are in a big flat spot here and Dallas has a lot of pride. Dallas gets the win because I think they will catch Jersey in the best spot. Then it switches in Game 6 because then the Devils are focused as they always are in road games.
To become successful in winning playoff bets, you have to get in touch with concepts that are not so easy to understand. Basically think of it like the stock market, when a stock is so badly beaten down that no one wants to buy it, thats usually the best time to load up on it. I rode Portland to a couple of nice wins because after 4 games few gave them much chance to come back on the Lakers. I think the Devils will avoid having to face a game 7 because the situation for them is best to win it in 6 and thats how I call it, plain and simple, nothing to do with being a fan or anything like it.
As for game 5, I think with the pressure finally being off the Stars to win a game, they will come up with their best effort in the series. Up until this game the pressure was on the Stars every game first because they were the champs, then because they got blown out in game one, then because they had to win to take control of the series in game 3, then because they needed to tie the series up in game 4. Now its just play your best and take it one game at a time, thats when good teams generally respond best.
I have been betting baseball and hockey professionally for 6 years now. I had NJ in game 1(the only fluke was the final score, not the winner), Dallas in game 2, the under in game 3 and Dallas in game 4. 3-1 right now(with a series bet on the Devils as well, thanks to all the people who think Dalas is so great, pros love those people). I don't like anyone in Game 5, but if Dallas wins, I will probably go with Dallas in game 6, and Jersey in Game 7(depending, of course, on how the games play out, and the lines, these are just estimates). Not being a Stars fan, you sure are over estimating them, they are not that great, they are good, but nothing better than any of the other top teams in the league. This series isn't a shock or a fluke. The pressure is always on the defending champs, lose and go home, how much more pressure is that. Don't use the line that they have nothing to lose now, no one expects them to win now, because that's media talking, not how the players feel. I played professional baseball for 4 years, and, in a series where you are down, you always feel pressure to win. It's how the pressure affects you that makes a difference. I always treated every game the same, whether it was the first game of the year or game 7 of a series, that way you can't choke thinking about playing the game differently, you go play the game the same way as always and no one can accuse you of choking. Jersey knows that even if they lose game 5, they still get to play another game at home if they need it. No pressure there, they need to lose 3 games in a row. Granted they would love to get it over with now, but it isn't the same as pressure(it is true that the hardest game to win is the last one, your opponent is not holding anything back and have to take risks).
Well maybe I made a mistake overestimating the Stars, wouldn't be a first. Come on you are going to tell me you never made a mistake in overestimating a team and its chances in your career as a pro? That I don't believe...
I have made mistakes overestimating teams, it happens to everyone, but we love to take advantage of the public overestimating teams. Sorry, didn't mean to make it seem like I was picking on you, probably worded it wrong.
Nice call on the Devils in 6. I wasn't sure, thought it might go back, so I took the under.
Well with the wins on the last two games with dogs I just managed to pull a little behind for the series. In retrospect maybe I should have given more credit to the goalies, both being past champions. Two lost totals bets held me back because I went 3-1 on the sides all three winners on dogs. I am still kind of stunned that Dallas played so poorly in the two facets of the game that they had excelled in: power plays and forechecking. I figured the Devils would get more shots, but certainly didn't think they would control the play as the did. No matter what factors are brought up, no doubt the series was won on the Devils penalty kill.
As for next year, since futures odds are always best early on when they first go up, I am already looking at what I will be betting. I figure the Devils, Leafs, Wings, and Blues will be the favorites. I think the Wings, Stars, and Avs will fade due to age and probable personnel losses.
In the East I think the bet is the Caps as I think if they can just add a top scorer they would be easily be the best team. I hope to get 12-1 on them, but might have to settle for 10-1. I know with the new ownership they will get a decent infusion of money so maybe they find a way to get the player they so desperately need. Maybe they can find a way to bring in Yashin. I think the Devils will be their main competition, but will almost certainly be the favorite at 3-1 or 7-2. The Devils certainly have the young talent to repeat, but they have a history of such terrible playoff performances except for this year and in 95 that I think thats a terrible bet, not to mention taking low odds is suicide as the NHL playoffs are far too unpredictable. Until Cujo proves he can win a big playoff series I will not put any money on the Leafs.
In the West I look for the Sharks to make a big move up. Just too much young talent for them to keep finishing 7th or 8th. However I don't know if they could beat the Blues in the playoffs again, but if you can get 20-1 or better on them that would be an excellent value as I think they will be number 2 or 3 in the West come playoff time. The Blues will benefit from a weakened field in the West and the bitter taste of the playoffs this year, but I expect them to be 5-1 at best and thats not quite enough value. If the linemaker makes a mistake and offers 7-1 or better I would take a shot on what probably will be once again the best team in the regular season next year.
Hate to rant, and I am definitely a Dallas fan. I like and have always liked Colorado. The issue with Scott Steven's hit on Lindros (and Lankow for that matter) was a center ice hit. Both Lindros and lankow had their heads down. Lindros has always skated with his head down, but Stevens intent appeared to be to be a calculated attempt to put the Phila team's star player out of the game. There can be no other interpretion. Stevens was going full speed (certainly more that a 3 step run), and had no intent on going for the puck. he knew if he hit a vulnerable Lindros, it was curtins for Eric. The hit was dissected by the brilliant minds on ESPN and they concluded "it was a clean hit" at least by NHL standards. If hockey wants to have WWF like fans, they should continue the practice of allowing head hits. Derrian Hatcher is certainly a head hunter and should be treated accordingly. I firmly believe that if a player injures another player, the one who caused the injury should be made to sit out as many games as the player who was injured. There is absolutely no respect for players in the league. You can hit hard and check hard, but you do not have to be a head hunter. What's with the cross checking to the back of a player's neck and lumbar spine. I just don't get it. I have been watching hockey for a long time. It is deteoriating,and minor league hockey is a glaidator sport.
Do you think any other sport is getting better? Baseball has no pitching, NBA is all about defense now except when the Kings are playing, and the NFL is about 8-8 teams getting to the playoffs. Hockey is simply evolving. Watch the "good ole days" of Wayne Gretzky in the 80's and you will see lousy goaltenders and endless 2 on 1's. These days teams stress defense and hard hitting and as long as its defined within the rules, well players are going to do it. I don't think that Stevens hit was all that bad. Those hits are very common to star offensive players regardless of health. Hockey has always been about catching guys with their head down and making them think about getting hit. Just because he wasn't along the boards, Lindros wasn't really looking out for a hit. If you want a non-contact version of hockey, watch the women play or watch the European leagues. The NHL plays on smaller rinks where checking is always going to be a big part of the game. I don't think you can legislate the hitting out. A guy that is on the puck or involved with it is now fair game and always will be. To say a guy can't lead with his shoulder is patently ridiculous because thats the only way to be sure to knock someone off the puck. If all you can do is flatfoot check someone you will get maneuvered around far too much to be effective.
Wildbill, you come off like your are some know it all expert and your the guy who loved the Stars in Game 3!!!!!
WildBill picked the Stars in game 3.
SO WHAT !
It's about making money,not just picking winners. You can't win them all.At least he always gives the reason(s) he likes a team.
He continually gives the the most detailed and edifying sports handicapping essays on this message board.
BTW/Poker amateur is a great addition to this forum.
Hey I admit I miss some picks too and that one was particularly painful to me in terms of loss. I mean Belfour had played so big in the whole playoffs except for a game or two and then to just basically "miss" a relatively easy save on the game winning goal hurt. Thats the breaks with hockey, it really is a game where you need to get lucky in the short run. Of course in the long run betting with the value will get you the money.
I personally have to say that I generally don't post many picks up here because I don't think of this as a picking forum. However since these are the playoffs and everyone is watching and has thought out opinions, its a good time to do it. It increases postings activity and gets me a chance to hear some opinions of others and that does help me in picking the games at times. Further I wish I were not the only one doing the posting. I wish I could just reply a lot more, but people rarely take the initiative except for Paul when he posts on horse racing. Unfortunately that is the sport I know least about so I tend to just read those postings.
I have to say that despite all the opinions there are in the world, very few people have the skills to win at sports betting. I try to stress that winning isn't really about just picking who is going to win a given game. Way too many people just look at a game and think they can pick the winner more often than not. Compare that to playing poker. The average person playing either sports or poker plays the same way. In poker he looks at his cards and makes his decisions thinking mostly about just what he holds. He does not think of playing position properly. He does not think of what other players have. He does not read other players actions. He does not think of the texture of the game. Notice you could draw many parallels to sports betting. Thats my goal, to assist people in seeing that there is a lot more to winning in sports betting. Seems that most people that come to a poker board such as this understand that there are many nuances to winning at poker, but they don't seem to follow the nuanaces at sports betting. The advice I give is coming from someone who used to bet a lot higher and did this for a living. When I was doing it for a living I probably wouldn't have shared much advice, but now I see things clearer. When you have talents, sharing them doesn't mean that your giving up edge, especially in this field. Its much easier to share knowledge in sports betting because there are so many more variables if I have an equally intelligent person sharing his/her thoughts, then I can improve. NO ONE can fully handicap a game. There are far too many things one may not know or may not have access to. Its a game of incomplete information just as poker is. For example, I couldn't tell you if Derian Hatcher is 100% right now. My guess is he is not because its a long season, but I have to treat it like he is fully healthy and will contribute his normal performance. By sharing my inputs, maybe I hear from a guy in Dallas who has heard of some injuries that I may not have heard of. Of course there are hundreds of ways that I could be helped, but the bottom line is that unlike most serious and successful sports bettors, I am not holding much back. Sharing knowledge helps me improve my performance and the fact that many recognize my contributions also makes me content.
For anyone that is disappointed in anything I have done or posted, well I don't have much to say other than start posting yourself and write things that impress me and the others here. We certainly could use more material on this board.
but few are willing to post them in public(for free). You shouldn't even worry if someone rips on any of your picks. Real pros can see the opposite sides of most every game out there. Who cares if you pick a game where your teams loses 20-1. It is only one loss, rather have one of those games than lose a heartbreaker. I always tell people if you are winning over the long run doing the things you are doing, keep doing them, take constructive criticism and use it to fine tune your handicapping(if you think they have a valid point), if not, feel free to agree to disagree on the point. It doesn't make the person any better than you if they are right on the point, how many more points are there to that will be disagreed upon that you will be right. Easy for people to criticize when they aren't doing anything.
I like hitting, at least till many of the good players got injured. It would be tough to convince me that some players are not out to injure some of the superstars. Hitting is great but head hunting should be banned. Hits in the corners are fine, but "from-behind" hits are dangerous.
about the cross checking in the back, also they need to do something about the checks from behind close to the boards. The Stevens check was perfect though. He isn't supposed to go for the puck in that situation. His partner picks the puck up, he plays the man. If he goes for the puck and misses, you have an odd man rush with Lindros coming with speed. If you just give them the old "all-star tap" coming up the middle, no one would be scared coming up the middle. You are also right, there is no respect among players, you don't have to like them, but if they are going to take a cheap shot at someone, don't whine when it is returned. How do these players get together for Players union meetings? But in saying that, there are SOME times where they aren't intentional. It is a fast game, and a split second in timing can mean a difference between a good hit and a dirty hit. The two problems I have is the diving, what a JOKE, and when there is a gathering of players and when it looks peaceful, one player pops another, the other guy returns the pop and they take both. Take the guy who started it and that will cut that down.
One think I never understood is just how much hitting and roughing goes on after the whistle when the play ends in front of a net. These players protect the goalie like he is a little girl. Yes he is important and yes he is somewhat vulnerable, but he also has 45 pounds of equipment on and the rules protect him already. Further its shocking what you can get away with in these after the whistle scuffles. As long as you don't drop the gloves, you can pretty much pound on an opponent. This chippy stuff is what really gets me. Kind of like the whole idea of throwing at the other team if your batter got hit the previous inning. Or in the NFL where anything perceived as even the slightest cheap shot gets five guys roughing up the opponent. I have to say the whole "protect your manhood" concept has to be the silliest thing in sports and hockey takes it the furthest. I don't have a problem with the hits while the action goes on, but for goodness sakes do we really need to have all this action after the whistle? And whoever created this concept in the NHL that if you have a star offensive player you better keep a goon around just to protect him?
created the "tough guy" for your star. When Jean Beliveau was getting older, they wanted to protect him from getting run at so they put John Ferguson on his line. Problem solved. It gives the player more room. The thing that bothers me is when defensmen push an opponent on their goalie and then hit the guy for falling on their goalie. You want to push him, fine, but don't hit him for something you made him do. When the whistle blows, they need to take whoever starts anything after the whistle, and not the retaliator, because as long as players know that they can take someone with them, they will keep doing it. That way, anyone who throws a little pop after the whistle will get two penalties, one that will cause his team to be pissed at him for taking a dumb penalty, and pop he will receive from the retaliator.
Throwing at hitters are a little different. I had been thrown at a couple of times, but as long as it is done correctly(below the shoulder and above the knee), I never even looked at them. Hitters are pussies today, pitchers have the same right to the inside corner as they do but if the pitcher misses inside or hits them, they stare at them or charge the mound, for no reason. All hitters dive over the plate(some much worse than others), and pitchers(except for the good ones) don't throw inside either because they are scared or they don't know how. Paul Byrd is an example of that. He was having a great year last year, was mxing things up, inside/outside, then he hit Eddie Perez twice in a span of about a week, Perez looked at him and said something after the second one. Well, since then, Byrd has stopped pitching inside and has gotten shelled. Pitchers used to be taught, if you miss the inside corner, miss in not out, but, except for the good pitchers, they miss out because they are scared to pitch inside, and that just makes diving over the plate that much easier to do. They also used to be taught that if you wanted to back someone off the plate, throw at their hands not at their head, but they don't do that either(except the good ones) The balls aren't juiced(smaller but not jiuced), the pitchers just suck, but you would be amazed at what would happen if these pitchers would throw inside(correctly) more. Pretty easy to hit when you know where the pitch will be.
Derian Hatcher can say what he wants, the referee can say what he wants, when they watch the tape, they will see the bullshit elbow. The problem with dirty players is they won't drop the gloves with someone who can take them on, so the only way you can get them back is by giving a cheap shot back to them, and that's when the game starts to get out of control, but what else can you do, you know the league won't do enough about it, especially with a "supposed" good or great player. If Bryan Marchment threw that elbow, he would get suspended, playoffs or regular season, so you have to take matters into your own hand, like McCarty did to Lemieux(I wish McCarty didn't give him the opportunity to see it coming though, could have gotten another pint of blood out of him :) ). A couple years ago, I was at a Red Wings game and Hatcher threw an elbow at Yzerman. A couple shifts later, Joey Kocur introduced himself to Hatcher but Hatcher wanted no part of him. Why? Because he knew he was about to get a butt whipping, he(any most every other dirty player) won't take on someone who has the ability to handle them(or in Kocur case, would destroy Hatcher as he had done before).
It was funny that Hatcher cried about Lemieux head butting him, it's fun when two of the dirtiest players in the league get together. I hate Lemieux, but I give him credit for sticking up for his teammates, and not bitching like dirty players like Hatcher do, when someone does something chippy to them.
Oh please, it wasn't much different than what Mr. Conn Smythe winner did to Lindros, hit him as he entered the zone with his head down. Just because the elbow was in the area of where the hit landed doesn't mean he went out with a vicious elbow. A shoulder and an unextended elbow are equally as hard, just one is called a "legal" hit and the other is called dirty.
On the part of fighting Kocur, why the hell would he? Kocur is in the league merely because he can fight and has no other redeeming value. Hatcher is the captain of a Stanley Cup winner and is one of the best pure defenseman in the league no matter what you think of him. Is he supposed to be a boxer too to earn your respect? Be able to fight is a whole different issue than being able to play hockey. If the old-fashioned mindset of keeping the goon was gone from the NHL, Kocur would be a bouncer at some dive bar somewhere and he could have his no hockey skill buddies that have had long NHL careers like Brashear and Domi help him out. I have to say that was the most ironic thing in the NHL this year was all the caring and support that went to Donald Brashear from all these fans that had no idea that the dirty side of hockey is how he has made his living all these years. As goon like as McSorley is, at least he has lit the lamp occasionally in his career.
If all Kocur could do is fight, he wouldn't be playing on a Wings team with a coach who doesn't like fighting that much. Kocur came up with big goals in both Stanley Cup winning playoff years for the Wings. Sure, he isn't a great scorer, but he isn't a liability when he hits the ice either. Yzerman has said repeatedly that outside of Larionov, Kocur has the best hands on the team(not for fighting).
Hatcher's elbow was up, and most everyone saw it, but the referee. Was it intentional, who knows since his teammates were dropping like flies, there could have been some intent, but intent or not, it has to be called. One of the best pure defensemen in the league? Not even in the top 10, he's barely the best on his team. Is he good, yes absolutely. Shoulder and elbow are different in the rule book, shoulder check is a legal check, but you can't throw your shoulder without throwing the elbow, you do that, it is a penalty. Hatcher threw it, no reason to, he had the guy lined up. Stevens didn't throw his elbow, he just ran through Lindros.
New Jersey showed throughout the series what weakness Dallas has had for a while now, a slow defense. That is why I was so shocked that Colorado seems to have problems with them, the fast teams usually play them better, the Wings almost always look dominant in games against Dallas just using their speed(which is disappearing). All of the speed Dallas has is up front. If Belfour didn't play so well in this series, it would have been over sooner and easier. Dallas is an average team without a great goaltender. I have always been a critic of Belfour(not anymore), never thought he was that good early in his career. He always went down too early, and teams wanting to beat him just peppered him up high. That is still the way to beat him, but it isn't easy anymore.
Hi. I was wondering if anyone could be friendly enough to suggest some good reading material on horse racing? Replies or emails welcome
thank you very much frank
Anything you find by Andrew Beyer,David Powers,Nicholas Borg,Steven Dadidowitz,Mark Cramer,Dick Mitchell,James Quin,William Quirin,Barry Meadows,or Tom Ainslie,is worth a look.That's just off the top of my head or I would have Mentioned more.
God Luck
Howard
Don't forget Brohamer, Huey Mahl, Scott, Selvidge, Takach, Hambleton, Doc Sartin, and Bonnie Ledbetter.
Many of the best books are out of print.
Right you are ,Johnny.
Tough series to call from a value standpoint. No doubt Lakers are the better side, but I really think that price is far too high. Lakers just don't strike me as being the absolutely dominating team people make them out to be. They are getting big contributions from role players to bail them out with Harper and Shaw being big heroes to this point. Maybe the scare in the last series will set them off to a strong showing, but really don't think one can back them laying -800. My sense is that the Lakers had to give it their absolute all to barely get by Portland while the Pacers really didn't have to give much to win their series against a banged up team. They really coasted the whole way putting up weak efforts in NY and at times just taking it too easy. They did show some nice resolve coming back to win some pressure games after being down in them early. All in all, I think this series is closer to LA -300 in true terms. The Pacers handily beat the Lakers in one of their meetings and unlike Portland I think they have a reliable point player with a solid backup that plays consistently and even more important two go to guys. They lack the bench of the Blazers, but they do have a bigger offensive threat out at center that can take Shaquille away from the hoop. Smits disappears so much, but I think his first trip to the Finals will energize him and he should put out a solid focused effort at most times.
From the Lakers standpoint, well it all comes down to execution. I think they could possibly let down a little bit having won what most considered the true championship match. The Lakers for whatever reason seem to lose sight of their gameplan too often with Kobe trying to do too much and the team forgetting to get it into Shaq for long stretches. That all being said, the talent difference with the key players is there. Kobe should be able to wear out Miller or Rose with his constant tight pressure on defense plus his ability on the offensive side of the floor. Harper is playing great right now and has the size edge on Jackson. Rice/Green/Fox/Horry have an easy time of it here as the Pacers have no real big threats inside the key.
All in all, I sum it up with the conclusion that the Lakers have the better side, but its quite overrated in terms of its edge. My preliminary strategy is just look to bet the Pacers with the points and even on occasion the money line in almost all games. I think the first game will be a solid win for either team. I think the Lakers could have the letdown here or they could get energized with the new opportunity and post a big win. I still think that Staples is about the least important home floor for any of the top teams so I start it out looking at Indiana +350 for game one being quite attractive.
Two bets I do like series wise is the Lakers to win in 6 games at 2/1 and in case all hell breaks lose, Pacers in 5 games at 20/1. I don't think the Lakers can finish it in Indiana. The Pacers are too tough at home and with the 2-3-2 format that makes a 6 game or 7 game win look likely for the Lakers. I think the value is quite good on the 6 game scenario considering they are such large favorites. The Pacers bet is purely speculative in playing the Lakers coming out flat and dropping a quick game or two and never recovering. Highly unlikely but I wouldn't be all that shocked if Indiana did find a way to win this one and if it happens it figures they take care of business at home. The talent gap just isn't as large as most think in my opinion and Indiana is getting far too much value for the Lakers to be bettable in probably any games here.
I don't like laying big chalk,but in this case I do.I spent the good part of the day, yesterday shopping the lines (calling phone accounts,driving all over town).The best line I found was -750 ,I took it for a large amount(large for me that is).I think it may be one of the best bets I make all year.Shaq should have a field day on both sides of the floor.I think Rice will have a good series.The Pacers are just happy to be there, but the Lakers are HUNGRY in my opinion.Miller should have at least a game or two where he's not on fire,and they will need him to be red hot to have any chance at all in this series.
I do know that anything can happen in sports ,so the Lakers are beatable. At -750 I like them a great deal though.
Howard
Usually, I like Wildbill's sports posts, but I disagree big time here. Wasn't it you who said that the average joe doesn't comprehend the value in laying big numbers? This is definitely a case where there is value to be had in the big lay. If Indiana had been in the West, they wouldn't have gotten by any of the 4 teams that made it into the second round. They were probably the third best team in the east. NY did the hard work, and then was too beat up to take care of business with Indiana. This mismatch is worse than last year's between NY and San Antonio and that number was like 30% higher. 5/2 on LA in 5 seems like a fair price, sadly. Of the game one props, I like Jalen under 19.5 as a best attempt at leveraging LA's dominance.
JG
Gotta agree with Wild Bill. It's a lot like baseball here. You don't expect the Pacers to win, but at this price it's definitely worth a look for the following reasons.
1.) Most importantly, the Lakers are garbage on the road. In the Sac series, they got smoked in both games on the road. They split in Phoenix, but could've lost both. They won 2/3 in Portland, but the first two was more of a matter of Portland losing than the Lakers winning. I don't think Larry Legend will let that kind of meltdown happen. It's 2-3-2, which lets me believe that if Indiana can win 1 out of 2 in LA, they (Lakers) are going to be coming home down 3-2.
2.) An offshoot of that point, LA is not the greatest pressure team of all time. Closing out series has not been their specialty. This team is flat out too stupid at times. Kobe plays out of control, Shaq can disappear, and I can get to the basket against Glen Rice. My point, the pressure may build and be too much to overcome again. Indiana has the stuff that Portland doesn't have: Leadership, smarts, and go to guys. That might be a problem.
That being said, yeah, LA has a big time talent edge. Matchups favor them, but no one ever won money handicapping based on matchups. If LA has a letdown in game 1 or 2, like in every other series this year, Indiana could give them fits. I think Lakers in 7, because of the Zen master, but I like the odds on Indy. Laying -800 means that you gotta be right 87.5% of the time to break even. In the Finals, with a stupid team, and a lot of negative factors working against them, I can't see them winning this series 9 out of 10 times. I love to find reasons to bet dogs, this would have to be another one.
MDMAniac
Well as I stated before, I am not taking the Pacers to win the series, even though +575 does seem like a good value. I do think though the Lakers have been overrated in the playoffs and stop smoking crack, the Pacers could have beaten the Jazz or the Suns with relative ease so the top 4 thing makes no sense. Last year in the Finals I did bet the big favorite because there was no way to stop that Spurs train. They had lost one game up to the finals, the Lakers have lost 6! Further the Knicks of last year were nowhere near the talent of this Pacer team. The Pacers really didn't expend much effort in the prior series while the Lakers were at war. With a rather short bench for the Lakers backing up their big two players, they will feel the effects even if they are young.
If you all want to go out and bet your hard earned money on the overrated public team, go right ahead. They have enough edge you probably will cash your tickets, but just remember you cannot honestly say you are getting good value. Big favorites I bet either if one team clearly has a huge momentum and talent edge as the Spurs did last year. The Lakers don't have that momentum and their talent is only a few notches above the Pacers.
Just face it, the hype on this Laker team is out of hand. Sure they are the best team on paper, but the difference is not that big and you are just getting so much value betting the dog here. As for the hungry team, how can you say the Lakers are any more hungry than the Pacers? The motivation when you get to the Finals is pretty much the same. The Pacers have been so close for so many years and now they have Rose playing at another level, and thats why they made it to this point, its certainly not a case of them getting lucky and then feeling happy just to make it here.
The one overlooked factor in all of this analysis is that the Pacers have the deeper bench. The series is a lot closer to even-money than it appears. If Shaq gets in foul trouble, or LA loses Game 1 or 2 at home, it won't even be worth even-money.
Granted, the Lakers will probably win the series, but it isn't worth taking a high number. They have not looked good most of the playoffs, starting with Sacramento in the first round. I'm not taking either side, but if I had to take a side, I would take the Pacers, but both of them have been inconsistent in their performances in the playoffs. For a while, it seemed that every Indiana would lose would be a 20 point blowout.
For a while, it seemed that every Indiana loss would be a 20 point blowout.
My nephew was talking to me and I lost my train of thought for a second.
I had the pleasure of attending the most recent Pacers-Suns game here, and tho the Suns were not at full strength, the Pacers were lucky that the final difference was only 30-something. Not a mountain of evidence, granted, but it's an ever farther extrapolation to say that the Pacers would have handled them easily. Pass the pipe.
JG
Hey I am a lifelong Suns fan and I would have been the first to say they couldn't beat the Pacers, Blazers, or Lakers...of course a banged up Spurs team is beatable too. Then again ANYONE (maybe not the Clippers, Bulls, or Warriors) can beat the Pacers when Reggie shoots 1-16.
Lifeling fan? I knew you were a good guy, and I agree with 7/8 of your post. :) My parents had primo season tickets when they first started. My dad cancelled them when they traded Charlie Scott for a backup shooting guard from Boston. Um, dad, big mistake.
JG
Yeah, just like they thought they were crazy for trading Larry Nance for some kid from Cleveland that couldn't beat out Mark Price for a job...
Heh, I got in on the next gen protest I guess. Me and my two closest friends went to the game that was played a few hours later all dressed up in purple and orange face paint and wrote on our bare chests and stomachs "Where's Larry?" and "Fire Colangelo!" (forum goers who've only known me a few years will have to take it on faith that the bare midriffs were a little more sightly in '88). I admit I was wrong (don't let my wife see this).
JG
I'm throwing out Appearing Now, Commendable, Harlan Traveler, Postponed, Scottish Halo, Tahkodha Hills, and Wheelaway.
Aptitude really looks good will bet to win.
Chief Seattle & Curule will include in Tri's & Supers
Globalize Tri's & Supers
Impeachment Tri's & Supers
Unshaded could steal this one looks great on paper and we'll see how he does on Saturday.
Good Luck Paul
Why would you toss Wheelaway? I like him alot in this race. I think he fits in with these horses, and has a good running style. I was thinking of a pretty large win bet on him, and want to know why you don't like him. I haven't won a Belmont in years.
I also like Tahkodha Hills to be in the trifecta at a price.
Good Luck
I look at many things but what I don't particularly like about Wheelaway are his closing numbers in the last quarter. KD=3>5. The race he won he carried 116lbs since moving up in wgt he has got worse. IMO.
THills looks over raced to me to win the Belmont. In the PPan he finished 4th with these type of horses.
Good Luck HB
I like Wheelaway also. I expect to see him closing fast and with the distance of the Belmont I think he will be right there.
Alec,
Since you like to put down people on this forum I will ask you to back up your statement.
"I like Wheelaway also. I expect to see him closing fast and with the distance of the Belmont I think he will be right there. "
Show me by any means how you see this happening? If it is just something you thru out to see if anyone would respond well I am.
Paul
lol...because I am not part of this mutual admiration society you and others belong too (you guys sure love to stroke each others ego's) I am accused of putting people down...lol. As I mentioned in my previous post, I think the distance of the Belmont suits him well here, thus this is why I like him.
Bet NBA Playoffs. Thank DS&MM for good gambling books.
Are you speaking of the 2-0 situation? I haven't been following it.
No,this year best of seven series 0-2 team went 0-3-1 against the spread.
It looks like 13 horses will pull in for the Belmont. I don't see any other possible candidates who are realistic contenders either, although a few other horses not currently in the hunt have been mentioned.
Dealing with the also-rans first:
Takhodha Hills is overmatched, as is Harlan Traveler, Curule, and Appearing Now.
Even in his best form, I would expect Commendable to show speed and collapse. The best race he's ever run was at a mile with Pay Day in the saddle -- and he still couldn't win it. Essentially, this is a horse that won a maiden race and that's it.
Scottish Halo runs better on an easy lead. Whether he can get that here is debatable. At long odds, I'd take a flyer on him stealing away to a win, but that's his only chance.
Chief Seattle is also improving. But he's really inexperienced. While my handicapping tends toward horses that are improving off of layoffs, or in the case of 3-yr-olds, just rounding into form, here I'm more inclined to go with the seasoned veterans. Give him a look on the bottom of the exotics though.
Postponed ran a superb race on the rail in the Peter Pan, but in fact had a better trip than Unshaded who had to close 4-wide.
I've been high Wheelaway's prospects since before the Derby. As for the Belmont, I have serious misgivings about him being able to get the distance. In the Derby, he lugged in down the stretch while he was clearly tiring. When you consider his total form, it appears that 1 1/16 is about his limit. I don't see him making some grand stretch run down the middle of the Belmont at 1 1/2 mile.
If Unshaded, Impeachment, and Aptitude run their best race, Globalize has no chance. If I were betting superfectas, I'd certainly have him on the bottom of my ticket though.
Impeachment is the only horse to surprise me this year in a positive way, finishing 3rd in both the Derby and the Preakness. In the Derby, he had excellent racing luck and found an opening on the rail to pass the tiring speedsters. I felt his race that day was more fortuitous than brilliant. But in the Preakness, he had to run wide to get to 3rd and almost got past Fusiachi Pegasus at the wire. A much better race. And his racing style (and jockey) certainly lends itself to this race here. It would not be a reach at all to see him finish in the top-3.
Unshaded is still a very fresh and improving horse. As we saw in the Preakness, a contender coming into a race who has been thoroughly prepared and has not yet reaced his peak certainly cannot be overlooked. If he had run in the Preakness, I'd have been very inclined to put him in my exotic tickets. Here, he may steal the whole thing. Owners and trainers are handicappers too, and while most are not as good at it as they think, owner James Tafel is still putting up $100,000 to run Unshaded in the Belmont. His works are good, he's not peaked yet, his running style fits, and he has Shane Sellers in the saddle. For those who don't know, in Kentucky, Sellers is considered in the same class as Pay Day, which is to say, near-God status. If anyone can properly time the closing move on this horse, it is Shane. I give him a chance to win.
What can be said bad about Aptitude? Right there with Red Bullet in the Gotham, right there with Fusaichi Pegasus in the Derby. This is a game, game horse. When it comes to 3-yr-old of the Year, my guess is that he'll also be voted the 3rd best to those two. With RB and FP not running, he's the logical favorite here. The only concern I have here with Aptitude is that he may have hit his peak in the Derby. But he has been freshened since then, and he's trained by Hall of Famer Bobby Frankel, so I don't think you can use any "3-and-out" logic to dismiss him. But he's not worth less than about 5-2.
How the race will be run. Post position should not be a factor here. The race is long enough that anyone compromised by a poor post can simply take back and find room. Further, all of the contenders are deep closers. Belmont isn't generally known for having a front-running or rail bias, and I'd expect the management to ensure that we don't have one on Saturday. But there isn't a whole lot of speed in this race. Chief Seattle, Scottish Halo, and Commendable appear to be it. This could compromise the outcome if someone were able to steal away to an easy early lead setting slow early fractions. But many of the also-rans have good middle distance speed, so this should ensure a livelier pace down the backstretch, ensuring that the closers get their opportunity.
Get a price and try to construct a situation in the exactas with Aptitude, Unshaded, and Impeachment. For the $2 bettors, put a few bucks on Scottish Halo at 20-1 or better.
Regarding Wheelaway, you say "he lugged in down the stretch while clearly tiring". I suggest you watch the Derby again if you happen to have taped it (I did and have). Wheelaway was advancing in the stretch when he veered in and impeded Captain Steve. After he did that, his advancement halted. The horse was clearly on the move before this happened. I expect a cleaner ride this time out and with the added distance, expect Wheelaway to be there at the finish. As I said, watch the Derby again.
Horses typically lug-in or out when they are tiring (akin to a boxer in the 12th round). The chart call was accurate for what I saw the first time and on subsequent replays, "WHEELAWAY worked his way inside on the first turn, came out five wide approaching the stretch, reached the front between calls in the upper stretch, then lugged in badly, bothering CAPTAIN STEVE, forced that one in and flattened out." When I reviewed the replay it was like seeing a boxer or runner "hit the wall" in the late stages, and for Wheelaway, it was at approximately 1 1/16 mile into the race. The Belmont at 1 1/2 miles seems a big reach.
Since I had him in my exotics, and expected a deeper close, he was one of the horses I was particularly interested in watching (see my Derby post below). My opinion before the Derby was that I expected Wheelaway to run big. However, my visual of his race in the Derby didn't support my previous opinion that he was as deep a closer that I'd thought.
On the positive side, he did soundly defeat Impeachment at 1 1/16, he's a lightly raced horse, has superb recent workouts, and is eligible to improve off that effort. For those who believe in symmetry, note that both Wheelaway and Unshaded are sons of Unbridled, so maybe there's your exacta ....
Bad news, they should have won that game, and it is a heartbreaking way to lose(the kind some teams don't recover from, hopefully they can), good news, the old Dallas legs may be jumping back home, but probably won't have enough in them to win 2 more. Game 6 should be interesting, probably take the under in game 6, and the Devils in game 7(unless they look demoralized in game 6).
If anyone is interested, the best value in Euro 2000 is probably the group betting. Favourites tend to be priced too short in the four-team groups. I recommend Portugal, Belgium and Norway to win their groups, all around the 3/1, 7/2 mark. This is basically the best means of opposing England (pants), Germany (old), Italy (no one to score goals) and Spain (perpetual under-achievers in tournament finals). These 4 are good teams to oppose in match betting as well.
Andy.
Hang on, we just held the world champions to a draw. Moreover, our non-penalties record over the past few years has been excellent. This suggests a good showing in the group stages where penalties don't count. I agree Belgium are underrated and not just on the strength of yesterday's showing. People don't realize what an enormous advantage playing at home gives you.
1) France are the current world champions, not Brazil !
2) Friendlies at home count for zip.
3) England's record in the group stages does not actually bear up to close examination. In 98 they beat Columbia and Tunisia, two very weak teams. In 96 they had home advantage. In 92 they were pants, in 90 they only beat Egypt, in 88 they were super-pants.
4) This is England's weakest team since 92 at least.
England are definitely worth opposing.
Andy.
I saw they are offering betting on the Euro at the Orleans, but its "American" style with much better odds than standard soccer bettting with the three decision odds. The lines are offered as the favorite -.5 goals and a money line attached, just like in hockey. For example one game for Sunday is: Denmark +.5 +125 France -.5 -145
I don't follow European soccer so maybe if you could give some picks in the games I can make it much more interesting as it looks like in a week or less we will be down to just baseball betting. I know the three decision odds are sucker bets with a good sized house edge, but this format is reasonable enough I might put in a wager or two just for entertainment. Besides since these numbers are probably being used in few places worldwide anyone with even a decent amount of knowledge should have a small edge.
Bill,
I'm not entirely familiar with this +125 -145 business but I assume the difference is the house edge. Obviously without knowing the prices on offer I can't make any definite recommendations but you might consider Portugal against England tonight, Norway against Spain tomorrow and Belgium against Italy on Wednesday as decent opportunities. If these work out OK I'll post some more later in the week.
Andy.
Well they only list the odds for today at the Orleans. At the Stardust they have more days listed, but there they have the traditional three result odds.
For todays match compare these:
At Orleans England -.5 +120 Portugal +.5 -140
At Stardust England Even Tie 2-1 Portugal 2-1
So you can see unless you really like Portugal to pull the upset or you think a tie is very likely, you are much better betting the game with "American" odds as they are called by some international sports books. If you bet England at the Stardust, shame on you, you just gave away free money. Now I am not quite sure how to figure out the house edge with the three result odds, but they must be huge. I think of it this way though, say you bet both tie and Portugal. In this case you win one unit should your result come correct, but you lose two should England win. So the end result would look like this:
England Even Tie or Portugal 1/2
Now those are some terrible odds! I can't believe that any bookmakers can get away with this and still get business.
Those are pretty bad. Calculating the house edge is just a question of converting into %, Evens is 50%, 2/1 is 33.3%, so Evens + 2/1 + 2/1 = 116.7%, a 16.7% edge. This is too high for a football match and makes value betting almost impossible.
If I understand the way the American system works, a dollar on England pays $1.20 while $1.40 on Portugal/Draw pays $1 ? If we convert the fixed odds into the American style, Evens mean England are +100, 1/2 Portugal/Draw is -150 ? That shows the difference.
This is why I said to start with that the best value is in the group betting where if you shop around the overall edge can be 5% or lower. If you want some entertainment but hate being ripped off (with which I sympathise) I suggest shopping around the Internet, you could try Eurobet for a start.
Andy.
I have quite a few choices on the net in books that I use, but everyone uses the three result system. I refuse to bet anything that isn't split line (American system) as it offers the best odds. I can't believe the greed of most local sports books in that whenever they do take soccer action they use the three result odds when there is clear precedence with hockey betting to using the split line as they do at the Orleans. Just about every Vegas sports book offered action on the past 2 World Cups and only one that I know of (Imperial Palace) did offer the split line on 1st round matches. After that they all went to the obvious money line as ties were no longer possible.
I will try to get the split line odds and post them up for future matches.
Yes, many of the books well known to American bettors put up some rotten European-style odds. I'd guess that is for two reasons: they can get away with it(for now), and they are unfamiliar with the "three results" system.
But simply labelling the "three results" paradigm worse than the American style odds based on such a paltry observation is truly ignorant.
First off, you can get *much* better odds by shopping just a little bit. Try William Hill, for example. Their book totals at around 112 for most soccer matches. There are others who put up similarly "shaped" books. Put a few of these books together and you should be able to whittle down the edge on most matches down to the 106-109 range.
Second of all, if a bookmaker is going to have to list more than 2 mutually exclusive results on a match he will and should increase the calculated edge he has on any one of the outcomes. Why? Because he knows damn well that he won't properly price every one of the outcomes, and he'll tend to get hammered on those he messes up. The greater the # of potential outcomes a linemaker must price the greater the overall edge he will demand for his labor. Why in the hell do you think futures books for sports like the NFL and NBA have such large overall edges built in?
Third, academic studies have shown that the European books have had some persistent problems putting a proper price on the Draw. Bookmakers do tend to accurately estimate the ratio of each team's Win chances(in the long run, of course).
Once you have found a game whose Draw is greatly over-estimated, it should be quite obvious that the European-style odds will provide a *much* more profitable means of taking advantage. Think about it. A game in which the chances of a Draw are severely over-estimated will allow the sharp bettor bet BOTH teams to win.
Today's race was one for those who think Pat Day wrote the book on race-riding. With very little speed in the race, he established a stalking position early, set easy fractions on the front end, then had a fresh horse to withstand the deep closers down the stretch. Not bad for a horse still eligible for his first allowance race. Frankly, if Scottish Halo had run, this was the scenario I envisioned that he might attempt.
For those who backed Aptitude at a short price, it will come as no consolation that he finished 2nd, primarily because he was too far out of it to come back. Unshaded on the other hand, ran an outstanding race to finish 3rd while suffering a heat stroke. Wheelaway, who was passed in the stretch, still appears to be playing catch up with his conditioning while improving to finish 4th -- perhaps others may think he moved too soon, but from my perspective, the correct strategy was for the jockey to lay close to the lead.
How people could bet so much money on Curule is beyond me. Bless them. As the character Gordon Gecko said in the movie Wall Street, "a fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place."
How'd I do? I was up all night, slept all day, and didn't get up in time to get to the track. While I couldn't have bet Aptitude at 8-5, I'd have surely lost money on the exotics. There's more than one kind of luck ....
Earl,
I can top that I went to the track had my free pass, free program for the day, but there was one thing I forgot I left my money in the ashtray!!! I said the heck with it because I wasn't going to back and forth to bet, because Ray put me on a no walking diet so I made money by not betting.
The race was like a claiming race no speed no thrill just that Pat Day lucked out again similar to the Breeders Cup last Nov. when he won on Cat Thief he was the best of the worst. Alex Solis after the race was commenting on how Aptitude couldn't get any footing early on, who the heck does he think he was riding Cryptoclearance 20 lengths behind whether it was true or not with those fractions he should of been closer to the lead. Aptitude is a closer but from that far back he had no chance. Unshaded finished third under the heat like you said. Wheelaway did make 4th for the superfecta.
paul
you poor misguided souls. i dont follow the horses too much anymore(im too old and lost all my gamble as badger said), but i never met anyone who could really figure out what young horses were going to do. stick with the 4 year olds and up as they are more consistant except for the really great ones and you get less surprises that sneak in that no one knew was going to be a good horse.
you poor misguided souls. (TRUE)
(im too old and lost all my gamble as badger said) TRUE
you stink at golf (TRUE)
I bet you slice the ball (T/F)
Come to FW and I'll give you a lesson if your not too old to make the trip!!!
UKW
It is true that 3-year-olds are the most inconsistent. However, if you prefer to gamble on horses on the improve, then the Triple Crown races are the most fertile place to look. It's sad that this year's crop (beyond FP and RB) are too mediocre to bet on reliably.
First of all, I am just stunned by the line. I was expecting around an even line and find 3.5 in some places. I was planning a bet on the Pacers, but just might sit this one out. Its obvious the rest of the Lakers raised their game with Kobe out and might do so again here. My feeling is if I were the Lakers I would not play him again unless the series is tied. Simple enough, the Lakers seem to have at least a decent chance of winning without him and his presence in a game could be detrimental to the team. Having a sprained ankle will just kill his game on both ends of the floor. His game is all quickness and a bum ankle neutralizes that so much. I know he is lobbying to play, but I don't know if we will see him again in the series, and if we do it won't be anything near the level of play that is expected of him.
I am having a hard time gauging the total here. I have all playoffs long been under the theory to play the under at Staples. Its a terrible shooting background to play in, the worst in the NBA according to a couple of players. However as long as the Pacers go out and foul like crazy the under is in a lot of trouble. Now the scene shifts to a more favorable scene for the shooters, but then again we are coming off a very high scoring game. Add to that I doubt the Pacers will be fouling as much. Basically a ton of factors and they all even each other out so I will pass on the total.
So all things considered, my play for game 3 is simply the Pacers -1.5 for the first half thinking they will feed off the crowd in the first Finals game ever in the city and the fact that home teams down 2-0 generally come out fired up. I don't know if their energy holds up all game so I am going to pass on the unexpectedly high number for the game. If anything I might lean to playing the Lakers +145 on the money line figuring they might get blown out, but if they don't there's a good chance they find a way to win the game.
This game goes a long way in determining further strategy. Right now I will call for the Lakers to win game 4 and then game 6. The only thing is this Lakers team has shown a big lack of killer instinct and who knows if they can continue to get such big contributions from role players like Harper and Horry if Kobe doesn't go. If the Lakers get blown out the series might get interesting. If they lose by a reasonable number then they are still well on track. If they win then the world will expect a sweep, but I don't think they will get it done. I fully expect this series to see another game in Staples.
How is one:
David Duval and Vijay Singh +180
Tiger -220
Danny
Dan,
I can't even watch golf today!! Maybe it's me but when I was growing up in the late 60's and 70's golf was fun!! Today most of the players are BLAH!! Jack Nicklaus was so slow when he played now he's normal. I think Jack probably is the greatest player to ever play but killed the game for me. Everybody on the course either takes too much time to hit the ball or are not ready to hit when it's there turn. Golf should be played in no more than 4 hrs and that's for a foursome. Today you have 2.5-3hr rounds of 9. The common golfer today doesn't know jack about etiquette or how to conduct themself on a golf course. Probably 90% of the people who play today never caddied. The golf cart is great for the impaired but it doesn't speed up play for the good golfer because he goes right to his ball and prepares for his next shot ahead of time.
Sorry Dan I really don't care who wins and that's sad to me because here is a game I used to love and play daily now probably 10 times a year.
Bet the field and then you can root against the PLASTIC PEOPLE!!!
To Vent Is Human
paul
Dan,
A few more.
PLAYER OPEN CURRENT
------ ---- -------
TIGER WOODS 5/2
DAVID DUVAL 10/1
ERNIE ELS 12/1
DAVIS LOVE III 15/1
VIJAY SINGH 15/1
COLIN MONTGOMERIE 20/1
TOM LEHMAN 20/1
HAL SUTTON 20/1
PHIL MICKELSON 20/1
JIM FURYK 25/1
JESPER PARNEVIK 25/1
STUART APPLEBY 30/1
JOHN HUSTON 30/1
LEE WESTWOOD 35/1
NICK PRICE 35/1
SERGIO GARCIA 35/1 25/1
CARLOS FRANCO 35/1
LEE JANZEN 40/1
FRED COUPLES 40/1
JUSTIN LEONARD 40/1
GREG NORMAN 40/1 30/1
LOREN ROBERTS 40/1
CHRIS PERRY 40/1
JOSE MARIA OLAZABAL 40/1 30/1
MARK O'MEARA 50/1 60/1
BERNHARD LANGER 60/1
STEVE ELKINGTON 60/1
MIKE WEIR 60/1
JEFF MAGGERT 60/1
DARREN CLARKE 60/1
FIELD (ALL OTHERS) 7/2
U.S. OPEN GOLF
--------------
MATCHUPS* OPEN CURRENT
--------- ---- -------
DAVID DUVAL and
VIJAY SINGH (ENTRY) +180
TIGER WOODS -220
PHIL MICKELSON +105 EVEN
DAVIS LOVE III -125 -120
LEE JANZEN +135 +130
TOM LEHMAN -155 -150
JESPER PARNEVIK EVEN -110
COLIN MONTGOMERIE -120 -110 JOSE MARIA OLAZABAL +110+125
SERGIO GARCIA -130 -145
STUART APPLEBY +150
JUSTIN LEONARD -170
STEVE ELKINGTON +180
NICK PRICE -220
LOREN ROBERTS +120
CARLOS FRANCO -140
HAL SUTTON EVEN -110
JIM FURYK -120 -110
GREG NORMAN +105 -110
MARK O'MEARA -125 -110
JOHN HUSTON EVEN
FRED COUPLES -120
ERNIE ELS EVEN
DAVID DUVAL -120
U.S. OPEN GOLF
--------------
SPECIAL PROPOSITION:
TIGER WOODS vs "THE WORLD"
ERNIE ELS; COLIN MONTGOMERIE;
SERGIO GARCIA; DAVIS LOVE III (ENTRY) -140
vs TIGER WOODS +120
Over the last few days I created a basic template for some friends to use as they wanted to recreationally bet baseball this year. I tried to keep the statistical gathering down so that it wouldn't be a chore for the average person to do. Its not a complete method and I don't think you can go pro with this, but its far superior to what 95% or more of the public does in baseball betting. Simply create a template on a word processor or write one out yourself and make copies. On it, this is how it should look with a sample game:
Teams Starts Runs Stk L10 QS L/R H/A Ovr AZ-Anderson 5.1 W1 -2 6/11 +13 -16 +12 LA-Dreifort 5.9 L1 0 4/12 +2 -4 +6
Runs=Runs scored per game, overall Stk=Current streak L10=Last 10 games QS=Quality starts ratio, QS/total games started L/R=+/- .500 overall against left or right starter H/A=Difference between +/- .500 in situation. Note this is different than raw number. AZ is actually -2 in road games, but to note how much worse they are on the road versus home, I note it as -16 as they are +14 at home. Overall= +/- .500 overall record
There are many more stats I mentioned and you can add to them to give you a better perspective, but these basic numbers should give you a feel for where to go in a given game. In this one some numbers stand out. The QS ratio is far superior for Anderson and that is probably one of the most important points of all. Most of the other numbers favor the Dodgers. They score more runs. The are not very good at home, but the DBacks are terrible on the road when compared to home. Its important to note this number instead because home/road differences can be greater than average and in general the lines only reflect a more generic difference between a team on the road and a team at home. The streak and L10 are important numbers to take into account, but when they are fairly close like this its not that important. You are looking her for noticeable differences such as one team being on a long streak winning or losing, or a great disparity in how the teams have fared in the L10. Left/Right disparity is quite important, but for it to be significant, it has to be going in the opposite direction of the overall record. Since teams face far more righties, this number can be skewed a bit so take it into consideration. Overall serves two purposes. First to compare the other numbers and allow some perspective to be put on them. Two to remember that winning is the name of the game and despite what other numbers say, if one team is winning more than another you can figure they deserve credit for that.
In this game, I felt the number was very fair at LA -123. I passed on the game. I don't use and don't give a magic formula to determine plays. Its all in the feel for me. However looking over the numbers you come up with some solid plays, especially when taking the line into consideration. Sometimes you find a dog that appears to be in good shape when looking at the numbers.
I suggest this basic gameplan. First of all, I put that run number up first because that is a fundamental factor that so many people overlook. The way this sheet is setup reflects what I think should be considered and in what order. Too many people forget the simple fact that if one team on average scores more runs than another, they already have that team in bad shape. Sure pitching changes things, but if you are taking too many teams that are starting with this disadvantage, you will be in trouble. Runs are also important because I usually will look to play some favorites on the run lines where I end up getting odds. Giving up the run and a half when a team can't score or doesn't appear to have good separation in terms of runs from its opponents is bad policy. A good example is tonights game where the Giants won me a nice wager on the run line. I was getting a 75 cent bonus for giving up the run and at this point the Giants are 1.2 runs per game ahead of the Reds. If they could find a way to win, the odds are in my favor that they cover the run line which they did with ease, despite being in the disadvantage of being the home team. After that consider the streaks and L10. Current form is everything in bases as teams go hot and cold no matter the level of talent. Good teams just get more hot and less cold streaks than bad teams, but all are subject to these forces. Ignore them and you will get burned. I have already in the past mentioned how I think quality starts are superior to ERAs. Here is a simple ratio that should give you an idea of which man should be more likely to get his team the win. The 3 +/- categories are just watch out factors in my mind. Avoiding teams in bad L/R or H/A situations or equally giving them more of a chance when the numbers look good. Overall record is just to remind you which team gets the money more often as the season goes on. Its more important to watch out for current form though.
As for run lines, I think this is an area that needs to be analyzed completely separate from the straight up numbers. People tend to look at a game and then if they really like a team might bet the run line. I don't think of it that way. I look at the games straight and then make a second pass at the run line. Mostly because as I mentioned, you need two things to back a run line bet. First I want a team that figures to score more runs. Simple enough, even if a team is far superior, if they score only 4.5 runs a game where 5.5 is average, then they will have a much tougher time covering this disadvantage for you. Second I want a team that has an advantage over its opponent in runs scored. If the teams are even in runs, the pitchers are going to have to do a nice number on the opponent to get me there. So look at the runs scored number to find some run line bets.
Lastly, the numbers I left out. You can add more figures if you want. Bullpens are so highly considered, but I generally think they are overrated unless you are dealing with an atrocious bullpen. Think of this, say one team has a pen with a 4.00 ERA and its opponent has a 5.50 ERA. Pretty significant? Well if they only pitch 3 innings that is an expectation of only .5 runs so the edge is there, but its not that significant. Focus on other things, but if you insist, put in the bullpen ERA. Second is more QS numbers. Put up the road or home number and also the number in the prior 5 starts. As it is though, these are hard stats to find so you have to keep them yourself. If you do, definitely include them as they are extremely valuable. If not, do take a look at ERA over last 5 to make sure you are not taking a pitcher falling badly out of form. Other stats can include further breakdowns of home/road numbers such as runs scored. Not the easiest numbers to get, but I told my friends to use the Stardust library as you can get these numbers there and I do believe on DBC on the net.
As always, the more information you have, the better decisions you make. I just had the goal though of not making this a too highly involved daily exercise. These numbers I consider to be most important to being able to recreationally pick up some cash in bases. I have another sheet you can use to take a shot at totals, but will write that one up later.
How do you incorporate streaks in your handicapping? How can you predict when streaks will begin and end? I fail to see the LOGIC with favoring the winning streak and going against the losing streak, especially when we know FOR A FACT that all winning and losing streaks MUST come to and end unless the season itself ends.
Do you set your own lines? For me, comparing stats is not enough. I want to know whether or not a team is an overlay or underlay. How can you do that without setting your own line and having it be accurate?
Also, I don't see the need for any stat unrelated to RUNS. I've looked at many Sabremetric websites and don't find any of their research helpful with respect to handicapping. However, I do look at pitch counts.
Runs are the fundamental stat for me. I have been successful for 9 years betting baseball and I have been using runs since the beginning. The way I look at it is that runs are much more consistent than anything else. A team's average runs shows it tendency and ability to score runs and since runs are what makes the score. Over the years, I have followed this basic principle. If the teams are fairly close in terms of average runs, then I look to other factors to give me a fair assesment of the line. If they are not close then I generally have to lean towards the team I can count on more to score runs. This season I have not once taken the Tigers in a game because of their lack of runs. I bet on average about 6 sides a day so its difficult to pass a team over, but I just have a confidence problem in asking a team that has trouble scoring to go out and win a game for me. Its pretty simple logic, but I have to say that your opinion is something I run into quite a bit. Research may not bear out wins and losses because this is handicapping and its but one factor that is used. There is no formula that can predict winners from just runs scored because that ignores pitching too much. Think of runs and streaks as key "alarms". I never bet solely on them, but they tend to keep me personally out of trouble. Sure streaks are unrealiable, but as I have stated before, teams that are in a winning or losing groove tend to outperform or underperform their prices for awhile. Its not until the public overbets the streaks, such as when they get to 10 games or more, that it becomes a negative factor.
I have never bet a team merely because it was on a streak. Its just something to keep in mind and to understand the importance of recent form. If a team is 50-35 right now, but is 2-8 in its last 10 games, I guarantee they will perform closer to 2-8 form. Its a fact and I know many handicappers want to deny it. Simply put breaks and wins create a positive mindset amongst the players that far exceeds. Its just like the ones you have undoubtedly faced in your sports betting history. At times you can do no wrong and that positive mindframe helps you stay agressive and catch all the breaks you can. When its going the opposite you aren't playing your best game, your aggression is lacking. Add to it that there can be some unknown factors involved that you are not going to find out. A player could be causing some troubles in the clubhouse or a key pitcher or two could be banged up or tired and you would only be able to guess it from their performance.
As for setting a line, that is a personal feel issue for me. I could set one, but I think setting a line is a highly inaccurate art, especially in baseball. There are a million factors you could choose to put in your line, but are you sure they are any more correct than the set line? The linemakers don't use a formula to come up with a line so why should I?
If you spend all your time trying to figure out exactly how much your overlay is, you are spending too much time on it. My goal with this was to give people a chance to get ahead a little bit on baseball, not to make them professional bettors. I myself used to work 60 hours a week betting baseball. Now its more like 10 hours and I don't feel I have lost that much. Sure I was more successful back then, but its a time vs. money issue for me. If I wanted to write out the complete course on how to make lots and lots of money on baseball betting, well that would be so many posts most people would get bored. I do have a formula to make a very accurate line for baseball, and guess what, it has runs in it! So I will save you the trouble since you would just question anything I write.
As for pitch counts, I have seen and talked to quite a bit of people on this. So far, consider me fairly unmoved in this thinking. Pitch counts work mostly as a negative only factor. It does stand to reason an overworked pitcher could be deduced from pitch counts, but I still think there is more to it than that. I met someone locally that is a minor league pitcher and has pitched in the majors recently. We are supposed to never talk about anything betting related, but he does occasionally give me some good info even though its not specifically from a betting standpoint. We were talking about how he felt after pitching in cold places like Edmonton. Then we talked about pitching in warm places. He then talked alot about pitching factors I never thought of. He said that a year ago they tried to teach him a change-up. In that time, he said his arm tired out faster than ever before. Even though a change has the slow velocity, the motion you use wears your arm out more than a fastball. He also said things about pitching in "trouble" was actually less tiring as the lack of a windup makes the pitches a bit less taxing on the arm. Many good tidbits he gave me and I brought them up with my info sharing group. We came to the conclusion that pitch counts are misleading because they differ so much for each pitcher, depending on his current conditioning, his pitch selection and arsenal, differing climate/conditions that are played in, and many other factors. Overall, the person that originally brought it up was convinced that its probably not much to watch. You might just look at the daily boxscores and see if someone went well over his normal count. Of course remember that his manager knows this too and will be careful about his use of him in later games too.
All in all, like most factors one can watch, they have very small predictive roles. The way I see it is to balance everything out and not rely on certain factors. I think of every game like a scale. Put some factors on each side, then add the line to balance it out and see which side the scale tips to. I figure I can find a line that is 10 cents off on about 1 game in 3. Sometimes it will be over 20 cents off. However I cannot remember a line more than 30 cents off. The edges are not extreme, but my method is to play many games and try to pile up as many edges as I can. That is what I tried to teach the people I gave the lesson to. Just keep a good sized bankroll and make many bets. Don't spend too much time trying to narrow things down to the perfect bet and don't try to use different bet sizes, just flat bet everything. With practice and some experience anyone can be a modest winner in time.
I spend about 90 minutes per day putting my own lines on games and comparing them to the posted odds. I use starters' ERA, bullpen era, runs/9 against either LHP or RHP, an adjustment for home field, and league average ERA.
I throw out a lot of games, mainly any Rockies game or those with pitchers coming off injuries, relief pitchers put in stating roles, minor league call-ups, and anything else I cannot get a handle on.
But sometimes it doesn't work out. Last week I had St Louis at -240 over Detroit and the line was St Louis -145, so I thought I had the overlay of the year. Detroit won 10-1. Go figure. At least I didn't go hog wild on that one and bet a bunch.
I look at the starting pitcher's log for the year. Sometimes his ERA will be skewed because of a start in Colorodo. If he's coming off a 130 pitch game with four days rest I won't use him. If he hasn't pitched in more than than a week he may be injured, and so forth.
Well as I said before, I really don't use ERAs, I look at quality start ratios more. ERA can be such a misleading thing since they are getting so high these days. A pitcher with a 5 ERA might be more reliable than someone with a 3.80 as the guy who pitches at 3.80 might one run games half the time and 7 run games on other occasions. Thats a bit extreme, but the ERA is how everyone gauges the pitching matchups and if you use the same stats as everyone else you can get into value troubles. What I just want is a pitcher to give a good effort that keeps his team in the game and since I generally am backing an equal or better offense, figure that is just enough to win it.
As for values, I never go crazy. The best game on the board gets the same bet on any given day as the game that barely makes my cut. When I start seeing a game having a lot of value, I actually start to worry. I start thinking I am misjudging something or missing some factors. I feel best when I see a game that has between 15-20 cents of value against the line. Then again that is just my feel on the game, after all I am not really putting up an exact number on it.
In other sports I do tend to make a mental line on the games and then compare them to find bets. Then again lined games, basketball and football, are not my best sports. I prefer odds sports and prefer to see a price first. I like to see what I am being offered and then take shots at it. I guess you can say in odds situations I am more of a reactor than an aggressive player. Whatever is the case, it works for me and I do find quite a few plays I like. Today I had 5 plays and thats actually a little low for me for a full board.
A pitcher with a 5.80 ERA is better than a pitcher with a 3.80 ERA? There must be very special circumstances for this to be true, like the 5.80 guy pitches for the Rockies and the 3.80 guy pitches for the Dodgers, or it's early in the season. I don't get caught up with k/w rations, WHIPs, or other stuff like that. While it's certainly true that a .280 hitter can be an overall more productive run producer than a .320 hitter, the same does not applies with pitching. ERA is everything in pitching, in my opinion.
I also generally bet the same amount on every baseball game no matter my opinion. If I'm attending the game in person I'll bet more on the game, but that's the exception.
In football and basketball I look at the line first and try to read into it. Which side will the public like? Which side are the oddsmakers trying to trap me into taking? I don't ask myself these questions in baseball.
For Thurday I like Minnesota, Pittsburgh, and the White Sox are borderline.
IMHO / ERA is one of the most useless and overrated stats in all of sports.
Only betting more on a game that you are going to watch in person, is not the best way to build a bankroll.
Just my two cents.
Off to play poker
Howard
I attend a handful of games in person each year. They're not cheap. Betting extra money on those games is an additional splurge that won't kill me.
But how is ERA useless and overrated? What other stat can better measure a pitcher's effectiveness?
Well no baseball games to attend her in Vegas so maybe thats the secret to why we do better here?
As for my comment, I said 5 ERA, not 5.80. Its very occasionally better because of the consistency issue. If a team wins by 1 or 21, it makes no difference, you have a winning bet. If the guy gets to 3.80 by pitching alternately great games and poor games, he is of as much value to you as a guy who pitches consistently around 5 ERA. On the days the inconsistent pitcher throws a good game, you will win with him as long as the bullpen holds up. If its one of his day days you probably lose with him. In the end that makes him about on par with the consistent guy with the higher ERA, but because of that lower ERA he will be facing a more daunting price. That is why I think quality starts is much more important a concept. I want to know what is the likelihood that my pitcher gives me a good effort and what is the likelihood that the opposing pitcher gives a good effort. Taking an example from today, I bet the Angels. Washburn has been pitching very well and today was no exception. I took the team with the much better record and better offense against a highly inconsistent pitcher. Well unfortunately the inconsistent pitcher beat me with a great game. You certainly don't expect or see many games like that from Trachsel, but he has shown some flashes of brilliance at a few points this year, namely the game he outdueled Pedro 1-0. Thats the luck factor, but I would say 3 out of 4 games I will get a better effort from Washburn and in those cases, I should win most of those games.
Useless may be a bit strong, I stand by overrated ,however. Do you know how many times I have heard "ERA is everything in pitching" ,while standing in a sports book? Too many!
Poker amateur's post from Friday 2 June 2000 at 6:36 PM,"ERA"s" touches on some of the problems with an ERA.
I think that one of the most important things to look at, as the season goes on, is CURRENT FORM. Current form of both the team and the pitching staff.For starting pitchers,Some people define current form as their last 3,4,5,6,or 7 starts.I like to use the last 4 starts for the starter's current form,and the last 10 to 12 games for the team's current form.
A few other things I like to look at are/
1)Team's won/loss record with today's starter,not his W/L record. He may be 8-4 but the team may be 8-9 when he starts.
2)Quality starts.
3)How many innings does he go, on each start.
There are some starters, with less then attractive ERA's, who pitch deep into many games and give more then their share of quality starts.Many times at a good price for the savvy better.
Let's say it's late July and two middle of the pack teams are playing one another. The home team has Joe Ace (12-6,4.20) going, and the road team counters with Jay Walkum (7-10,5.36). Joe Ace makes the Sportscenter Highlights a lot with his nasty strikeouts.Jay Walkum is barely known in his own backyard.Walkum's last four starts, he's gone 8,7 1/3,9 and 8 innings.He's won three in a row, while looking real sharp. Joe Ace on the other hand, has been struggling of late.
Most of the time Joe Ace is going to be big chalk in this or similar situations. Other factors, then ERA, can lead you to some good value.
Also, some pitchers will pitch very good early in the season then fade and vise versa,For almost their entire career.
I should have put in the above post, that if ERA's are working for you, then by all means use them.I just think they are overrated by most people.
ERA is the most useless stat out there. Would you rather be 20-8 with a 4.55 ERA or 11-18 with a 2.35 ERA? Obviously 20-8, and the first thing you will say is the guy who is 20-8 gets a lot of run support and the guy who is 11-18 doesn't. Correct, to a point. Good Pitchers know how to "pitch to the game". The best example of this is Charles Nagy. How many times have you looked at Nagy's stats and seen something close to the first pitcher than the second? Happens most every year. Why? Because he is a better pitcher than most people give him credit for. His job is to win, no more, no less, doesn't matter how he gets the job done, just so he does. Who cares if he wins 9-7, he got the job done. But look back at the games he doesn't get run support, he doesn't lose all of those. When they don't score, he doesn't give up much. He pitches to the game. If he is up 7-0, he will rarely walk anyone, and will give up his share of hits because of that, in baseball talk, he is "making them earn their way on", so he will give up a few extra runs that way, which may wind up making it a "non-quality start" in baseball terms. Non-quality starts can be deceiving as well because of this. Look for non-quality starts like this and throw them out, they don't mean anything, he was doing his job.
I define quality starts on a case by case basis. One thing is if a pitcher is given a big lead, I generally give him credit for a quality start if its close, but not quite the exact numbers of 6 innings or more, 3 runs or less. Also I take quality starts away if a pitcher gives up 5 or 6 runs, 3 of them unearned. I never agreed with how a pitcher can be considered "off the hook" for earned runs just because of an error. The whole idea of reconstructing things had the error been an out seems lenient. The one I really don't understand is if the pitcher makes the error and then gives up 5 runs, they are still termed unearned. Hows that for a fallacy? I look at the situation of the game, who they are playing (especially at Coors Field), what the result of the team is, and the actual stats the pitcher had. I recently ran into this game line: 8IP,4ER,6H,2BB,10K...and the team won 10-4, if I don't give him a quality start for that effort I am just fooling myself and my numbers will be flawed in the long run. However since he had over 3 ER, thats not a quality start by the official definition. Another I saw was this: 5 2/3IP,1ER,4H,1BB,4K. The reliever came in and got the last out and going into the 7th inning the pitcher's team had a 3-1 lead. Once again, even though the innings aren't quite where you would want them, you would be happy to get that effort from almost any starter you would bet on except for an big ace like Pedro or Brown. And as long as Baltimore's pen isn't what you are replacing him with you should be in good shape.
If some pitcher's game line at Coors Field is 8IP 4ER 6H 2BB 10K then he most likely is an all-star. Those are terrific numbers at Colorodo!
As an aside, I throw out all Colorodo Rockies games from my formula.
"Good Pitchers know how to "pitch to the game""
That's just another tired bromide that doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Check out this link:
http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/spira/pitchtoscore.htm
It's not the only study to debunk this old wives' tale, but it should do the trick.
Now, I'm not willing to fully endorse the ERA as a measure of a pitcher's prowess, but it aint a bad place to start.
Great article! Thanks for the link.
While this may not impact how one bets a single game, I still don't think you can underestimate the value to a team of pitchers who can eat a lot of innings and still get wins. Obviously, the Cleveland Indians score a lot of runs for Charles Nagy. But because he is in pretty good shape physically, and an overall good athlete, he has been able to stick around long enough to ring up a lot of wins. Jack McDowell with the Sox benefitted from a pwoerful offense enough to win a Cy Young award. But he lacked the physical stamina or fortune to avoid serious injury, and his career was relatively short.
On the other side of the argument, what about teams that score a lot, but never have consistent winners? In the last five years, the Texas Rangers have outscored the Indians twice, and have been consistently in the top thre in runs scored the other years, but they don't have anyone close to the same number of wins that Nagy has in that span (although Rick Helling is currently working hard to claim that honor).
And what about pitchers who have great ERAs but can't win? A couple of examples spring to mind, Sid Fernandez with the Mets and Nolan Ryan's last year or two with the Rangers. Neither of these guys could get past the fifth inning; Fernandez was out of shape, and Ryan, while an amazing spectacle at his age, was indeed too old. You keep coming out of close games in the fifth and sixth inning, and unless you are on a team with a deep pen, you ain't gonna win many.
I guess I'm siding with Wild Bill's point about quality starts. I don't buy the "he knows how to win" BS, but I want to know my guy is going to be in there in the seventh and eigth inning, not someone who was in Iowa last week and could be heading back there after the weekend.
I don't see how any of your arguments contradict mine. The point of my post and the link I gave with it, is that over the long run all pitchers get the record they deserve, given their ERA, offensive support, park effects, defensive support, etc.
That doesn't mean that there aren't other insightful ways than ERA to measure a pitcher's value, especially over the short term. But W-L record generally IS NOT one of them. If you spend *any* time at all reading the work of mainstream sabrmetricians, you will learn just how misleading short-term W-L records are.
I don't think so. I faced most of these guys. You can tell when they don't have their best stuff, but they still get the job done. How? They pitch to that game. You watch mediocre pitchers(there is plenty of them out there, watch most any game), when they lose it, good bye. Watch the good pitchers, when they lose it, they somehow know how to get through it holding the lead. It doesn't matter what that lead is, they seem to keep it. How? No stat will tell you this, pitchers either have it or they don't, and most of them don't. Watch when someone makes an error behind a pitcher. Do they give up 3 hits in a row, or walk a couple batter, or a combination of both. If it happens on a regular basis to certain pitchers, just put a big big P for pussy next to them and bet against them more often than with them. You tell me how pitchers that have comparable stuff seem to act different in different situations? You can't. Why do some pitchers just seem to win regardless of the score? As an ex-player I can tell you the players reasoning for it. When you have your #5 going, you come to the ball park knowing you have to play well behind him and score him some runs. When your #1 is going(if he really is a #1), two thoughts come up. You either relax(too much) and you wind up not scoring him any runs. Ron Santo made a comment about how they never scored any runs for Fergie Jenkins because they were just too relaxed when he pitched. The other thought teams get is the feeling of "if we score a few runs, this will be a cakewalk", and they come out aggressive. Other pitchers are in-between, depending on their make-up. Solid pitchers usually keep the game close, they give your team a chance to win. It doesn't mean they always win, and it doesn't mean you can see it in the numbers, but then again, ERA is a number and it doesn't mean much. That's pitching to the make-up of the game. Thumbers don't nibble the plate as much as normal, power pitchers don't get as "cute" with the hitters.
The report proves my point, and I will describe what I mean using Jack McDowell as my example.
"4/6/93 - Chicago scores 3 in the top of the 1st. McDowell blows the lead by allowing 4 runs in the 1st and 3rd innings. Chicago scores 6 in 4th. McDowell pitches 6 innings, gets the win. "
Ok, he allowed 8 runs in the first three inning, then he settled down after regaining the lead and gave them 3 more tough innings. Not many pitchers can get to the 6th inning after giving up 8 runs in 3.
"4-11 - McDowell allows 1 run in the top of the first. Chicago scores 1 in the bottom of the first. McDowell allows 2 runs in the 5th.Chicago scores 4 in the 6th. McDowell allows 1 in 7th, is taken out, and gets the win."
He kept them in the game, got the lead in the 6th, got to the 7th(which is where more pitchers stop now anyways). Not much to look at in this game.
"4-16 - Chicago scores one in top of the 2nd. McDowell allows 2 in bottom of the 2nd. The Sox score one in the top of the 3rd, tying it. McDowell allows 2 in the bottom of the 3rd. Chicago scores 7 rest of game. McDowell pitches 7 innings, gets the win."
This is starting to look like a trend. He struggles early then settles down and gives his team a chance to win.
"4-22 - McDowell allows 1 run in the 2nd inning, 1 more in 6th. Chicago scores 3 in 8th and 9th innings to give McDowell the victory. "
Pitched well, gave up an early run again, but keeps his team close enough to win the game.
"4-27 - McDowell allows 3 runs in the 2nd. Chicago scores 9 in next 5 innings. McDowell allows 1 more run in the 8th, but wins. "
Gave up early runs again(usually a sign of a pitcher who doesn't know how to loosen up, Glavine used to have that problem), then settle down again, keeps them in the game, they get a big inning, then he cruises.
"5-2 - McDowell allows 3 runs the first two innings. Chicago scores 1 in the 6th. McDowell allows 3 more runs in the 7th, gets the loss."
Allows early runs again, settles down and keeps them in the game for 7 innings. Loses it in this game.
"5-8 - Chicago scores 5 runs in the 1st. McDowell gives up 6 runs in the 2nd and 3rd. The White Sox score 5 more in the 4th and 5th innings. McDowell allows one more in the 6th, finishes and gets the win. "
Early runs AGAIN. But AGAIN he settles down, keeps them close, they take the lead and he finishes. AGAIN, how many pitchers can give up that many early runs and still FINISH the game.
"5-14 - McDowell pitches 9 innings, shuts out the Rangers, and wins. Chicago scores 3 in the first two innings and another in the 8th. "
First game he didn't give up early runs, and throws a shutout.
"5-19 - Chicago gets shut out. McDowell allows 2 in the 8th and loses. "
Kept his team in the game the entire way.
Runs breakdown Mcdowell gave up 26 of the 36 runs listed above in the 1st-3rd innings. You have nothing to pitch to early in the game. Like I said above, pitchers you have problems early in the game on a regular basis usually don't warm up properly(they think they are ready to go when they aren't). Tom Glavine had that problem, just as recent as last year that seemed to change, and why. He said it is because when he feels he is ready to go, he throws 10 more warm-ups in the bullpen, then his 7 on the mound to start the game. You can't look at average runs per game and average run support to see what his record "should" be. If you don't have it and it gets to be one of those 18-9 games where the pitcher left down 10-0, that skews the averages right there, or if your team scores you 18 runs in one game and then comes back and scores 3 runs in the next 5 games, nice average. I think I proved above how Jack McDowell pretty much pitched to the game almost every start out. Blowing a lead in the first 5 innings doesn't prove anything because it is too early to change anything. Too much time left for your opponents to do something.
I am still trying to figure out everyone's point? Seriously now, if your opposing pitchers are bad enough to lose to someone giving up 8 runs, you probably shouldn't be on that side either! I remember McDowell going in 93-94 and he wasn't facing that huge a price most games out. He never was considered like a Kevin Brown or even worse, a Big Unit or Pedro. Rarely did he face -200 prices except when the Sox were playing the patsies of the league. Lets not forget the Sox were perenially one of the best teams in the league so McDowell should have been favored in any game he pitched in. Back then it was Maddux and Clemens that always faced the big prices. I guess if you wanted to compare him in price to a current pitcher, think of someone like El Duque, pitching on one of the top teams and winning many games, and yes facing some big prices, but more because of the team he is on and the fact that he is the staff ace, not so much because he is a feared pitcher that is unhittable most games out.
I'm not saying you should take those type of pitchers every game, obviously you shouldn't do that with anyone, just that there are some pitchers who know how to pitch to the make-up of the game. I'm not talking about dominate pitchers(Maddux, Martinez, Johnson, etc), they will continue to throw their own game because they are all dominate in their own way, this is mainly for the level below them and beyond, it helps them and their teams if they can do this. That report from the link above was a nice report, but you can't use average runs per game to see what a pitchers record "should" be, and you can't use dominate pitchers because it doesn't apply to them. Not much value(if any) in them anyways. Just look at the scores in the games for McDowell. I don't remember exactly, but there didn't seem to be any blowouts. Either both teams scoring lots of runs or both scoring few runs, when he was on, he had to be, when he struggled early, he was given a chance to regroup, and did regroup over and over. That's what you want to see out of a pitcher. Not every 3-2 game is the same, so averages to "try to prove" there is no such thing as a pitcher "who knows how to win" is wrong. If you give up 2 runs in the 1st inning, don't have your best stuff but keep your team close enough to score 3 runs in the 7th to win it, you did your job, you showed you can adjust to not having your best stuff and pitch to the make-up of the game. On the other hand, if your team scores 3 runs in the first, you are cruising along and then in the 7th inning you walk a couple guys because you are "nibbling" too much, or continue to get behind in the count, then you are not pitching to the make-up of the game. The only exceptions to the above is if the pitcher is tiring, but you can usually tell that from how many innings they usually go, or the dreaded pitch count on #4 or 5 starters or emergency starters out of the bull-pen who aren't used to going deep into games. A good example of fatigue on a pitcher was Gil Heredia last year. Gil pitched many nice games for Oakland. He would breeze through 6 innings, but the 7th inning would come and he would lose it most of the time? That shows fatigue, not someone who doesn't know how to pitch.
However, I do not believe you can say there are pitchers who "know how to lose", unless you want to group every other pitcher who don't know how to win in there but that isn't fair.
I want pitchers who will give my team a chance to win, and there are some out there(besides the high priced studs who don't count, guys like Maddux, Johnson, Martinez, etc, will just keep throwing their games because they are dominate in their own way, this is mainly for the level just below them and below), that I have cleaned up on every year for the 6 years. I'm not saying that's all I look for, or they are the only pitchers I take, or that it is the only way to win, but understanding that there are pitchers like this and many pitchers not like this, can give you proftable plays throughout the year. Why do all these pitchers with great arms or great stuff get lit up(besides the fact that most are pussies and won't throw inside even if they knew what they were doing)? Because they don't know how to pitch, and if/when they learn to pitch, they become good, experience helps, experience in learning what to do, and they need that once the league gets the book on them. I remember a game in AAA my last year, we were down 7-0 in the 7th inning, the guy on the mound wasn't overpowering, around 90-91 mph, but had great stuff. We had 7-8-9 coming up, who probably combined for 7 hr's all year, but even that doesn't matter in this case. The pitcher kept nibbling at the plate, walked the first 2 guys. Why? Most guys in that situation, especially the 2nd hitter, would be taking a strike, just throw a cock shot. Even if he isn't, nothing he can do will hurt you, 7-1, 7-2, who cares. He then got behind the #9 hitter nibbling, then got up a missile when he had to come down broadway with a fastball. The #1 and #2 hitters, knowing he wasn't hitting his spots(and was still trying), went up looking dead red and hit back to back doubles. By the time he comes out, it is 7-4 with the bases-loaded and no one out. We get 6 more, he gets a ND in a game he was breezing because he didn't change, instead of basically getting ahead of every hitter by throwing any of his 3 good pitches down the cock or making the hitters beat him like he should, he kept nibbling and lost. Well, since then he learned how to pitch, and now pitches to the situation, and is an all-star. He is Brad Radke.
I’ve made some notes on this excellent conversation about baseball. First, I agree that era is a flawed statistic, and feel that—if you’re going in that direction—runs allowed is superior. A faulty defense is part of the pitcher’s package, so analysis should incorporate that into the mix. Further, how many times do we see, for example, a two out error allowing a runner to first, then the next guy doubles him home, and the next guy homers. Is it accurate to discount these runs?
Quality starts are also flawed to my thinking, because the criterion is so arbitrary and because it is a binomial evaluation in a gradient universe. Either Denny Neagle had a quality start or he didn’t. Doesn’t work for me. I prefer to simply keep track of innings pitched per start. My logic here is that the manager makes a subjective decision each inning (usually) about whether his pitcher is still effective. Although runs allow, walks, and other occurances are indicators, these actions are evaluated by the manager contextually as he decides if his pitcher can still get outs. Therefore, to me, a pitcher who can stay in the game 6 2/3 innings is more effective than a pitcher who stays in the game 6 innings, regardless of runs allowed, etc. This approach is self-correcting because it automatically (hopefully) adjusts for park-factors, bad luck, etc.
I did a personal study a while back covering the issue of streaks. My study included two baseball seasons and I found no statistical indication that a team which won 6 games in a row (as one example) would be more likely to win its 7th. I’m not a statistician, and I don’t have the results here to publish, but I did the work and it satisfied my needs at the time, for what its worth.
Finally, not mentioned are two favorite plays of mine: weather and extra innings. A lot of research has been done regarding atmospheric conditions and the flight of the ball. I know that air pressure is regarded as a major indicator. Extra innings are fun to track- how teams respond to exhausting trials, stunning defeats and dramatic victories the next day is fascinating. I recall several years ago the Dodgers played a Saturday night 16(?) inning game in St. Louis. Knowing their hotel is literally across the street from Busch, while the Cardinals needed to commute home and back again for the Sunday day game, made the Dodgers a good bet based on quantity of sleep. In this particular case it worked. Your results may vary.
Unearned runs aren't always unearned. Some pitchers fall apart when the defense falls apart behind them.
You are right that there is no relation to a team on a hot/cold streak continuing their hot/cold streak, but my point was, if you had to pick one or the other, you are better off taking the team on the hot streak. The reason is this, have you ever wandered through a casino and seen a roulette board showing 12 blacks in a row and someone goes up and bets a lot on red because "it is due to hit"? Black hits again and he tries again, and black hits again. the next thing he knows, red finally hits after 15 blacks in a row and he is down a hefty sum. The same thing works in sports. If you jump on a team because of a cold streak, if that cold streak continues, you might be inclined to continue with it feeling it will end sooner or later. Jump on a 6 game losing streak, and finally win after it became a 12 game losing streak isn't much fun. On the other hand, if you jumped on the 6 gasme winning streak, the worst you can do is 1 loss, because once the streak is over, you won't bother with it anymore, but if you are a streak player and their 6 game winning streak continues to 12 before a loss, you will make some money off of it.
In soccer tourneys, the best time to bet is the final group game. The key is that different teams have different objectives, and will perform much better or much worse than they would ordinarily. In 1994, Brazil, Argentina, and Belgium were all undefeated after two games and guaranteed qualification for the knockout phase. They went a combined 0-2-1, with Argentina losing to *Bulgaria*, Belgium losing to *Saudi Arabia*, and eventual champion Brazil tying a fairly weak Sweden team. It's more important to rest your best players for real games than to get a marginally better "seed." When a mediocre team plays a 2-0 team that's assured of a playoff spot, this factor is often key.
This is true. Keep an eye on the latest news to see who is going to rest players (try www.euro2000.org for starters).
Although this is common I believe it is a big mistake to make too many changes for this kind of game. For example Croatia in 1996 played fantastically well in their second game v Denmark. Having qualified, they made 6 changes for the third game, which they lost, and brought the 6 players back again for the quarter final which, having lost all momentum and continuity, they lost as well.
Possibly the most annoying thing about this practice from a betting point of view is it can interfere with your carefully laid plans regarding group winners. We shall see.
Andy.
I was out at the Boardwalk today (Mirage odds) and saw the sheet for next years NHL. As expected all the teams I expected at the top are there. The Wings are 9-2 and the rest of the favorites are 6-1. Then I looked down and was shocked to see "Capitals 17-1". I can't believe the team that almost went into the playoffs number 1 in the East is getting such a price. If they give the best goalie in the game some offensive support I think they win the East next year. My other value bet, the Sharks, are 30-1, a very good price despite my feeling that they probably are one more year away from having a good chance at winning the West. I figure that these won't move much for a month or so and then I will put in my bets. At 17-1, if the Caps win the regular season in the East you can hedge out of it and be far ahead of the game.
Did you happen to notice what the Colorado Av's were listed at?
All the favorites I mentioned earlier (Avs, Wings, Blues, Devils, Stars) are 6-1 except the Wings who are 9-2. I also saw the sheet for all the Mandalay books and for them its 5-1 for all the favorites including the Wings. I find it quite interesting to think about this whole proposition. If you liked a team from the West, why would you settle for 5 or 6-1 when you realize your team has to beat all the others from the same conference just to get to the finals? After the Devils it goes down to the Flyers at a little higher than 8-1 (17-2) and the Leafs at 11-1. I personally think the Blues are easily the best team of the group, but still think that as long as the balance of power is in the West, the odds on the Western teams should be higher.
TWIMC,
I can't seem to find them anywhere. I mean how many games say the Patriots are going to win this year say 8 and there lines. I'm probably not looking the right place but it is mid-june and I would like to get started on them. If anyone has a site that they know of where you can bet them and look at them I would be grateful to you to post them here or if they don't transfer well just the site would be fine.
thank you
paul
If you're talking o/u on total wins for a season. according to Imperial Palace they will be out mid Aug.
Offshore should have them by the end of July. I think its something that they use to spur on interest in the game and since they don't even have preseason camps yet, there is no point in it. Also most pro bettors that attack the season wins tend to wait until the last week as football is such an injury prone sport and the totals can be affected by a QB injury.
IP has them up now. The numbers below are the over/under on number of games to win, the price to go over, and the price to go under. I am repulsed by the 30 cent lines.
WASHINGTON REDSKINS 12 +135 -170
JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 11.5 -130 Even
ST LOUIS RAMS 11 -115 -115
INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 11 +115 -145
TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 10.5 -120 -110
TENNESSEE TITANS 10 -150 +120
DENVER BRONCOS 9.5 -135 +105
BUFFALO BILLS 9 +110 -140
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9 Even -130
OAKLAND RAIDERS 9 -115 -115
GREEN BAY PACKERS 8.5 -160 +130
DALLAS COWBOYS 8.5 +110 -140
MIAMI DOLPHINS 8.5 Even -130
BALTIMORE RAVENS 8.5 -115 -115
NEW YORK JETS 8 +125 -155
NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8 -115 -115
KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 8 -130 Even
NEW YORK GIANTS 8 +140 -180
CAROLINA PANTHERS 8 -130 Even
CHICAGO BEARS 8 +140 -180
ATLANTA FALCONS 7.5 -130 Even
MINNESOTA VIKINGS 7 -140 +170
DETROIT LIONS 7 -130 Even
ARIZONA CARDINALS 7 -130 Even
PITTSBURGH STEELERS 6.5 -130 Even
SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 6.5 Even -130
PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 6 -145 +115
NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 6 -130 Even
CINCINNATI BENGALS 5.5 -150+ 120
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS 5 -130 Even
CLEVELAND BROWNS 4.5 -150 +120
n
The Imperial Palace put them up June 11.
I'd post them here, but I work at this particular sportsbook, and the NGCB frowns upon us posting odds (you'll note that odds are no longer available at the IP's website).
Don't call the IP and ask for us to send them to you. You'll just have to stop by. Hope this helps.
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
Screw the damn state and all their laws, I will go over there in the next day or two and then post them for everyone.
Tjeckien vs Frankrike = 1 very good bet i think
Unibet.com given the Tjeckien odds 3,6
PLAY it you win
In case anyone is confused, Johan means the Czech Republic v France. That's not bad odds but I think the French are particularly strong, and I would need a bit more to back the Czechs despite their impressive (albeit losing) performance against Holland.
Johan, I don't like your Holland at 1.40 I'm afraid. There is sufficient uncertainty in a football match that I would be loath to back _anybody_ at such short odds and Holland were mightily unimpressive in their first game.
Andy.
Today's odds at the Orleans are:
France -.5 Even Czech Rep +.5 -120
Holland -.5 -160 Denmark +.5 +140
I bet Holland already. I have a friend that is from Denmark and says the boys are just about done as they have shown to be clearly overmatched and playing the home crowd that is upset with the Dutch performance so far smells like a 3-0 loss or even worse.
But probably the best bet is
Holland vs. Danmark = 1
Bet all your money you have ,
Unibet given it 1,40 odds
PLAY ITTTTT !!!
IND PICK'EM
Well the line is -1.5 in some places now, but good enough. I think the Pacers are going to win this game easily. The Lakers can talk about how they want to finish it off all they want, but I am seriously doubting their killer instinct, especially on the road. Kobe is going to struggle if his jump shots aren't falling because he isn't able to drive and penetrate as well as he was before the injury. If the shots from outside don't fall he may try to do too much and force things. Further I think Indiana found some things that worked last game out. Smits made an appearance and Reggie picked it up in the 4th quarter for a change. All in all I like the Pacers in a "no pressure" situation as almost everyone has pretty much declared the series over at 3-1. I don't know how much intensity they can take to LA with them, but in their final home game of the season I see a real quality effort and who knows, maybe they can plant the first seed of doubt in the Lakers' mind. Winning three in a row is impossible, but this one is very probable and I wouldn't be surprised to see an effort from the Lakers much like the two they had against Portland and Phoenix in their first elimination games of those series, where they flat out got smoked and were trailing by 20 entering the 4th quarter in each one. Besides I will pick up a really juicy payoff if the Lakers win it in 6 as I got +220 on that outcome.
While I think betting boxing is like betting the WWF, I think there's some value in betting De La Hoya at -220 Saturday night.
I just can't see him losing 2 in a row, and Mosely may be good, but I don't think he'll stay with Oscar.
A quick question from a greedy comp gatherer. It is sometimes advantagous to raise your bets while trying to get comps (boss standing next to your table). I was wondering if/what the advantage is of using a hi/lo count for betting decisions while playing basic strategy is. does this add to or detract from your small BS disadvantage that you face?
You might add .001 if you play shoes. Doing this in hand held is as likely to get you thrown out as anything, depending on how you pull it off.
Thats false, I think he is intending to raise his bets only for comps and then add playing decisions with his counting. I know its next to impossible to get barred for using a count to make decisions in playing only. Bosses are looking for bets that are being made with a count. To a boss, a player making playing decisions in a single deck game according to the count looks like a real hunch player. This is especially true because your decisions on 15/16 against a 7-A will look very random. You will appear to be playing at whim and of course that is something the boss wants to see. In a shoe game you will play a lot closer to basic strategy as you will not get too many counts into solid positive territory. Of course when you do you will tend to stay in that situation longer so your plays will look a lot more calculated. It does matter if you are just playing basic strategy because I do know that bosses can sometimes shade your rating a bit lower if you just follow it. Comp math says if you play by basic strategy you should come out ahead of the game as the bosses will rate you anywhere from 1-2% loser on blackjack as standard. If he sees you are playing by the book you can be sure its going to be 1% or less. Even then, if the house gives you 40% of 1% you are getting .4% and playing in a single deck game with downtown LV rules you are about -.2% so you can slightly come out ahead. If you can get a boss to give you a 2% loser rating or even higher you are going to come out over .5% to the positive in comps so it would do you a great deal of good to follow this concept if for anything else, just to give the boss a sense of randomness in your bet pattern.
On another note, the idea of jacking up bets for a boss is not a very good one unless you are doing it in small amounts. The bosses will see through it at some point and you surely don't want a boss to think you are up to anything at all. Sure maybe adding a chip or two is fine, but I have seen some guys try this: $5-10 when the boss is gone, $75 when he is around. Now come on, you don't think a boss will catch onto this one real fast?
Here is what a friend told me he does, he has been barred from one casino once in his life, and he has been putting in an average of 20-25 hours a week for many years. He basically sticks only to single deck games with very occasional double deck play. He plays a fairly advanced count, very useful when you play mostly single decks, and what he does is this: he counts and bets for the count during 1 out of 2 or 3 shoes, then the others he flat bets for random amounts and since he is still counting, his play strategy makes him a little ahead of break even. He says if you utilize even a more basic count, you should be ahead maybe .2% or a little more. A highly advanced count designed for playing decisions makes you around .4-.5% as long as the penetration is good or great. Always take 3rd base at any table you play for obvious strategy reasons and ham it up telling the bosses its your lucky seat.
All in all, I think you would do very well following this strategy. Remember in hand held games you get a lot of your advantage with playing strategy. In shoe games you get your advantage with betting strategy. For the person I know that did this, he didn't have the same value as most people do since he lives in town comps are of minimal use to him. Occasionally he gets a food ticket, but thats it.
Your comments are all well taken. I was really commenting on the more specific case of black action in a single deck game, where if one is monitored by some of the modern software then what seem like innocent BS deviations take on a more sinister meaning for the pit. Particularly insurance decisions. Comp hounds need to put in the hours, which makes this a potential problem (in hand held games).
"I was wondering if/what the advantage is of using a hi/lo count for betting decisions while playing basic strategy. Does this add to or detract from your small BS disadvantage that you face?"
Yes, following Basic Strategy, and using the count for betting decisions only, decreases the casino advantage. With a big enough spread, the player may even get the edge!
The questions are: Can you get away with a 1-20 unit spread? (=You will be playing then with approximately a 0.7% edge.) Can you manage to stop playing when the HiLo TC is -2 or lower? (=You will have a higher edge then.) Can you arrange for the boss to time his inspections of your table when the HiLo true count is equal to or higher than +3? (=That would give him an average bet higher than the actual one, for your comp sheet. Of course, this is meant as a joke! The boss, in all probability, will make his rounds randomly and will spot you for a counter, instead.)
--Naturally, there are ways of playing with an edge and getting comped by the house. Of course, there are.
well 1-20 spread on a 8 deck game with bad penetration will give him a .7% edge. Lets face it, shoe games are terrible for anyone trying to make serious money from counting. If he wants comps and to increase his return he is going to have to hang out at the single deck games where you can get significant edges from using the count to alter playing strategy. Also as I pointed out it provides great camoflague making the boss think you are not playing basic strategy. The bosses don't mind basic strategy because its still a minor gain for the house, but many aren't too fond of giving out comps to someone using it. Besides basic strategy foils another goal of the house. They want you to play as recklessly as possible. At some point they figure you make some undiscipline mistakes or bets and they win even more from you. The guy who sits down and flat bets and plays by basic strategy is too many steps removed from this type of behavior.
"Lets face it, shoe games are terrible for anyone trying to make serious money from counting."
Well, he seems primarily interested in comps. And then, to try to get some edge, in the bargain.
"If he wants comps and to increase his return he is going to have to hang out at the single deck games where you can get significant edges from using the count to alter playing strategy."
I respectfully disagree. Unless you're on the level of players like Andersen, getting comped AND playing a winning single-deck game is way too tough. Shoes are easier: For playing a winning game and getting the comps. Shoes happen to be Don Schlesinger absolute preference too, for what it's worth (a lot, I believe).
"The bosses don't mind basic strategy because its still a minor gain for the house, but many aren't too fond of giving out comps to someone using it. They want you to play as recklessly as possible."
I agree, more or less. Perfect Basic Strategy raises flags. Here're some BS plays that are not looked upon kindly by the pit, as you know, no matter what the count:
Hitting soft 18 against a Ten. Hitting 12 against a 3. Hitting 16 against a 7. Doubling Down with soft 18 against a stiff.
Well you need to just go downtown LV where single decks are common and the comps aren't worth as much. The Horseshoe has nothing but single decks and the comps are a little easier there than most places, but not like they used to be. It used to be you could play 10-15 average bet for 3 or 4 hours and get a comp to their excellent steakhouse. Now that play might get you a comp for the coffee shop. Of course on the Strip that won't get you diddly at most places. I think shoe comps are easier only because the games are more widely spread. At a Strip casino, almost every game is shoe except for the token hand held games, usually double deck. The bosses look on with suspicion at anyone who insists on playing the hand held games since the average gambler would just say blackjack is blackjack, shoe or not. If you go to downtown or to Northern Nevada where single decks are more the norm, you shouldn't have as much trouble.
Actually, my main purpose in playing BJ is to get the comps (and pass time with my wife while not at the poker table). To this end, I've found that playing a double deck game affords me a lot more down time (no money in action) given that the shuffles are more frequent. also, I can take more "bathroom breaks" and get more dead time in during the shuffles. I also kept an eye on the boss and timed my betting increases to times he/she was nearby. I got around the suspicious strategy decisions by asking for lots of advice from the dealer and boss and then going counter to their recommendations when necessary with an "I want to gamble" excuse. It all seemed to work, as I played was rated for four hours of play and actually got about two and a half in. My average bet was a little more than $25, but I was put down as $75 (good rapport with the bosses I talked to helped) and I saw that I was noted as a bad strategy player (sitting at third base gives you a good view of the player rating charts). Hopefully I can find this type of spot again in the future. ACting friendly to pit bosses is not easy.
Why is acting friendly to pit bosses not easy ?
Not to offend anyone, and I wouldn't want to make it seem like all pit bosses are this way, but it often seems like pit bosses are only nice to me because they have to be. They couldn't give a damn where I'm from, what I do or what show/golf course/restaurants I like. Maybe its a funtion of the time that I like to play (graveyard) the places I play (Downtown Vegas seems to be more genuine than the strip), or maybe it's my own paranoia. I just have a hard time being truly nice to someone who's only acting nice to me.
$$$
I don't use this method anymore, but back when I first started out one summer during college, I came up with this and have made a few modifications over the years. I have given this out to many people and almost all of them have had good things to say about it. The ones that didn't...well I think they can't pick winners or show discipline anyways and no bankroll method can overcome that.
First of all, keep in mind this is merely for small change players. If you bet $50 or less a game its a great way to get a shot at building your roll. Once you start getting some significant dollars, you will want to go to something more conservative and conventional. Its best served by the way I bet sports, picking many games and flat betting them all. On average I have 6 or 7 plays on sides alone during baseball. If I have more time I will come up with 2 or 3 totals as well. It won't do much if you are the type that picks one or two solid plays a day.
Here it is: First set aside 30 units. Make your units small enough if you have to, but make sure you have at least 30. When you bet your games, bet everything for one unit, no matter the sport or the odds. In baseball when I bet a favorite I bet it the same AMOUNT as a dog. That means a -130 favorite still gets a one unit bet (ie, $100 to win $76.90) Never bet more than a unit. (I do go ahead and bet a little more on pointspread plays (11-10) for ease. Go ahead and bet $110 if your units are $100) I do this mainly in baseball because it reinforces your efforts to look for dogs mostly. I play some small favorites, but if they lose they don't hurt my bankroll. Now before you start you have to give yourself an honest estimate of what your theoretical gain should be. I use 8% in bases and hockey and 5% on everything else. Thats not much, but being honest is very important. What you do now is calculate on a daily basis, your net W/L and also your theoretical "gain". This means say I bet 5 games of baseball for $100 each. I should have "earned" $8 with each bet so I should be up $40. Now you keep the expected earn in one calculation.
Next you take your daily results. If you lost for the day, then tommorrow you go at it with the regular original unit bet. If you won today, you note the amount of your winnings. Then you look at your overall results since you began betting. If you are doing better than your "expected" then you keep betting at your original unit. If you are doing worse than "expected" you will take your winnings from today and add them onto the next days bets. If you won $80 today, take that $80 and divide it up by the amount of bets you have tommorrow and add that to your bet. Sometimes this can be very small, say adding $10 onto your bets or very large should you have few bets the next day. Whatever it is, add it on as long as you don't more than double your previous days wagers. Never go more than double the next day. Now if you are somewhat behind and you catch a few winning days your bets will be going up, but just make sure that you are adding onto your wagers an amount that is no more than what you have been winning in this current streak and no more than a doubling amount each day. In effect you are just risking the same amount as you would have in a losing streak because you are trying to use your winnings to get yourself a nice return. Once you reach your expected amount though, you will return to your original bets. In practice this really only goes on a day or two. Either you will have a losing day and return to your original or you will have two nice days and get back to where you should be. When I did this, 3 days was my longest where I had larger bets. The third day netted me a nice win at bets 250% larger than original and that was enough to reach my expectation.
Why this works? Because as I am sure you all know, everyone has good and bad runs with their bets in any gambling venture. One thing is certainly never to press on a bad streak, well when you are winning you catch breaks and press because you are playing your best. You are aggressive in spotting opportunities and you play them. Once again its just a modified press, you are not risking any additional money from your original units.
Now another thing you need to do is set aside your "expected" earn when you get it. Try not to use this in your bankroll, but either put it away or mentally note that its not to be used. What you can do with this is either use this as your income, what you allow yourself to draw down when betting or you can use it to eventually move up to higher stakes when you have the necessary gain to justify betting higher base units.
As time goes on, you should be doing slightly better than your expected earn. Expected earn will come from betting flat, but the press will, if you don't bust out of course, be additional winnings. If you use this method, I suggest after you have the bankroll to double your first betting units, you look to go to a 40 unit bankroll before your next step up. 50 units is about ideal for a method like this so start looking to reach that before moving up yet again. There is still some risk at that level, but a lot less than at 30 units. Eventually when you reach a point where its no longer a "pocket change" bankroll, you will need to take better care of your stake and this method is a bit risky when you get to significant dollars. However if you are just starting out with say a dime, its great for disciplining yourself into just making $30 wagers and waiting until you build up your BR before stepping up your wagers. With the advent of internet sports books its very easy to bet odd amounts. After all just try to find a bookie that takes $30 bets and better yet, will take a $45 bet on a baseball game. Its easily done on the net or in a Nevada sports book. Betting the correct amounts where you are not risking more than winnings is very important and I didn't have this advantage when I started, I just had to bet a rounded amount so I was not able to press as much, so anyone using this method today already enjoys an edge I didnt.
Good luck to all, just remember if you can't legitimately pick winners, this still wont make you a winner. However it should improve the returns for those generally picking around break even looking to build a bigger stake.
One of the main problems that I have faced in my sports betting career is bankroll and bet sizing. I used to toy with 1-3 unit plays, but I have come to realize that unless you are using a completely objective (formula/computer) system, then betting more on one game than another is probably bad.
Before I address your bankroll method, I wanted to know people's thoughts on Kelly Criterion betting for sports. I know people that swear by this and some who hate it. Theoretically, I suppose you could estimate your advantage and bet accordingly, but I think it's too tough. It's way too much gut feeling, in my opinion. It's probably dangerous and could skew you into pressing your bets during a losing streak. Thoughts?
Your bankroll method sounds like a good one, or at least better than any I try. For College Football and College Baskets, my specialties, I bet a fixed (2-3% per game) and bet flat. I don't play as many games as some people do, but I have a decent winning %. Let's say that you are a 57% handicapper. Does this mean your edge is 9.24%? (57-43)-(52.38-47.62) Is that the figure you would use? Give me more info on how you estimate edge, just by instinct or more precise?
It seems to be a good method for increasing your bank.
MDMAniac
If you are a 57% handicapper, your edge on -110 bets will be (57%)(1+10/11)-1=8.8%. This, by the way, is extremely unlikely. If you were this good a handicapper, you would likely make a ton of money no matter how you did your bets, unless you bet a ridiculous percentage of your bankroll each time.
For those who don't know, Kelly betting involves basically betting a percentage of your bankroll equal to your advantage. It maximizes your median bankroll in the long run, which turns out to be the equivalent of maximizing the logarithm of your bankroll at each step.
One of the sports betting books poo-poos Kelly betting and proposes an experiment where you try it out with a known win percentage and he says it does not work. Well, if you try his experiment, you'll see it works great, and you'll soon be rich with imaginary winnings! However, if you abort the experiment a short while in, there is a good chance you will have lost 75% of your bankroll.
Estimating edge in sports betting is extremely problematic, so actually applying Kelly betting in reality is difficult. I'm constantly faced with situations where I've done some handicapping, and I'd like to make a bet, but I just have no clue as to my edge. Sometimes I know my edge pretty darn well, but I'm making so many bets with overlapping correlations that proper bankroll management would require a sophisticated program run on a powerful computer. And then there are the times when I believe based on statistical analyses that my edge is something like 5%+-10%, so it could plausibly be -5%, which is kind of scary.
During football season, I'm doing parlay cards, board bets, proposition bets, second half bets, and so on. I just concentrate on not putting too many eggs in one basket. I use a grid to record my bets. Along the left side I put the teams/match-ups. Along the top side I put the various types of bets I make: Against the Spread, Over/Under, Money Line, etc. I highlight the boxes that I want to bet. Then I record the dollar amount for each bet I make in its appropriate box.
For parlay cards, I'll split the cost of the parlay card over all its picks in the grid. I also use a program to pick subsets of my desired picks randomly, which is better than I do by hand; it would be better still to use a program that minimized the correlations. Oh, and of course it can pay to choose some neutral or slightly negative parlay choices, in order to "wheel" your known high edge picks and reduce the risk.
I record my bets in a log file that looks like so:
Date Casino Game Type Bet To-Win Result Comments
11/21 stardust nfl side 550 500 +500 rams -7
I wrote before that game, "I think Rams -17 would be a more reasonable line." Final score: Rams 23, 49ers 7. Also, while I took the bet at -7 a few minutes after it opened, the line moved to -8.5 by game time (and my program put the line at -9.) If -8.5 was the "correct" line, then -7 would have a win probability of about 54.6%, for an edge of 4%. Well, anyone can look like a genius when picking out one bet.
I use a report program to break down my results various ways and try to identify the areas that I'm doing statistically significantly well or poorly (without getting fooled by the splitting itself.)
I try to bet much more heavily on the sorts of bets where I have a historical or theoretical edge. For bets where I don't feel certain of my edge, I'll usually just plunk down $11 on it, which is really just for bookkeeping purposes, to try to build up a historical track record.
I hate, hate, hate taking -110 bets, and I virtually never lay worse than -135. I look for -105 or better, preferably with a small amount of juice. Frequently for some of the more obscure bets I can find something like -7 EVEN at one casino and +7 EVEN for the other side at another casino, so it gives me a zero juice bet. I try to put most of my action on bets like that while eschewing the -110/-110 bets, except when I like an opening line at the Stardust.
I guess I'm a million times more organized and disciplined than most sports bettors, yet I still feel totally disorganized and undisciplined when it comes to bet sizing. I welcome advice from anyone.
-Abdul
I have been asked about this more than anything and to put it simply I hate the Kelly system. For one reason its just like Abdul says it, your edge is fluctuating too much. I am sure there are games I really have a 12-13% edge, I just don't know it. In the same respect I may be betting a game that has a negative expectation because I overlook something or make some judgement mistakes. This doesn't happen in blackjack where most Kelly bettors live. Blackjack has precise mathematical odds which are unrefutable. Sports has no precise odds and thats what makes it both beatable and enjoyable.
My biggest reason for going against Kelly is think about this. As you can tell from my post I respect the power of streaks in betting. No matter what a mathematician will tell you, betting follows streaks. I have been doing this seriously for 9 years and I would say 75% of the time I am on a streak one way of the other. Only a small percentage of the time are you hitting at what you would expect, say a bunch of slightly above breakeven days. You have days like that occasionally, but then they are followed by losing streaks or winning streaks. Well in Kelly betting, if you are not in a nice consistent pattern, you will get the worst of it! Think of this one: if you bet Kelly, your biggest bet is ALWAYS going to be a loss and your smallest bet is ALWAYS going to be a winner. Thats not good math for sports betting. If you go on a nice streak in sports your bets are going to get jacked up and then when the inevitable downside comes to even you out, your going to have a problem. Same goes the other way, you are losing and losing and your bets are going down. The next week you recover at smaller bet sizes.
If you want to preserve your capital in sports betting you need to do two things. One you need to start with sufficient bet units so a downstreak doesn't wipe you out, but thats obvious. Secondly you need to consider what the bankroll means to you. If its relatively small you should just keep playing until you bust out or turn it around. If the BR is relatively big, you should downsize your units when you lose half of it. Keep doing this if you have to, but if you have to cut your bets smaller twice, you might want to reconsider your handicapping as losing that many units might indicate problems.
All in all, the best methods are to play flat bets. When you have reached a sustainable gain in your bankroll that allows you to support a bigger unit size, then step up. By sustainable I mean you need to make sure your gain isn't from a hot streak. This is why its so important to estimate your expectation. When your win is close to or even a little ahead of your expectation its ok to move up. If you win is far ahead of it, you better stick at that level until you have met this requirement. In my bet logs, I calculate my expectation every day. That helps me stay humble in winning times and to keep the faith when luck doesn't want to visit me that day. Take today for example. I went 6-0 in baseball and also had an equal size wager on Mosely tonight. A dream day indeed, but I know that tommorrow is likely to be an even tougher task as the risk of an impending bad day is increase so for now I have only credited myself with the equivalent gain of about half a unit.
As for what Abdul does, I know many people that follow similar ideas. They key on a game they feel has a really bad line and try to hedge a lot. I don't hedge at all really. I keep at least 70 betting units in my bankroll (unless I am on a losing streak) and figure thats plenty to protect me from downside. I feel most hedges are really just giving back the edge that I have and are not worth it. I know so many people that go bet the halftimes of games they are ahead in so they can hedge. I say if you think a team is superior to begin with, why bet the other side at what usually is an inflated line against you? Also the same in futures, I took a shot with a smaller unit to win the money, why give any of my good bet back now? I had this happen last year with Colorado in the Stanley Cup. I found some place giving them 18-1 in the middle of the season when they had won 10 games in a row! The Avs made a nice run in the playoffs and a friend was telling me I was a fool for not hedging in their semi-final series against the Stars. I told him if its meant to be I will win this bet, but I think the Avs are the better side and will not bet the other team just to guarantee me some sort of return. Thats my thinking and I encourage most people to follow it. Come up with a solid opinion and back it up with your money. Don't step down or get passive, thats when you are heading to the losers bracket. You win some and you lose some, but in the end if you have confidence that your opinions are better than the public's you will take down the money.
Ok Abdul, I have some advice to give.
I hope it helps you in sports as much as your writings have helped me in Hold’em.
Stop wasting time in predicting the point spd in either sides or totals.
Forget about bankroll management.
Assume that the point spd is efficient and probably better than anything you’re going to come up with .
Realize that you’re going to win the same whether you beat the spd by a half point or many points.
Now, using their pt spd, find factors that make the fav or dog win more often than 11/10 against.
You’re data base should be binary and not real.
Thanks. That's a large part of what I try to do. I got flamed for it here before too. However, you say forget about bankroll management, whereas part of the reason I like angles is that it's a whole lot easier to estimate my edge on angles than on traditional handicapping, and hence it's a whole lot easier to do Kelly betting and nurse my bankroll.
It takes me about as much work to find an angle as to do the handicapping for a week, and the angle is reusable, whereas the handicapping is not. By combining several independent angles, you can get an edge where any one angle would not have been enough to beat the juice.
By the way, I think my lines are often better than the bookies', but only versus the opening lines. By the time I can bet into the lines, the lines are pretty efficient, except on some of the obscure bets that the wiseguys don't hit so quick and hard. It's not so much that it's hard to beat the bookies as that it's hard to beat the juice, and hence I focus on zero or low juice bets when I can find them.
-Abdul
I tend to agree with most of what Abdul says, but I do think one thing here. I am not about to flame Abdul because he clearly knows his stuff, but its a general suggestion. He mentions something I hear quite a bit, "I am trying to protect my bankroll" Thats a mistake. I know Abdul that you play poker and think about this, what if someone said in a hold'em game "I didn't want to bet my set because I didn't have the nuts and didn't want to risk my bankroll" That is obviously a mistake and timid play is not winning play. Everyone who bets on sports or plays poker has to understand this. You don't make plays to "protect" your bankroll. You try to avoid mistakes and stupid plays that can harm your bankroll, but you should never look at it any situation and try to "save" it. You should just maintain a sufficient bankroll so that you can take full opportunity of your advantages. Bet them out and take the money in the long run its that simple. If you feel you need to nurse your bankroll well then your bankroll is probably too small so you should cut your bet size down.
WB, there is a mathematically optimal tradeoff between b.r. preservation and maximizing growth. It's called Kelly. I see above you say you hate it, but as you lay out the poker scenario, that's exactly the point of kelly betting. For a given situation, what should I bet to maximize growth while preserving the long-term viability of the roll?
Best,
JG
That is of course a question of your risk tolerance and your expected percentage. The higher your expected percentage, the lower number of units you need to keep in your bankroll. Of course if you are a losing player its really hard to keep any amount. I use a method that was flamed on here a few months back that MIGHT help a very slight losing player make a little bit of change, but for a winning player it tends to increase your return on your bets with a less risk than simply increasing your bet unit size. I won't bother going into it because so many pure mathematicians want to poke holes in it.
For a rule of thumb, I would say you need to think of your bankroll size. If its a significant amount of money for you that you want to protect, then look to have at least 60 units in your bankroll. If its less you could go as low as 30 and still be reasonably sure you won't lose it. I suggest that as your bankroll grows over time you add units to it before you step up to a higher bet. For example, you could start out with $3000 and bet 100/play, 30 units. Then to step up to 150/play, you would need $4500, but my suggestion is to make it $5250, 35 units and keep doing this at each step up until you reach the 60 unit level. At this point your bankroll would be quite large compared to your starting point and you interest should be in protecting it. One thing you might do to be able to maintain a lower bankroll is to consistently cut your bet size in half each time you lose 50% of your bankroll. In this case 50 units would be more than adequate. You shouldn't lose 25 units very often if you win at more than a 5% expectation, but it could happen at some point in your lifetime.
In any case, I believe you should set your bets at a certain level and keep them at that level for some time. Making a good estimate of your expectation and not raising your bets when you are far exceeding that will keep you from losing at a higher level. Say you make 5.5% ie, pick 55% at 11-10, then you need to make sure your step up is sustainable. In this case I would say if your return on your bets is more than 8% then you should wait to move up even if you have sufficient funds to do it. In any case, keeping your bets at a level amount for long periods of time keeps you from sustaining the problems of Kelly. You give yourself enough time to let your advantage work itself out and you can move up in calculated steps.
I don't like getting paid less than even money in baseball so I just lay the 1.5 runs whenever I bet the favorite. Not that I bet the favorites often to begin with, but I like the -1.5 option which turns the favorite into an underdog.
Larry Grossman's book "You Can Bet On It" has a section by Andrew Iskoe with research on how it's advantageous to the bettor to lay the 1.5 runs. However, the material dates back to 1992.
I just read in Gaming Today about it as well. I have generally preferred taking the home teams in this situation because I think they don't give the road teams enough extra odds and they give the home teams a bit too much. Also I keep track of one run games just so I can get a sense of the probability of the teams getting into a tight game. And of course, the higher the total, the more likely it will not be a one run game. It takes a couple of factors, but if I like the favorite and its over -130 I will look at the run line. If the two factors I mentioned are also favorable I probably bet the run line as long as I get 55 cents or more bonus for a road team and 80 cents or more bonus on the home team. On average I have one run line play a day. As for straight favorite plays, I have played all the way up to -165 this year, but its rare for me to go over -130.
Laying the 1.5 runs with the home team will get you an extra 80-95 cents, while laying it with a road favorite gets you only 55-70 cents.
The extra payoff exits because of the additional RISK entailed with laying the 1.5 runs with the home team. That is, if they're up by one run in the bottom of the ninth the game is over. With a road favorite you can be assured of them getting 27 outs and not 24 outs.
Duh, of course I know that! Your numbers though are a bit high for this season. Its very rare to see even 60 cents added on for road favorites except when its a very big favorite. Any team under 170 generally is seeing between 50-55 cents this year. The home teams are getting between 75-85 cents. The increased scoring has reduced the amounts. One thing to possibly look at it is that low total games seem to only have slight adjustments up and high total games have slight adjustments down. I would think the difference between a game with a total of 8 and 11.5 should have more than 5 or 10 cent difference. In any case I avoid low scoring teams when betting run lines and also avoid teams that have good sized average run differentials with their opponent.
3-0 Holland vs. Danmark
But the Tjeckien dind t do it 1-1 in half time bur france scored in the second half sad.
But Holland was the game i bet on soo
i feel good =)
Very good play tomorrow is
Slovenia vs. Spain = 2
bet high on this spain going to win.
i think 0-2 ore 0-3
Bet all money you have =)
www.Unibet.com very good sport gambling site
with good odds
Don't bet all your money on Spain. Don't bet any of it.
Andy.
I bet and i won again =)
and tonight i going to bet not all my money but a littel on England
Johan,
If you keep betting large amounts on short-priced favourites in football matches, two things will happen. 1) Most of the time you will win 2) You will go broke.
On the other hand if you're foolish enough to back England there can only be one outcome :-)
Andy.
I din t get England i lost i littel
i going to bet next i time
on Portugal - Turkey = 1
Is there anybody watching Euro 2000 on American TV? This is turning out to be one of the great tournaments in the sport's history and I'm choking on my MLS.
I can't help you but I hope you get some info before the weekend. France and Portugal are playing terrific football and Holland, Yugoslavia and Spain can all put on a show on their day. Makes the MLS look like very cold potatoes I'm afraid :-)
Andy.
You know, every once in a while MLS throws up a great game. Last night's San Jose-Chicago match(1-1 tie) was well worth the time. The overall pace & imagination were superb, and the OT was dynamite.
I did finally see my first Euro 2000 match yesterday afternoon on Fox Sports World: Italy vs Turkey. Yup, that's right, it was a replay from TWO WEEKS ago! Beggars can't be choosers, I guess. Maybe I should be thankful: FSW took a whole MONTH to replay Galatasaray winning the UEFA Cup!
I advise you to fly to Europe and book a hotel just to watch the semi-finals. There was some outstanding football in the QFs albeit that they were a little one-sided because the losing teams couldn't keep up (Yugoslavia in particular). You can never quite be sure in football but these semi-finals have all the necessary ingredients for absolute classics.
PS if you have any choice in what replays to watch, check out England-Portugal, Spain-Yugoslavia, France-Czech Republic, Holland-Yugoslavia and France-Spain for top quality football. Almost all the others are very watchable except the games involving Germany and Norway - someone always has to spoil it :-).
Andy.
If there are any professional horse players reading this forum please e-mail me because I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask. Thanx. Corey
I would be surprised. The amount of time and effort it takes to be a professinal horse player is enormous. However, there are a few of us on here who might be considered "serious" about the game, even if we can't devote 100% effort. Ask away.
Abdul--
In the thread below about Kelly betting for sports, you mention that you like to use angles more than traditional handicapping. I am not about to flame one of the sharpest minds on this site, but I wanted to inquire a little more.
First, do you mean angles or systems? I guess it's semantics, but there is a difference. An "angle" is something like "KC is 12-2 ATS vs. NFC East at home." Obviously, this is something that means nothing and has no mathematical correlation. I suspect this is not what you mean.
I think you mean systems like "Double digit road dogs off 30 pt. loss are 58% ATS" This has some rationale behind it. There is a cause and effect relationship. These teams may be embarrassed, motivated, undervalued, etc. The angle I pointed out above has no such causal relationship. I assume you mean the latter.
I tend to agree with what you are doing. For college sports, what I primarily bet, I look at various criteria more than individual matchups. These scenarios are particularly effective in November and during Bowls. It is similarly effective during March Madness.
I have my sets of criteria (systems, if you will) to look for and I also have power ratings to look at to make sure I am getting value. For the most part, I don't just make straight value plays except for early in the season when the lines are skewed. Later in the year, the lines are so sharp that I doubt I have much of an edge on these types of plays. Luckily, this is when the systems are so valuable. Is this what you are doing as well?
I would like to know more about your approach to sports betting because your poker advice has proven so valuable to me. Others have comments about so-called "systems?"
MDMAniac
Speaking for Abdul, I think he means "angles" in the sense of gambling in contexts other than walking up to the board and picking the #'s he likes. I don't think he thinks an angle is something he found looking backwards through an infinite pile of data as you seem to have thought he meant. But I might be wrong.
JG
You're wrong. Well, sort of. I try not to be fooled by selective sampling of the data. Like, if I cut a dataset into 100 pieces, of course I'm likely to get some pieces that would be a 2 sigma deviation from expected if they were the only sample examined.
An example of an angle in my sense is a "7+ point divisional home dog." I forget how well those have done ATS. Sklansky says that you have to examine the rationality of such an angle. I'm not sure how effective that is, as it's often easy to find a rationale for both the angle and its opposite, so you at least need to discount the rationale when this is the case. I prefer to use statistical methods to determine the validity, though I'm still learning how best to do that.
Anyway, this angle is really a combination of three weak angles that each make sense and have statistical support. Much of the biases in the lines stem from Joe Bettor, who tends to bet the favorites regardless of the field and the division. The other part of it is some "nonlinearity" in the performance of sucky teams, which are able to rise above their normal ability given the emotion from being at home versus a hated foe in an important game.
The "Rams -7 at 49ers" bet that I mentioned went totally against this angle. I knew about it, but went against it. I sort of feel like I raised with 72 offsuit under the gun and won. I do normally try to combine my handicapping with the angles, as MDMAniac suggested.
I also make some sports bets that have a positive expected value but require no angles nor handicapping, though they usually do require some faith in mathematical models and the validity of the lines. A pointspread middle would be one example.
-Abdul
I generally like betting on pitchers who are making their first major league starts. They're usually available at good prices and the other team hasn't seem him.
Tuesday's offering is Brian Tollberg and the San Diego Padres against Arizona and Todd Stottlemyre.
Tollberg was just called up from AAA Las Vegas after going 6-0 2.83 ERA 76.1 IP, 72H, 60K.
And I got him at +165. Not a bad deal...I hope.
I don't often bet on first-time starters. They usually perform greenly and have a tendency to lug in or bear out down the stretch. ;-)
Mike Lee did a study a few years back that showed surprisingly good results backing first time starters.
playing in the Pacific Coast Assoc. Everytime we went out west, the scores went up, plus the ball carries well in Vegas. Don't let the long fences fool you, it is a hitters park.
And the wind is blowing out 90% of the time too...
I think in general you can get fairly nice numbers on first time starters, but this wasn't a case here. I was rather surprised at the low number when facing a solid known starter. Usually teams bring up players and put them in very ideal situations. They don't want to wreck the confidence of a first time starter so they usually send him at home and against a 4th or 5th starter if they can help it. The problem for the Padres was they had to do something because Rodrigo Lopez was getting hammered each time out and his turn was coming up in the rotation. So they insert a first time starter in a very tough situation against a top team on the road in a tough park to win at. As it turns out, Tollberg pitches a great game, but I still think the price was not fair. I would normally expect a +200 in this situation against Stottlemyre. Yes, Tollberg had great AAA numbers, but still you would think he would get the same price as a the 4th or 5th starter would in the situation he is put in.
I don't bet much baseball, but back when I was betting a lot of NFL and NHL games, I did pretty well betting on first-time starters at quarterback and goaltender positions, under selected circumstances (i.e., the team can't be so good that the lineup change doesn't make much difference, and the game has to be at home). I suspect it's the same combination of factors: (a) Joe Sportsfan is going to underrate the new starter; (b) the other teams haven't gotten a good look at him yet; (c) the new kid is all pumped up; and (d) the infield/offensive line/defenders will be putting out a bit extra to "protect" the newbie.
The reverse angle is to bet against the same starter the second time out, assuming he won the first time out, especially if it's an away game. Joe Sportsfan is likely to grossly overrate the newcomer based on the one performance, and all the other factors in the youngster's favor have largely evaporated.
Well as I promised earlier, I would post the NFL wins props as soon as I got the numbers. I was about to go over to the IP and then saw they got printed in Gaming Today. If the State commission aren't the biggest hypocrites or what? The press can print what they want, but they would get mad at an employee printing the same thing? Oh well, come get me for all the online bets I make, all the online poker I play, and worst of all, the lines I print!!!
I do like this prop quite a bit. I do a little better on the baseball season wins, but the NFL wins are good because the numbers are all mostly key numbers and you can use them in situations where you in a worst case scenario you see a tie and a free shot at the win.
One thing I will say is that these are IP numbers and as always they have the huge house edge. IP talks of all the variety they offer, but they always screw you on the odds. This is the place that tries to call themselves the home to hockey in Las Vegas and yet they have 30 cent lines on the NHL!!! I personally would just use these to get an idea of where the numbers will be, but wait until the offshore books and the other Vegas books with 20 cent lines post.
2000 Season Wins (odds for over listed first) Redskins 12 +135/-170 Jaguars 11.5 -130/Ev Rams 11 -115/-115 Colts 11 +115/-145 Bucs 10.5 -120/-110 Titans 10 -150/+120 Broncos 9.5 -135/+105 Bills 9 +110/-140 Seahawks 9 Ev/-130 Raiders 9 -115/-115 Packers 8.5 -160/+130 Cowboys 8.5 +110/-140 Dolphins 8.5 Ev/-130 Ravens 8.5 -115/-115 Jets 8 +125/-155 Patriots 8 -115/-115 Chiefs 8 -130/Ev Giants 8 +140/-180 Panthers 8 -130/Ev Bears 8 +140/-180 Falcons 7.5 -130/Ev Vikings 7 An error, listed as -140/+170 Lions 7 -130/Ev Cardinals 7 -130/Ev Steelers 6.5 -130/Ev Chargers 6.5 Ev/-130 Eagles 6 -145/+115 Saints 6 -130/Ev Bengals 5.5 -150/+120 49ers 5 -130/Ev Browns 4.5 -150/+120
I guess since I am first I should list some opinions. Well its scary because I like MANY of these. Going down the list: Bucs over, relatively easy division and probably the best team in the NFL. Broncos over, should be a good bounce back with less turmoil and injuries, plus a cupcake 5th place sched. Maybe the AFC's best. Bills over, can't see this team being at .500 and thats what it takes to beat me. They only lost age in the offseason and had 11 wins last year, how are they going to drop 3 games? Jets over, after disatrous start, recovered nicely and should be clearly ahead of Dolphins and Patriots, but are ranked below them. That I can't figure out. Patriots under, maybe best bet here, worst team in the division and with Bills and Colts leading to 4 losses, going to have a hard time getting to 9 wins to beat me. Lions over, second best team in the division and think they only have upside on last year. That would make 6 wins very unlikely and a .500 record very likely. Eagles under, still haven't done much to make anyone fear them and their offense. Schedule isn't that easy for 5th place team. Saints under, get to 7 wins are you kidding? A completely retooled offense, thats going to lead to some adjustment. Improved yes, but so is the rest of the division especially if the Falcons return to form. Browns under, they got two wins by lucky endings. Getting to 5 wins is going to be a tough task not only this year, but probably next as well.
Thanks Bill,
Here's last year's results vs one set of lines.
O/U NFL Stats 1999 VS 2000 LINES
TWIMC,
As Of Today 1/9/00.
1999 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE TOTAL REGULAR SEASON WINS
TEAM ---------------ODDS -----------OVER/UNDER
1)JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 11.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+1.5) 2000=11.5 -130/EV
2)MINNESOTA VIKINGS 11.5 OV -135-----UNDER--(-1.5) 2000=??
3)DENVER BRONCOS 11 OV -100-----UNDER--(-5.0)2000=9.5 -135/+105
4)GREEN BAY PACKERS 10.5 UN-130-----UNDER--(-2.5)2000=8.5 -160/+130
5)SAN FRANCISCO 49ers 10.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-6.5) 2000=5 -130/EV
6)NEW YORK JETS 10.5 OV -130-----UNDER--(-2.5)2000=8 +125/-155
7)ATLANTA FALCONS 10 OV -120-----UNDER--(-5.0)2000=7.5 -130/EV
8)MIAMI DOLPHINS 10 OV -115----UNDER--(-1.0)2000=8.5 EV/-130
9)TENNESSEE TITANS 9 OV -120-----OVER--(+4.0)2000=10 -150/+120
10)PITTSBURGH STEELERS 8.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-2.5) 2000=6.5 -130/+EV
11)DALLAS COWBOYS 8.5 OV -115-----UNDER--(-0.5) 2000=8.5 +110/-140
12)TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 9 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.0) 2000=10.5 -120/-110
13)SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9.5 OV -115----UNDER--(-0.5) 2000=9 EV/-130
14)BUFFALO BILLS 9 UN -120-----OVER--(+2.0)2000=9 +110/-140
15)NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-0.5)2000=8 -115/-115
16)ARIZONA CARDINALS 8.5 UN -120-----UNDER--(-2.5) 2000=7 -130/EV
17)KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 8.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+0.5) 2000=8 -130/EV
18)NEW YORK GIANTS 8 UN -135-----UNDER--(-1.0) 2000=8 +140/-180
19)DETROIT LIONS 7 UN -140-----OVER--(+1.0)2000=7 -130/EV
20)BALTIMORE RAVENS 7 OV -125-----OVER--(+1.0) 2000=8.5 -115/-115
21)WASHINGTON REDSKINS 7.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.5) 2000=12 +135/-170
22)NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 6.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-3.5) 2000=6 -130/EV
23)ST. LOUIS RAMS 6.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+6.5)2000=11 -115/-115
24)OAKLAND RAIDERS 6.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+1.5) 2000=9 -115/-115
25)INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 6.5 UN -140-----OVER--(+6.5) 2000=11 +115/-145
26)SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 5.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+2.5) 2000=6.5 EV/-130
27)CAROLINA PANTHERS 6 OV -115-----OVER--(+2.0) 2000=8 -130/EV
28)CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 OV -160----UNDER--(-1.0)2000=5.5 -150/+120
29)CHICAGO BEARS 5 OV -145-----OVER--(+1.0) 2000=8 +140/-180
30)PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 5 UN -145----PUSH---(0.0) 2000=6 -145/+115
31)CLEVELAND BROWNS 4.5 OV -160-----UNDER--(-2.5) 2000=4.5 -150/+120
Sections------Over------Under------Push
1-8------------1---------7----------0
9-16-----------3---------5----------0
17-23----------5---------2----------0
24-31----------5---------2----------1
--------------------------------------------
Totals---------14---------16----------1
(+/-)======(+34.5) =====(-38.5)=====0
=============Money===============
OVER/OV or UNDER/UN vs OV/UN or UN/OV
People Right (14) vs People Wrong (16) Push (1)
Total OVER/OV (9)
(1(-130)-9(-120)-12(-140)-20(-125)-21(-140)-23(-140)-26(-130)-27(-115)-29(-145))
Total UNDER/UN (5)
(4(-130)-5(-140)-15(-140)-16(-120)-18(-135))
Total OV/UN (11)
(2(+121.5)-3(EVEN)-6(+117)-7(+108)-8(+103.5)-10(+135)-11(+103.5)-13(+103.5)-22(+135)-28(+144)-31(+144))
Total UN/OV (5)
(14(+108)-17(+144)-19(+126)-24(+144)-25(+126))
Fairly revealing stats. I have to admit I am a bit worried that I have gone against my past tendency to bet the lower teams over and pass on the top 3 or 4 teams, but I couldn't help it. I think the lower teams are vastly overrated this year, maybe because of last years numbers. Also last year will be remembered for how so many teams that were doormats or at least lightly regarded were the winners. I had a great call last year, I predicted Tampa over Tennessee in the Super Bowl, now who was closer to the correct call than me? This year I am still undecided, although I feel the Titans won't return and I will probably call Tampa again. As for my wins bets last year, I went 3-1 with the lone loss a pretty disgusting one on over on Atlanta. Otherwise I had Tampa over, Tennessee over, and the Vikings under (my first bet in a long time involving a top of the board team).
I think the best values are as always in the middle numbers since often you will in essence be betting if a team will finish at .500 or higher, or sometimes if a team will finish at .500 or lower. These are usually to me just a function of how much change a team went through last year, especially if its wholesale changes. Like this year I really think the Redskins are asking a lot to have their team come together quickly with so many changes and such pressure. Teams that I prefer are like Buffalo, lost a couple of declining players, but basically are counting on a few additions in the draft plus development of their younger players to win.
>>The thing I will say is that these are IP numbers and as always they have the huge house edge. IP talks of all the variety they offer, but they always screw you on the odds. This is the place that tries to call themselves the home to hockey in Las Vegas and yet they have 30 cent lines on the NHL!!! >>
I take umbrage, sir!
The IP uses a 20-cent line on NHL games. Of course, that straddle increases in games that have bigger favorites, but as Roxy Roxborough shows in his book "Race and Sports Book Management", this does not necessarily increase the house advantage.
We DO use a 30-cent line on the hockey PROPS.
But that can't be too high of a price to pay, when it means that you get the chance to out-smart guys like ME! I mean, how tough can that be?
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
Ok, maybe I am mistaken, I haven't been into the IP in quite some time. Maybe I am confusing you with the Hilton which I know for a fact uses 30 cent lines. Only time I have gone in there over the last few years was for Super Bowl props and I made serious hay on those. Thanks from my bank account Bobby...
I have thought to write this because of the extensive back and forth on streaks. I want to point out that while I do pay a good deal of attention to them, I would never use them as a sole reason to bet. Teams that are streaking are generally showing signs of being a positive team to bet on if that is part of a overall general improvement in a teams recent fortunes. I tend however to not bet on them after exceptionally long runs (and the converse is true with losing streaks) because after about 6 or 7 games the prices start getting out of line. Recently however Texas and Cincinnati went on long streaks and were not adjusted for very much and so I continued to bet the streak. When you develop a good feel for the game you enter situations where you get a great sense that a team is just not going to get it done. I had that feeling going into the San Diego series for Cincy last weekend. They had lost a bunch of games on the road and the Padres are a solid home team. The Padres weren't playing all that hot, but I felt they would sweep the Reds considering their current form. When teams are running bad, it doesn't matter how much talent you think they have, you need to play them on their form this very day. Not what they might do when they snap out of it, but their form right now and when a team is losing 6 in a row its going to affect them. You know the players are thinking about it and will press harder. Teams are not like a set of dice where you know its mathematically just as likely for them to win a game after 6 losses. Other teams sense their opponents troubles and try to pounce on them. The same happens in opposite ways. Statistical analysis won't necessarily bear it out, but you have to be a handicapper here and see where a teams current form is and what the psychological implications are. Another team I made serious hay on was the White Sox. I felt they were just unstoppable all road trip and bet them up the whole way. When they returned home I felt the streak might end so I have avoided them and they have lost 2 in a row now. Streaks are not the only factor you use, but you have to become proficient in current form to win regularly and streaks are part, but not all, of current form.
I never let a streak play into my handicapping. Not all streaks are the same. Sure I will factor in how well they are playing at the time, but you don't have to be on a streak to be playing great baseball. You can win 9 of 11 and not have a win streak over 3, but you are probably playing as well as a team on an 11 game win streak. Also, if you win 6 in a row against far inferior opposition, sure, maybe you are playing well, but then again, maybe you aren't playing that well. You can tell by looking at each game, not just looking at wins or losses.
Most likely what you actually have in sports are anti-streaks. The emotional rebounding/letdowns and public overreactions based on the previous game are likely to make it better to bet on a team after it loses or against it after it wins. The statistics from NFL seem to support this.
-Abdul
Football is not a streak game and I never treat it as such. Football is a game of physical matchups and with the game plans that are created plus the time factor, streaks are generally best avoided. I do know some people jump on spread covering streaks, but due to the public nature of the betting lines I would advise against this. If a team starts covering in a streak the linemaker has to adjust quickly or else the public is going to run him over with bets as the public plays purely on recent (ie one or two week) performance. Therefore, you are right Abdul, for football anti-streak mentality is probably best.
Dear Wild Bill: Great post about how to incorporate feel and intuition into baseball handicapping. I'm not there yet, as I'm still only starting out.
I've won big-time by backing the White Sox and going against the Yankees this season. It's amazing how there's STILL so much value with backing the Sox and fading the Yanks.
That I would agree with somewhat, but I think we need to be careful. The Sox are clearly better than expected, but they have done so well they might bolt past true value and become overvalued. They have done so well on their recent run, but its obviously unsustainable for them. They went 17-2 for one stretch to give themselves the best record and even the 27 Yankees couldn't keep that pace. I think the Sox might be the best team in the game, but I think for the next few weeks you might make money going against them. They are cetainly due for a little regression. Also I can't think of a thinner team than they have right now. If Thomas or Durham gets hurt they could be in a lot of trouble as I don't think their bench is that solid. Same for the starters as I think they have 3 solid starters in Baldwin, Eldred, and Sirotka, and Wells and Parque are just marginal. Their bullpen is maybe the best in the game with 3 guys who could close for many teams. A good squad, but they are "today's" team and I wouldn't be surprised to see them struggle for awhile. They appear to have enough to get past Cleveland though.
As for going against the Yankees, have to agree with you there. The Yanks have just horrendous pitching and are now pushing up the youngsters just to stem the tide. Its not working all that well as I don't think Westbrook or Yarnall are ready for a pennant race. Grimsley and Mendoza have been at times their most effective starters and thats a bad sign. Only thing is that I have noticed that the Yankee bandwagon isn't as strong as it used to be. Their prices have come down to closer to reality in the last week or so. Earlier in the year they wouldn't have been a -250 dog to Pedro with Pettite going. I think the Yankees might be getting closer to real prices as people are no longer backing their lousy starters. Be careful though betting against this team because it wouldn't surprise me if they got it going in the second half. Cone can't pitch any worse and Clemens still has flashes of excellence. If those two guys turn it around and the offense finds a way out of its slump this is still a daunting team. I can't figure out why they have so much trouble scoring with such a loaded team. They do lack speed, but otherwise most teams would love to have the depth in the lineup they have.
Clemens is now an every other game pitcher. For the past two years, the name Roger Clemens just doesn't throw fear in the hearts of opponents but he still gets bet big because of his past greatness. Granted, he is still capable of throwing a great game, but I don't think he can do it over a long stretch. Be careful with the White Sox, while they have been very impressive and have built their team the proper way, they are young and over a long season could wear down. It won't be the first time, and won't be the last time a young team faded in July-September. It may sound weird for a young team to wear down, but believe me, you have to get used to throwing 200 innings as a pitcher, playing 160 games in the field, some physical, mostly mental, it is a drain. I don't quite see where you have the Yankees as being a loaded team. They still have no left fielder(Leedee is passable, forget about Spencer), Bernie is fine, O'Neal isn't getting any younger but you have to like his fire, Brosius is waking up to his normal self, Jeter is fine(even being a Yankee hater, I played in the Braves system, I have to like Derek, I coached him and against him in high school), Knoblauch is showing Steve Sax is alive, Martinez put up better numbers in Seattle, had only one good year in New York, Posada is steping up now. What's their bench? Soriano is a prospect. Do you know what the definition of prospect is? It means "You aren't shit yet." There are quite a few other teams who has lineups that would caue more fear than they do. But at the same time, that isn't what wins at money time. If it did, Texas and Cleveland would have been winning throughout the 90's. Their hitters didn't win the World Series, their pitchers did, but they have a way to go to do it this year. Hitters sell tickets, pitchers win championships(and that's coming from a hitter).
How many teams have a more formidable lineup on paper than the Yankees? Yeah a hole in left and Knoblauch is at times a joke, but that is a fairly strong offensive lineup. Very few teams can match that offensively and yet they somehow are not putting up runs. Most teams have a sorry bench too so thats not exactly a fault. I am by no means a Yankee backer and pass on betting them most of the time, but I do keep things in perspective and I still respect them.
As for the Sox, I am not backing them as much as I was last week and I do know they could fade somewhat. However Cleveland isn't much of a threat and talk about holes in a staff...lets not go there. Anyways things always change and being a top handicapper means beating the public to the change. Baseball has more change year to year than any sport so its most important to recognize it here.
The problem with putting lineups on paper is you remember what thewy "used" to do. O'Neil is not the same player he used to be, Martinez hasn't had a great year for him him a few years, Knoblauch is a basket case, Brosius had one great "career" year, Posada has played well, but has cooled down from his hot start, Bernie is a star, Jeter is a star, no real serious power threats anymore. Yeah if you take the old O'Neil, the old Martinez, the one year Brosius just tore it up, yeah they look great, but they aren't those players anymore, just like Clemens, he isn't the Rocket(ouch, never like calling him that, the only Rocket was in Montreal) anymore. Pettitte is one of the most over rated pithchers in baseball. He didn't have much in the minors, and now the majors have a book on him, he adjusted, they adjusted and he looks lost out there. The game is all about adjustments. El Duque is finding out the same thing his brother found out. Once they get used to all your crap, your arm angles, etc, you better have something else. I faced him in a tounrnament in Cuba a while back, and the one thing I will say about playing a Cuban team is, don't worry, their pitchers will get you back in the game. Their pitchers all throw hard, and straight. The guys with wrinkles(like el Duque) are better than the rest, but once you get used to it, it isn't that big of a deal which is what he has been stasrting to figure out recently, just like getting used to Nomo's motion, you get used to it, that's more than half the battle, some take longer than others. Cone is still living his perfect game I think. It was about time he pitched to his age anyways, he's always been a warrior and I respect that, but he isn't the same anymore. Rivera is a great closer but he will be hit more this year(already has), just like with any pitcher, you get used to seeing something, it becomes easier(not easy, easier). Big names don't mean much if they are becoming shot.
Living in Michigan all my life and being a Tiger fan(did I really say that) long before the Braves drafted me, I can say that I am thrilled that the Gonzalez trade to NY looks dead, we don't need Ricky Leedee and Drew Henson would probably go play football instead(or we would get rid of Dean Palmer which would be stupid, if it isn't broke, don't fix it, we need pitching, do you hear that at the end of the year free agent to be Mike Mussina, nice spacious ball park for you :) ).
Well I am doing an annual exercise a bit early this year. Usually around all-star break I take some time off from work and go on a short trip to review my baseball activity and analyze where to go from there. This year I am in San Diego to do this early as I am going to be forced into returning to the 9-5 world next week. I have had almost a month off to work on baseball as I have been between jobs and the next few weeks are going to be too busy to do much other than basic handicapping. Without me I suppose the board will get awfully quiet, but I might chime in with an occasional post.
Here at midseason (or close to it) what I often review is my personal record so far and also the season wins props. Everyone should do this whether you are a pro bettor or a very casual bettor. So far this year I have been a tad below my expectations, but still doing very well. My ROI has been just below 7% whereas I usually come in between 8-10%. Not bad for usually working a full-time job and fitting this in. I have been murdered on the totals and since 2 weeks ago have officially given them up. Besides with dime lines still available, betting 20 cent propositions aren't as wise unless you are displaying good edges over them. I am not and I may never even try again. I am smart enough to recognize troubles in my handicapping and trying not to foolishly work through them and in this case, I have proven that to myself.
On the season wins prop, this is helpful because it in a nutshell looks at your early assumptions of the teams and helps you see where you goofed and where you had it right. In the second half you can make some notes to use. In some cases teams are clearly just not going to be near their number, but in many cases teams should be expected to come close to your guess of wins should your analysis be good. Here is how many wins you can expect based on current win percentage and also the preseason totals I listed in my earlier post on these in parenthesis.
NYY 86(98.5) Atl 100(93.5) NYM 90(93.5) Cle 86(93) Bos 87(90) Arz 94(92.5) Cin 77(93) Hou 58(88) Tex 76(87.5) Stl 94(86) Phl 68(81) Oak 97(83) SF 82(84) Tor 87(83.5) LA 87(84.5) Bal 68(82) Sea 93(77.5) Ana 85(77.5) ChC 67(75.5) Det 67(75.5) Pit 70(76.5) ChW 104(75.5) TB 66(76) Mon 83(71.5) SD 73(73.5) Col 90(71.5) Mil 66(71.5) KC 77(67.5) Fla 79(66) Min 66(64.5)
My actual bets on these were: Hou Ov 88 -110 (OUCH!) Sea Ov 78 +105 Fla Ov 65.5 -110 Stl Un 86 -110 TB Un 76.5 -115 Tex Un 89 -110 (A last min bet, glad I made it)
So far so good, 4-2. The Astros bet is just plain ugly, all of them are comfortably in one direction or another. A very successful pro sports betting friend of mine said I was crazy to analyze them so much. His theory is simply bet the top 5 under, the bottom 5 over. So far he is doing very well, on pace for 7-3, so maybe I was wasting my time! Then again he shops as religiously as your mother-in-law with count em: 17 offshore books! Thats overkill, but he swears by it and he does very well for himself.
Onto some betting thoughts for the 2nd half. It would take me quite some space to give you all my thoughts that I have come up with, but I will summarize it this way: Improvements should be expected of: Houston, Cincinnati, Chicago Cubs, and Pittsburgh. Teams falling a bit: Oakland, Colorado, Toronto, and Chicago White Sox. Team making biggest move: Kansas City about to fall off the bus. They still start Jay Witasick every 5th game right? Bet this team almost indiscriminately, I think they are heading from a 77 win pace right now to a actual finish of 65-68 wins. And the winners are: If I had to predict the World Series now, I will call for a big surprise and pick Seattle over Arizona. I think the Mariners are the most complete team except for the pen. Their starting staff is incredibly deep with even 4th and 5th spots getting top production out of Meche and Abbott. Their best pitcher last year Garcia has been hurt and not producing, but he may not even have a spot when he returns. In the playoffs you go with 4 starters and the Mariners will bring Moyer, Sele, Halama, and Garcia/Meche/Abbott. The D-Backs counter with the Unit, Stottlemyre, Anderson, and Reynoso. Other teams have two guys plus pray for something out of 3 and 4. The Braves have 3 guys, but Millwood has been questionable this year and Glavine and Maddux aren't quite as dominant as they used to be. The Mets have 3 possibly in Leiter, Hampton, and Reed, but none of them will be the dominant force the Unit is and if you can't go in a solid 4 deep you need a dominating pitcher to make up for it. I am going with the teams that have the best starters to get it done. Seattle is best overall because their offense is one of the best in the league too and can overcome an average to weak pen. I wouldn't be surprised if they made some kind of move because they obviously have a wealth of starters (Brett Tomko is also a past starter) and I don't think they want to trust Sasaki come October. I think if they fall any further out of the race Texas might give up Wetteland for a desperately needed starter, but trading to a divisional rival isn't too common so maybe a move for Roberto Hernandez might be more likely. In any case you can still get 15-1 on the Mariners to win the Series and I think at this point that is an excellent bet as I would put their chances of getting to the playoffs at 80-90% and put them in the favorites role at least in 2 or 3 possible playoff series. The D-Backs are at too low of a price to bet as I have seen at best 6-1. Their offense is a bit suspect, but the pitching is solid. I don't think the Unit will have as much trouble in the postseason this year as he continues getting tougher each year. Anderson has emerged as a solid starter and Stottlemyre is pitching well and injury free. The playoffs will allow them to send Daal to the pen and that will save a lot of frustration as he is the only real down spot for this staff. I just think the domination of the Unit added to an offense that does just enough will be a combination worthy of NL champs. Just remember you heard it here first...
Here is MY midyear baseball analysis. If I turn out to be wrong I promise to refund ALL the money you paid me for these predictions. It's interesting how many people continue to be impressed by the Rattlesnakes despite their feeble performance of late. Colorado is overacheiving, so is LA, and the Giants are far from out of it and could put together a run if Russ Ortiz gets hit by a bus (thereby sparing the Giants 12 or 15 of his starts). So I don't think a division winner--or even a wild card---is a lock for AZ. The NL Central belongs to Big Mac and his supporting cast in Saint Looie. The wild card will not come from that division. SL will be very hard to beat at home in the playoffs. The NL East will probably come down to the usual dogfight between the Braves and Mets, with this one, unlike recent years, being too close to call. The loser of this confrontation will still have an outside shot at the wild card. AL West: Oakland and Seattle will duke it out into September. Oakland is the superior team, with excellent starting pitching, a surprisingly good bullpen (the real key), and a lineup of young bombers. Seattle just doesn't have the assets to sustain a stretch drive. AL Central: Well, the White Sox are for real, as they showed when they obliterated the Yankees last week. I can't see any serious challenge coming from Cleveland, and they should win the division by 10-12 games or more. AL East: The Yankees are dead. Can the BoSox take advantage and sneak into a division title? But wait--what the hell is Toronto doing there? And the Yankees still have a few hundred million to buy some mercenaries from non-contenders for the stretch drive. This should be a two- or three-team race down to the wire. NL: Arizona (oh well), St.Louis, Atlanta, Colorado (wild card)-----NL champs, St. Louis AL: Oakland, Chicago, Boston, Seattle (wild card)----AL champs, White Sox (but don't be surprised if it's Oakland) World Series winner: Chicago White Sox, but if Oakland is AL champs, then St. Louis Cardinals You heard it all here first!! (BTW, I would like to continue to thank all the lemmings who continue to bet on the Yankees, allowing me to get prices like +150 on their opponents when I really should be LAYING $$$$. Life is good!)
And just when I thought I was the only one to give up on totals.....
A losing streak on the totals was most discouraging and I was spending 95% of my handicapping time on them. Then after losing a big bet on one total I swore off them for good.
I agree, I think Seattle is playing sound baseball, but it is still early although I also believe they will be around for awhile. Their wealth of starters makes them contenders, and when you can come down to your #4 and hope that Garcia gets/stays healthy and turns it around like he has shown he can pitch. I think the wildcard is Tomko. Don't give up on him yet. He is not a bad pitcher. I have noticed he has lost some of the movement on his fastball the last year or so, he has to be doing something different. They should look at some old film on him(he had some nasty late movement when I faced him in AAA). I can't see Atlanta sitting around at the trade deadline without getting another horse, but the team that keeps coming back to me is San Diego(or another team with a stud closer), possibly getting Hitchcock and Hoffman in a deal. I also think the Yankees will fade because George is too worried about getting a bopper. He should look at some film of his World Series teams, they didn't do it with hitting, pitching wins the Series, simple as that, and they need it. Clemens is not Clemens anymore. He is good about every other game, and that may be the biggest problem. He throws great, shows everyone he can still do it, then he gets lit up like a Christmas tree. I saw him throw in the game he lost to Pedro and he looked pretty good, then I went and saw him get lit by the Tigers(a team he has always dominated), and he could have saved time by just turning around and throwing the ball in the gap. Toronto is a team to watch, they score some runs and if there young pitchers can come around David Wells, they can be dangerous, if not, they fall into the same category as St Louis, all the runs in the regular season won't save your pitchers in the playoffs, the runs won't be there. Boston is dangerous with Pedro, Oakland is a darkhorse. I think the White Sox will fade but if they can keep this team together, they will have their time in the sun soon. I loved the way they built that team, no multiple bull shit free agent signings(a lot like Cleveland and Atlanta did in the early/mid 90's). Let your kids get lit up and learn, then fill any position where your farm system was low at. I like Boston, Seattle, and Chicago to win their divisions and Toronto, Oakland and Cleveland fighting for the wildcard with Toronto winning it unless Cleveland catches Chicago(and their young starter don't pick it up a notch). If Cleveland catches Chicago without Chicago falling back to them(basically if Cleveland picks up a stud starter), then the loser of the Central will win the wild card. I left out New York and they will be around the wild card based more so on the fact that they aren't a bad team, and anything over .500 will be in the wildcard race, just don't see them winning it unless they stop looking for hitters, and find themsleves apitcher instead. In the NL, Atlanta is in whether as a division winner(more than likely) or a wildacard(they will make a trade at the deadline for a starting pitcher, and hopefully a closer). St Louis is also in but won't go too far in the playoffs because their pitching is suspect. They will find scoring runs in the playoffs a lot harder, just ask Houston all these previous years. Arizona intrigues me. The have proven bats(been inconsistent at times this year and while that happens with everyone, they seem to ride the roller coaster a little too much so far, more so than most WS teams). You know what you get with Johnson, but he comes up short in the playoffs(mostly not his fault, run support is short like most playoff games and the one time he got support, he got lit). I don't know if the rest of their staff can hold up. Anderson has never done it for an entire year, Stottlemyre is pitching well but no matter what any reports might be, his arm is not 100% and won't be(although he did build up the muscles around his rotator cuff so he should be fine to pitch, but you never know). Even so, they should win their division, although my darkhorse is San Francisco. They started very slow but are playing better now. Colorado has been a surprise but I think they will fade late. The Mets don't really scare me, soemtimes they look like last year, sometimes they look like shit. Even though they won't make it, I love watching Montreal, are they fun or what. A lot of young guys with great talent. Vlady is a stud, their trade away of Pedro has helped them in the long run, Pavano and Armas. But I see Atlanta, St Louis, Arizona, with SF as my sleeper wildcard team battling with New York for the wildcard.
If Atlanta gets a starter and/or closer(real closer like a Hoffman), they will be back in and win the series this year, if not, the winner of the Series will be from the AL. I think it is more wide open this year than in previous years, it was pretty much a no-brainer who would be in the Series last year.
But in writing this, let me say that it is usually too early to pick anyone yet, because so much can happen at the trade deadline, will the Yanks wake up and realize they need pitching instead of hitting? Will Atlanta realize they need to go back into the playoffs with 4 big time starters(in case Millwood doesn't wake up) and a proven closer? Will Cleveland sit by and let the Sox run away with the division and hope for a wildcard going against 4 or 5 teams who are all still playing hard for their divsions? Will anyone else make a big move to try to put pressure on the teams at the top? When the trade deadline passes, this picture will clear up and it will be easier to find value(if any) in certain teams. Looking for straight value for teams to win the Series right now? Seattle is it. No one in the NL is worth it because of Atlanta and to a point Arizona.
A few things. First off, yes Rocker isn't exactly steady, but I don't see the Braves making a move. When he is on he is more than adequate and I think he has made the strides needed to get back on track. In any case I much rather have him than Sasaki or Kim or about 20 other stoppers out there. For goodness sakes Alfonseca has a 5 ERA and is a league leader in saves. So I don't think a move is coming there. Really I get a sense the Braves are becoming a more stand pat team. If they get a big injury they may make a move, but I don't think there is anything out there they could acquire that upgrades them all that much. Another starter? Well Mulholland isn't a stud, but he beats a lot of names I hear. They don't really have a whole in their lineup so any bats would be just utility players.
On another note, I really doubt the Padres trade Hoffman. In theory it seems like an $8mil/year player would get unloaded, but Towers has no intention of it. He has lots of young pitchers and his theory is not to break their confidence by blowing leads. Besides he is overloaded with prospects already and I don't think he really is shopping for anymore. The teams payroll makes them about a break even proposition so I don't think Trevor is going to be going anywhere. If anything he is loaded as he has two young catchers that look to be potential stars and one established catcher under contract, and star catchers are indeed a very valuable commodity. I think you are more likely to see the two names I threw out in Hernandez and maybe Wetteland being potential bait. Both are older and less reliable than Hoffman making them more expendable to two teams in need of lots of help and relatively void of upcoming prospects. The only other names you might find are with the White Sox as they have the triumvirate of potential closers in Simas, Howry, and Foulke. Obviously keeping them is important in a pennant race, but if they feel they are faltering or lacking something to win the whole thing, they might make a move and let one of them go.
As for the Yankees, well everyone knows the pitching needs to be addressed. I really have no idea why they don't score and adding a cog is very unlikely to help. I just look at that lineup and scratch my head wondering where they are missing out, except in the obvious speed category. Maybe they just need to get a solid leadoff speed guy to get things going, but it won't overcome a complete lack of speed on the whole team. In any case it is certain they will make some move, I just agree that it probably won't be enough.
As for the A's, I think their pitching will lead to a second half downfall. Olivares is shot, Mulder and Heredia are likely to regress downward and Appier has never been more than a middle tier pitcher for any length of time. Hudson is clearly a star, but thats it. They made a lot of moves last year and with their limited payroll I don't see them able to do that again. Their offense has its spots of strength, but some gaping holes too. Their up the middle is rather weak for a title contender. Long, Tejada, Velarde and Fasano/Hernandez/etc at catcher are not scaring anyone and could lead the team into slumps if they get no production out of those spots. Nothing against the A's, I just think Seattle is a superior team and given that deep rotations are generally a key advantage during stretch runs makes it tough on the A's. If Seattle couldn't match the A's in offense it might be different but the teams are fairly equal in offense.
I think if Rocker doesn't get it together, you will see them get a closer. You are talking about closers that haven't proved anything, a World Series type team doesn't compare what they have to people who haven't done anything, they want to be more than solid everywhere, especially in all aspects of their pitching staff. Comparing them to Florida or even Seattle's weak relief core makes no sense. If Seanez can stay healthy, they have one of the best set up men in baseball. They can't go into the playoffs with a timebomb as a closer, even though the rest of the league sucks this year. They don't care about the NL, they care about the Series. I don't think Rocker can do the job anyway. They need a closer, and if they go get one, they will get another starter as well. The only way they won't get another starter is if Millwood wakes up before the trade deadline(and today he showed he isn't ready to wake up yet). The Braves won't touch their lineup, it is solid, with bench players that will make solid DH's in the Series for a change. The Yanks lineup just doesn't scare me(good not scary), never has, pitching has won them their World Series, plain and simple. I feel Seattle and Oakland will go down to the wire in the West. Seattle has young arms, which is both good and bad news. Will they tire? With the way teams treat their young arms these days, the 200 inning mark is a big feat the first couple times around. While Oakland's staff is more "experienced", how will they hold up? Appier got burned out in KC but he can still be effective, Olivares can keep them close, Heredia is underrated, he is solid and keedps them in most every game, and Hudson could wind up being a great one. They both have the same problem, just in different degrees, both have a good regular season staffs, enough to get to the playoffs, but neither has a World Series type staff, Seattle's too young, haven't proven they can go an entire season as they wore down a bit last year(not really Garcia but Halama), and Oakland's staff needs some run support, which they get, but not when the playoffs start, you can't rely on runs. Right now, no one in baseball has that 4 deep great staff that has proven they can go through a year and stay strong. Seattle needs a bullpen, no one wins without solid starters and a good bullpen, it just doesn't happen. I think Seattle and Oakland will be there in September for their division, but like I said earlier, nothing is certain until you see what teams do at the trade deadline(and those trades aren't always good ones).
There are two major reasons the Yanks have'nt scored asthey have in the past. The first is on base percentage,in their record setting year they led the majors,now they are 11th in the AL. 2nd reason is bottom third of the order,couple of years ago Brocius had 90 RBI from 9 hole,when Davis retired and Strawberry flamed out again that left DH/left to two marginal kids.The bench is'nt what it was and they have been pounded by injuries.As for move,the one I like is Soriano for Radke,they need pitching,and now that Knoblach is unoficially DH defense will get better. As for Sosa/Gonzalez,both are losers with gaudy stats,what position to they plan to play other than DH? When you winn as much as they have all the little things go your way this year its the opposite and they're 2 games out.Red Sox are so flawed on defense and starting pitching behind Pedro they'll finish 3rd.As for the Braves, they finally have balanced lineup,but after watching Rocker destruct against weak opposition they will flame out again witout closer,have'nt we seen this act before? One final note,I love the fact that Seattle improved while Griffey is hitting 193 with men in scoring position.
That's what I said in an earlier post, Brosius had a career year, he isn't as good as that year made him to most people. That doesnt' mean he isn't good, but not that good. Boston is flawed too, you never know what they will give you defensively. Unlike last year when the Series was prety obvious, this year it won't clear up until the trade deadline. Also, I stated earlier the Braves need to get a closer, I don't care what Rocker does, they can't go into the playoffs trusting him with anything. They get a proven closer, not the guys wildbill mentioned(they aren't proven), and either get Millwood pitching like he is capable or go find another starter as well. But then again, no other team can say they have 3 proven starters who are all throwing well either. Also, like I stated earlier, Stottlemyre was not 100% and won't be until he decides to have that surgery. Strengthening the muscles around it can help, but it can still go, or it can make another part go because of overcompensating, and boom, he can only make it an inning last night.
I am just stupid or did Wetteland win a World Series with the Yankees??? Ok genius, you tell me who the Braves can get instead of Wetteland or Hernandez? Believe me, Hoffman is going nowhere, they even mentioned it in the press in San Diego how the Padres are absolutely pleased with the lineup and no key players will get moved. There are few proven stoppers out there in play, I mentioned those two names because they seem to be the only ones in situations where I could see a move being made. Only other player out there that might be moved is Aguilera and I doubt anyone would say he is a better option than Rocker. Otherwise there is a lack of stoppers in the hands of teams out of the race. With Wagner and Jackson being out for the year, that makes healthy stoppers at a real premium and therefore I am pretty certain Atlanta will win or lose with Rocker.
In all it just appears to me that no real major moves are going to be made outside of Sosa. People can say what they want about Sammy, but he starts on every team in the league in right. There is no better RF in the game. Because he plays for a loser organization is not his fault and I can't blame him for his attitude. I don't think he will make the Yankees that much better, but Boston, now that would be something special.
Ok genius, you misunderstood. I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about your quote:
"In any case I much rather have him than Sasaki or Kim or about 20 other stoppers out there. For goodness sakes Alfonseca has a 5 ERA and is a league leader in saves. So I don't think a move is coming there."
Before you start attacking other people, why don't you at least understand what is being said. You aren't the only "expert" on this board. Why would Atlanta want to compare themselves to anyone that far below them. No, they can't get Rivera so they can't have the best out there right now, but they can go after proven stoppers(and no Rocker isn't proven). Yeah, Wettleand is a good one, Hernandez, Hoffman.
Also your point about Sammy. I wasn't the one that ripped on him, you should re-read someone elses post, but no he isn't the best right fielder in baseball, but that isn't a slight against him, but when a team that needs pitching is looking for a hitter, what good is that? When the playoffs start, Sammy will stop hitting, then you will be left to wonder why you didnt' go get a pitcher instead. His defense has gotten progessively worse(he can't catch a cold, what good does a cannon do you if you can't, or don't want to, control it), he has stopped running like he used to. Granted I don't think the people that say all he does is swing for home runs are right either. If that is all he did, he wouldn't be hitting over 300. I also think his run two years ago was more impressive than McGwire's because Sammy was playing for something, the playoffs, where McGwire was just letting it rip on every swing, Sammy was still dropping singles into right field to score a run with 2 strikes on him. He has cut down on his weakness of breaking balls in the dirt a little, but as an all around right fielder, he is not the best.
Who is better than Sammy? Who produces numbers like he does in right?
I know you didn't mention Sammy, it was just putting everything in one post. As for your mention, maybe you should realize I wasn't trying to compare the Braves to anyone, just my whole conversation was about who could be traded, simple as that. You said they had to make a move and I said there was no one available other than the guys I had mentioned as trade bait before. Maybe you should make yourself clearer because I never mentioned Sasaki or Kim as trade bait.
I know I am not the only "expert" never made any implication of that. I just tried to get this board out of the muck of nothing but picks posts and it seemed to work. You post a lot and a few others do too. Back when I started, nothing got on here and they could have closed the board and not too many would complain. I know I put myself up as a target sometimes, but hey someone has to do it. Ray/Mason/David seem to totally ignore this board as I havent' seen a post from them in months on here. I guess in a way I took it to be my board to moderate, but now that I have to work again, I probably won't be posting that much. I will still be a participant, but not to the degree I am now. I welcome someone else being more active and posting "original" material, not just responses to others. Since you are a wealth of information and are a pro whereas I used to be a pro, why aren't you doing more of the original postings?
I understand that you didn't list those players as trade bait, because even if they were available, the Braves don't need them. I was just explaining that top teams don't look and say "well we have better stuff than most teams so we are ok". They say "I don't think we can win the Series with this or that". Sure they may have a better closer than 20 teams, but the teams they don't have better than are the ones they need to beat in October. You blow a lead against them and game over, and the way Rocker is right now, he is a timebomb just waiting to go off again. Maybe the Braves can get lucky and he will get mugged on the subway on the way to Shea :).
There is nothing wrong with your postings, keep it up. Maybe it was both of our faults, I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been and you jumped a little quickly assuming what I was referring to. I wish I could post more on here, but with handicapping and even though I am retired from professional baseball, I still play about 60 games a summer semi-pro so it takes a lot of time(plus I just got that laser eye surgery done so I am trying to stay off the computer as much for the next couple weeks). It would be nice to know how many people actually read this page and what things they are interested in, whether they are newbies just learning or more experienced looking for different ways to look at things, etc.
I think we are just lone wolves really. Most people dont seem to put much thought into their picks, just who they think will win. Value is a lost concept and so is reasonable money management. I put some oddball ideas out there, but still I tell people to have at least 30 bets behind them, and thats quite risky. I would guess the majority of bettors have the equivalent of 10 or less units backing them up. Of course setting aside a bankroll is even a foreign concept, its more how much money is my credit with my man or when is my next paycheck coming.
I really did want to write a book, but got almost nothing positive. My manuscript was a blockbuster waiting to happen, but I think the betting public isn't too concerned with winning. Poker is an interesting game, but cards just don't have the allure as sports. Therefore people playing poker want to win more than anything. Most people betting on sports just seem to want that extra "game" if you will that goes with a bet. They have the real game, the scoreboard, and the game with the points thrown in. The concept of being a long term winner seems very secondary. After all why is so much emphasis put on TV games...
I would be interested to see what the readers would like to see on here. I might come up with something on an occasional basis if we get some feedback on what is of interest. Right now I think just analyzing teams seems to get the most response.
I know all about the TV games. I have a friend who has to bet on every TV game. I have a dish, I told him he better not get one, he would probably bet every game then. He also bets "guarantee" games, which of course go off at -200 or more and wonders why he doesn't win more money. "The games are obvious" he says. The biggest surprise is he was a teammate of mine in the minors, he should know better than to say that. Most people, I think, bet too much on(or against) their favorite team. When I am in Vegas, I see people wearing hats, shirts, etc, of their favorite teams, walking into the sportsbook and you know what 95% of them are doing, betting on their team. They probably haven't even seen the line yet(or they get "mad" if it is too low because they are not giving their team respect), and may not even know who is pitching, but they are betting on their team. My fiancee got mad at me when I bet against the Red Wings in their last playoff game against Colorado, "I wasn't being a true fan". I just told her I was being a realist(and the money would be a nice consolation prize). Most people look for the "Holy Grail", the perfect system to use to win all the time(that's the reason these touts can make money) and it just isn't there. I probably bet low for my bankroll(but I have a big bankroll), but it makes it comfortable for me.
Didnt' George watch any of his World Series teams? They won with pitching. Sure they got some timely hitting, but they won with pitching. He is so worried about getting a big hitter? Why? When was the last time they had a 40 home run guy? If George is banking that his old pitchers will come through again, he might be wrong this time. Radke would be a nice pickup, but there might be a few other teams in the running for him as well.
I was down in Tijuana this afternoon and wanted to stop into a sports book to check my action and to get a place to rest for a bit. To get in on a weekend, they make you buy a $20 voucher that you can't get a refund on, but you can use for bets. I had already made my bets for the day and wasn't going to stay long enough to bet on a sporting event. Besides they have terrible odds, 15 cent lines up to 150, then 20 cent lines! Further you have to pay a tax of 2% on winnings.
Well I thought, fine, I will just go bet on a horse race to get out of this. I looked at the monitors and saw a good sized favorite, 3/5 in a race at Lone Star Park. I bet the whole $20 to show on him. By the time the race went, he had moved up to 8/5 and I wasn't liking this much. Anyways he faded at the end, but held on barely to third so I had a winner. I go to the window after mentally calculating my bet. I should show a $4 profit. Well they have that tax so I thought, ok, maybe $3.90 or so. Wrong, $3.50 is what I won. Now the money amount isn't the crucial thing, its only 50 cents, but its the principle here. I really won $4, yet I got taxed on $24!!! In this case I paid 12.5% tax, not 2% tax as the board says! In what kind of sick world do they charge you on your returned stake? Imagine if you bought a stock at $100 and made $5 before selling it. You would pay tax on the $5 gain. Well if you take Mexican rules, you pay tax on $105! You would make no money and no one would ever buy a stock that was over a couple of bucks. This was pure absurdity and further shows me that no matter how bad you think taxes are here in this country, I am certain it is a lot worse elsewhere. One thing is for sure, next time I will just go into the dumpy book they have down there where no cover is charged like this. They are all run by the same company and have the same odds so it makes no difference other than the people around you.
there have been our legislators trying for years to tax gambling in a similar fashion is this country. one day it will happen and you will be up here in gods country with me, complainly about the taxes, while i complain about the smokers.
Oh geez Ray I complain about smokers as much as you do. I am the one that led the no tip night at a Vegas Casino to protest smoking and at times I have boycotted playing in Vegas rooms and played online due to the smoking.
One thing I have noticed though is that it seems local governments do the ridiculous taxing. The areas that do well and have a good viable industry like Nevada are wise enough to see that reasonable taxes works best on gambling for everyone, while Lousisiana just seems hell bent on getting rid of gambling not by laws but by taxes. Name another business that has to pay out 25% of its gross receipts, ie their profit margin on all the products they sell, but before they pay rent, salary, fees, accountants, etc.? Well thats about what they face in New Orleans and why there is only one casino there. I am an analyst in the gaming field and I can't still believe that such stupidity can be shown by politicians, but hey thats politicians for you. Their attitude is we are moral and don't want gambling, but if you pay us off enough we will let you have your sinful business.
In Mexico it just seems they lack any kind of intelligence whatsoever. Then again no one down there is playing anything but exactas and parlays it seems. I saw some games at -300 and thought about it. If I bet that game straight, I would pay an 8% tax using this system of tax collection on principle as well. I don't think it used to be this way, I think it used to be only taxed on the winnings, but someone probably just got greedy...
Look around in Mexico at the standard of living, amount of poverty, etc. Who in there right mind would do any kind of business or investment there with a corrupt government waiting to rip you off? If America would eliminate taxes we would have the strongest economy ever. What I pay in taxes in a year I could buy seven brand new cadillacs, one for every day of the week, every year. Why do you think GM is in trouble? Every year the US GOV increases its bite on my income to help pay for all the deadbeats and inefficent goverment run industry that could be done better in the private sector. Someday, U.S. will be just like Mexico and every other 3rd world hell hole.
>>Look around in Mexico at the standard of living, amount of poverty, etc.<<
Actually I have done some traveling in Mexico and in a lot of ways the people there seems to have a better perspective on life.
>>Who in there right mind would do any kind of business or investment there with a corrupt government waiting to rip you off?<<
I'm not sure about this. There are places in Mexico that seem like they would be good to live in to me.
>>If America would eliminate taxes we would have the strongest economy ever.<<
I'm not so sure that the powers that be, like the Fed for instance want an overly strong economy. They emphasis now is to SLOW the economy. The tax system in the USA is very bad I will grant you that.
>>What I pay in taxes in a year I could buy seven brand new cadillacs, one for every day of the week, every year.<<
You're making a lot of money by my standards anyway.
>>Why do you think GM is in trouble?<<
I thought GM was making record profits.
>>Every year the US GOV increases its bite on my income to help pay for all the deadbeats and inefficent goverment run industry that could be done better in the private sector.<<
The Feds are running a big surplus now but there is no doubt that government could be run a lot more effeciently. However, the Fed is screaming that the labor market is too tight translated there are not enough people who are unemployed. Think about that for a minute, the government actually wants more deadbeats and non workers!! There isn't enough of them.
>>Someday, U.S. will be just like Mexico and every other 3rd world hell hole. <<
I certainly don't consider Mexico to be a hell hole. The US economy, if you buy the arguements of the Fed, is too strong and needs to weaken a bit.
I agree completely. Mexico is far from a hell hole. Try Africa or parts of Asia for that. Besides where in Mexico have you been? Much of it just resembles working class areas of the US. Go to East LA and you will see what much of Mexico City looks like.
As for business, its never been better in Mexico. They have more competition and a more vibrant economy than anytime in their history. The Caliente race/sports business that is there is an old relic, a company that paid for a monopoly over a decade ago and word is that their exclusive license is ending soon. Of course that won't matter much as long as the government insists on such an outrageous tax on winnings. I don't know what you have seen of Mexico, but I have seen much of it and even though many do live in poverty there, the media makes it out to be a lot worse than it really is, much like they try to do in this country.
Check out how much of your tax dollars go to pay INTEREST on the national debt. Then talk to me about surplus. You sound like the guy getting a second mortgage on his house so he can meet his VISA bill, and come payday he thinks he has a few 'extra' dollars in his pocket. The FED would be happy if everyone would be out of work in a soup line, when everyone has a job and has money the FED is worried. Keeping the FED happy is not in my best interests. And Mexico is like East LA??? Gee, that would make a great advertising slogan. Most normal people AVOID East LA. Next time you go to Mexico , go to the garbage dump and watch the kids picking trash for something to eat. Gee - If only America could be more like Mexico, wouldn't that be great?
To Bill: I've been to Puerto Vallarta, Cabo San Lucas, Guadalajara, Puerto Angel, Tijuana, and Juarez.
Against my better judgement-- >>Check out how much of your tax dollars go to pay INTEREST on the national debt. Then talk to me about surplus.<<
The government has been and is paying down the debt. I believe the debt is scheduled to be paid off in 13 years. A lot of the debt is a result of Cold War military spending. Military spending has been cut drastically which no doubt accounts for a lot of the surplus.
>>You sound like the guy getting a second mortgage on his house so he can meet his VISA bill, and come payday he thinks he has a few 'extra' dollars in his pocket.<<
No it's analagous to a guy who was living beyond his means who has both increased his income and decreased his payments.
>>The FED would be happy if everyone would be out of work in a soup line, when everyone has a job and has money the FED is worried.<<
I don't think this is true. If anything I think the Fed is pro big business. Corporate profitibility, a strong dollar, stable prices and low inflation are what they want.
>>Keeping the FED happy is not in my best interests.<<
If you want your future dollars to worth anything they are. The Fed hates the budget deficit just like you do.
>>And Mexico is like East LA??? Gee, that would make a great advertising slogan. Most normal people AVOID East LA. Next time you go to Mexico , go to the garbage dump and watch the kids picking trash for something to eat.<<
You should check out a place like Puerto Vallarta. They aren't eating out of garbage cans there and people seem to be quite content and happy with their lives. Can you really say this about people in say Simi Valley? You seem like the stereotype obnoxious American that so many foreign countries say way export and despise.
>>Gee - If only America could be more like Mexico, wouldn't that be great? <<
In some ways it would be.
I wonder if he has gone to a dump in the US and seen the scavengers there. Besides if you go to Mexico you see far less homeless people, even in Mexico City which has outrageous cost of living compared to the average income of Mexicans. I agree though, many Americans have never even been to Mexico and just assume the worst. People there just have different values than us. For many of them they are not rich, but they are not suffering. They have food, they can send their kids to school, they have cars and decent housing. Not all, but a majority live under these conditions. To them its more important to have a large family than to have the material things Americans have. Despite that many of them still have cable TV, go on vacation, go to the movies, order pizza to be delivered...basically live a very similar yet more modest life than in this country. If anything all the "suffering" is caused because they watch American TV shows and aspire to live an American lifestyle, something they cannot afford. Granted there are far more in poverty in Mexico than in this country, but most of those are still living in better conditions than in Russia, India, China, or many other major countries of the world. The reality is that those of us living in the US, Canada, Western Europe, and Japan have it much better than we can even imagine. Then there is the next tier with countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Philippines, Eastern Europe, and others that live a decent live, but clearly not at westernized standards and there is some poverty. Then there is the last level where many are struggling and few would ever want to live in those conditions, such as what most people in China or Africa live in. In any case I think people should go to Mexico, and not resort or border towns, and see how people live for themselves before assuming that its a dangerous and filthy place. When I told people I was going to Mexico City and Veracruz for a vacation, I got lots of interesting comments on it. I will say I couldn't enjoy my trip more. Its a different world, not a bad world, just a different world, but still lots of things you see are very familiar.
As for the tax dollars, I think people are just being ridiculous sometimes when they complain of taxes. Sure I would love to pay less in taxes, but as it is now I don't think we are that overtaxed. How about the fact that every other industrialized country has much worse taxes than we do? How about the fact we have the lowest gas prices? How about the fact that we have the lowest cost of living amongst the westernized world. Can you imagine what people would say if they had to pay Tokyo prices for everyday life? Would you be happy getting a "bargain" breakfast at a mere $12? How about getting a cheap takeout lunch for $9? Then going home to a two bedroom apartment that is smaller than almost any apartment you would get even in NY or SF and paying $2700/month for it? Life in this country couldn't be better, this truly is the greatest time in history to be an American resident and all we get are people complaining about this or that. Just face it, no one will ever be happy and people never put things into perspective. If you made more money, what would you do? Would you do something that productive with it or would you just go out and spend more money on material things? Nothing wrong with spending it on those things, but more money for most people just means being a bigger consumer so thats why I think complaints about taxes and cost of living are just ridiculous. Enjoy this time in history because it certainly won't last. Don't worry about getting a tax cut or if the country has debt. The debt servicing is getting much smaller as a percentage of GDP and thats what is important. What is killing our budget is our social programs that are just being expanded now one on top of the other. That is what you should be complaining about, government making promises to people in good times not thinking of how to pay for them when the inevitable bad times come.
As the weekend comes to a close, a few more thoughts on teams I have looked over.
Florida-I pegged this team as a sure improvement this year, but I didn't expect this much improvement. I think the key has been the emergence of Preston Wilson. He shows just limitless potential and reminds me way too much of Vladimir Guerrero. I don't know if he will have that much power, but the speed and the sweet swing definitely have to make you think of him. On top of that the staff is really developing nicely all the way down to the bottom of the rotation. Chuck Smith has pitched well in his first 3 starts, Dempster is clearly the ace, Cornelius has done fine in about half a season up in the rotation, and Sanchez and Penny are coming out of their slumps. Normally people would peg a young team like this to fall apart, but they aren't in a pennant race so there isn't pressure on them. They are starting to fill up the stadium some and their already solid home record should improve on that. I thought they would win 85-88 games next year, I think you might make that this year.
Arizona-I think I jinxed them. Stottlemyre looks like he might be done and without him, a Series appearance isn't likely. Losing him means relying on Mike Morgan and thats not good. Further it means Omar Daal in the playoffs and that could be worse unless he recovers some of his previous form. He did start the year solid in his first 4 starts, but its been bad since. They still have enough to win the division, but another playoff loss is staring them down now.
Philadelphia-Going into the trash heap a bit here, but a team I think will have a strong second half. The rotation looks fairly solid as long as Schilling and Byrd build on their recent upturns. Ashby is bound to improve as he is a quality pitcher that is just struggling. Person has pitched well all year and Wolf is emerging as one of the better lefties in the game. The offense is the worst in the game as Detroit has finally passed them. I don't think that is truly where they should be at so I expect a bit of a resurgence second half and an over .500 record from now to the end of the season seems very likely. Bet them out more as they will do well but under the radar of the betting public.
St Louis-For all the talk of a lack of pitching, I just don't see it. They have gone with the same 5 starters all season and all have done a decent job. Benes and Kile have been above average, Ankiel is getting to that point, Stephenson is close to that and Hentgen isn't getting lit up like in recent years. Add to that a very solid and deep lineup and you have maybe the NL champs. If the Mets and Braves can't get their offense going playoff time, this team will simply outslug them on their way to the World Series. The biggest downfall of this staff is their lack of a stopper, a big gun to end losing streaks. However since they are all pulling their weight its not really needed here. Ankiel went and outpitched Kevin Brown today, thats something he can build on. If he becomes as reliable as the top two starters, this team will be tough to beat come playoff time, especially when you consider they will be the one team that probably will have no race on their hands so they can coast to victory.
Kansas City-Well I earlier wrote this team is heading to the tank. Lets see Witasick is still starting despite having finally broken through with his 1st quality start after 10 tries! Durbin and Suppan are plain trash and still pitching mainstays. Suzuki had been a throwaway and yet he is the staff ace right now, that should sum it up. No pitching whatsoever and somehow near .500. Well the house of cards is about to fall in, avoid this team in the second half as their solid 1st half will keep their numbers overadjusted for awhile. I think their recent form of 3-11 is about what you should expect of them from here on out.
Five teams that I really took a good look at. I think you will continue to get good prices on Florida and you will be able to ride the Phillies and against the Royals. Following just that should be nicely profitable. Add to it that I think you should watch Stottlemyre and see if he doesn't sit out awhile or the season. If he does give it about 3 runs through the rotation and start looking to go against the bottom part of the rotation. Morgan will wear out and Daal will continue to fold. And for St. Louis, just respect them for the season and maybe look at them come playoff time. They are a bit of a public team so no values with them, but just understand the value of having a solid staff that they have used all year.
Some of the pitchers I have been backing often that have quietly become top performers of late: Washburn (Ana), Wright (Mil), Rusch (NYM), Wolf (Phil), Nathan (SF), Abbott (Sea). Some of them are getting recognized, but all of them don't garner the prices their more known teammates get so there is still value with them. Wright has been especially good to me and I have long followed him. He was highly touted early on in his career, but Coors Field ruined him so its not too surprising he is thriving in Milwaukee. He picked up that very nice price for me in Atlanta against Maddux. Usually your win/loss for the year is determined by how well you do with the 2-4 starters and that is probably my strength. To improve your record, become familiar with them. I gave this exercise to someone a couple years ago. He told me he wanted to "get good" at picking baseball. I told him to do this, without giving him reasoning. I told him to come back to me in a week with a list of every team's current number 3 and 4 starter. Also give me who you think are the top 5 of all listed and the bottom 5 as well. He did and I said good, thats all. He was kind of stumped, but I saw him a month later and he thanked me. He figured out the lesson. Everyone knows about Randy Johnson or Kevin Brown. Few know about Todd Ritchie or Gil Meche. The key to remember is they all pitch close to the same number of games so if you key in on the spots the public isn't so familiar with, you can utilize your edge more effectively. Quite frankly when I see a star pitcher going I tend to ignore the game unless I like his opponent, such as with Wright. I usually don't even analyze the game because the price is going to be high and the situation isn't that easy to read as the numbers will clearly favor the star so even with some value, its hard to bet a team you figure might score 3 runs on a good night. I prefer games with lesser pitchers where I get more balance in the numbers, hence more potential edges here and there. Make that a habit of yours and I can assure you that you will be betting more potentially profitable games and it will show up by year end.
You didn't jinx Arizona, Stottlemyre wasn't 100% and everyone knew he wasn't 100%, it could have happened at anytime, better now than September. Anyone who bets baseball should know that the value is in the "other" starters, not the big boys. The ones who don't are the ones who wind up losing every year wondering why. Hot teams are one thing, a hot pitcher can last for a few months. Those 3,4 and 5 starters that keep their team in games are like gold at the end of a rainbow, just waiting for you to take the money.
How do the Colorado Rockies look to you? I am biased because I live in Colorado, but I think they are a fairly solid team. Pitching is again a question mark, but the bullpen has been outstanding, and it hasnt just been one guy. Also, the atmosphere in the clubhouse is the best its been in years. I think they could continue to surprise people...
They have surprised me quite a bit. I didn't understand the approach of playing little ball in that park, but it has worked well so far. Maybe its just getting Baylor out of town as he is proving his lack of worth in Chicago now. I think their pitching is ok. Its hard to gauge them though being in that park, but the staff certainly seems more solid than it ever has been, but that sure isn't saying much. In the end though its a very tough division to play in as even the Padres can be a difficult team to beat at times. They have set themselves up though to be there in September and the loss of Stottlemyre makes the division much more in play. I just have a hard time predicting this team because of the home/away splits and generally avoid their games unless I play the run line at Coors Field.
Baylor proving his worth in Chicago? The Cubs are terrible, not much to do with them. They have never tried to get any better and won't as long as people show up and watch them. That's why they keep all their "fan favorites". Eric Young was the best move they have made in a long time. When was the last time they tried to get an ace? Oh yeah, they try to pin their hopes on a young kid. Sorry, rarely works. Colorado is interesting. Ever since they came into the league, everyone always talked about how they need to talk advantage of their stadium, and the correct opposite was true. Play real baseball and you will always be competitive. Now that they don't rely on the home run to save them, they can go on the road and not change their style of play. Their pitching staff is getting the job done, and their division is all pretty much similar, except for the paychecks. While I don't know if SD can hang for the entire year, the other 4 will be together for a while. I like SF as my darkhorse, but right now, barring any injuries or major trades, any of the 4 can win that division. It may even help them to all stay close because the wild card will be looming around the record of their division winner unless Florida and Montreal fade away big time and the Mets take their wins.
I was being sarcastic about Baylor, meaning he is worthless. I don't have much opinion on the Cubs other than they are poor. I don't think SD is anywhere near the front, its just they are a competitive team even in last place and I think they will be playing hard to the end. As for the Mets, I don't think anyone can stay with them in the long run for the wildcard. Too much pitching for a flawed team like LA or SF to catch them. Now that Hampton is pitching up to his ability they might even make a solid run at the Mets, but it really doesn't matter.
You are right, SD is competitive, especially for a last place team. The NL west and maybe the AL west are the only divisions they would finish last. If the Mets play as they are capable, they should probably win the wildcard, but SF will push them, they will make them play well. They won't be able to back in to it. I just feel the Mets will slide late like the last 2 years.
Check out my posting on March 23 regarding the Rockies. I felt they were much improved and they are. Read the post as to why I also touted Florida and Montreal having staffs that were comparible to the Dodgers, which they have. On March 12 I wrote how I liked Seattle Over, Florida and Montreal much improved, Houston to tank, Lima to be a bust, and Tampa Bay as "fakes."
HOWEVER, my best play was Pittsburgh over and to contend for the wild card. This is looking like a complete loser. So I must take my lumps where deserved. But I am used to that, after betting huge on Lakers under this year and Rams under in 1999 and seeing both teams win championships!
But should the Pirates rebound, I will go 6-0 on futures this year and 5-1 even if they dont.
Gambler
I just have Montreal over(I just like them, nice young team), and TB under(why don't teams realize that pitching wins).
I am just stunned at Houston's performance. How Lima could go so far down is amazing. Yes you did call it, but I am sure you didn't have 1-13 in mind. That bet is just embarassing to me and every time I check my "pending" bets on that book I have to look at that damn thing, wishing it was like poker where I could just fold out of turn...
Colorado is almost certain to go over, but I am very leery of backing teams that are far over .500 at home and far under it on the road. A team a few games under on the road is fine, but Colorado is far beyond that. I was making a bit of an exception with Arizona, but I think they are just underperforming right now away from Phoenix. Without Stottlemyre they just may continue to do so. Montreal is another team that comes to mind. I don't think they will blow the over wins bet for me, but I doubt they are even close to .500 come year end, maybe 77-85 would be a good guess. Florida is a lock to go over, it would take a horrendous collapse to not make 70 wins. Pittsburgh has too far to get to .500 so that one probably stays a loss for you. All in all a very good record....
I have an "acquaintance" that picks 60% winners at the horses. He is a minor legend and has taught his techniques to less than a handful of people. He is no joke. I won't mention his name without his permission but I know many people that have seen him in action and he is really quite a sight to behold.
He does ALL of his handicapping right at the track! He does nothing the night before. There have been times when he has done seven tracks simultaneously. Nowadays he is most comfortable doing about four.
I have had one telephone conversation with the man and hope to have more. He is truly remarkable and has only been successful for about ten years. He only bets to win.
Any comments or stories of those with similar type success stories please post.
MR.X
I've seen ads like this in cheap racing magazines in the mid-70s. I thought they went out of style, the tipsters and toutsters going for more sophisticated devices and programs. It's encouraging to see that old carny style still exists. Tell your "friend" to keep up the good work.
I've seen ads like this in cheap racing magazines in the mid-70s. I thought they went out of style, the tipsters and toutsters going for more sophisticated devices and programs. It's encouraging to see that old carny style still exists. Tell your "friend" to keep up the good work.
This is the exact response I expected. Obviously my "friend" is a well kept secret. Just as well. Actually, I was hoping to hear from someone that knew who I was talking about so we could privately chat. I know Andy Beyer knows him as does Tom Brohamer and a few others, but I don't know these people. He is one of a kind. Apparently there are no professional handicappers that post here. If there were they would know who I am talking bout.
By the way, Earl. I am not selling anything.
I wanted to followup on a few things from the thread below. It's my understanding that Sammy has demanded(behind closed doors to be the highest paid player in the game). according to USa today 6 yrs @ 16 million per. Because and this is a quote from Sosa 'he saved baseball' also has been quoted as saying his bags are packed. Now fortunately for baseball's savior George S of the Yanks is starting his own cable network next yr and wants to market around Jeter and Sammy.Also in the mix is this is Oneills last yr as well as Cone/Clemens(there's 30 million).Ray Knight reported last night that Sammy will share RF/DH with Oneill for the rest of the year. As a die hard Yankee fan who knows we need help but don't think this is a solution I was looking for some objective feedback. In my opinion Sosa is a defensive liability. He can't play left in Yankee Stadium.He says he won't DH at this time in career. Asking classy vet oneill to share his position is absurd.Keep in mind,Sosa has no idea what the pressure to win all the time in NY is all about. Yanks have always had great chemistry. If you pay Sosa 16 per what's Jeter get 25 million?
Sammy is a fine defensive player with decent range and a very live arm. Certainly not the best defensive player, but better than O'Neill. His offensive however is incredible. For all the talk of being just a numbers guy, how do you match his numbers? He is a sure thing for 45 homers and 140 RBI and he can steal between 10-20 bases, which would make him a top SB player on the Yanks. No matter what people want to say about his dedication or any other intagibles simply put Sammy produces. In Chicago he has little protection as few people respect Henry Rodriguez or Mark Grace. Give him some protection and its possible his numbers could improve. He is still at a good age to produce for many years so I would say he is probably worth close to that figure. Not that I think anyone is worth it, but if they pay Bernie $14 mil/year Sammy is certainly worth it as he will produce better than Bernie and is almost an equal defensively. As for dealing with pressure, I think being in both a playoff race and the race to 61 homers a few years back proved Sammy could perform under the media eye. I don't think anything is wrong with Sammy except he hates to lose. He is clearly reasonable to be upset at Chicago because its clear that team isn't going to win anytime soon. Griffey left Seattle under the same consideration of wanting to play for a winner and people outside of Seattle didn't hold that against him. Frankly though, I think the Yanks need to get Sammy because if they don't it seems likely he will head to Boston. Sammy hitting in Fenway would be a scary proposition. He hits so many towering shots that the Monster wouldn't hold him in that much. So more than anything its a case where not only do they improve themselves, but more importantly they keep their rival from really improving themselves. Clearly Boston can gain more than the Yanks from having Sammy.
You make good points about his lack of protection. According to New York papers today, he wants to play for Yanks.Also good point about media experience from HR race. We have sharp disagreement about his defense. Oneill is slow but is very good outfielder.Sammy reminds me of Reggie Jackson,excellent athelete only focused on HR's.I also remember the free swinging Sammy from White Sox. Having said that its hard to put down 50 Hr/120+ Rbi. NY papers mentioned he has put on 15 lbs,does'nt steal any more and could'nt deal with Baylors suggestion he was'nt the complete player of a few yrs ago. Kind of ironic given Baylor's history as career DH.
He isn't the complete player he was a few years ago. The only thing he does better is lay off the breaking ball in the dirt more and hit more home runs. Every other part of his game has gone down. The questions to be asked are 1) Do you want to make Paul O'Neil your scapegoat? He is not their problem. Fill weaknesses, Right field for the Yankees isn't a major position and O'Neil does fine. If their only reason for getting Sammy is so Boston won't get him, forget about it, he won't be their problem because they won't be in the playoffs anyways. 2) Will Sammy hit when it matters, the playoffs? He didn't a couple years ago. Good pitching eats up good hitting, you see it every year come playoff time and Sammy won't be any different, after all, he is not the best hitter in baseball. Sammy won't, I repeat won't hit in the playoffs. When was the last time a big hitting team won the World Series? It's been a little while. In the age of ridiculous home run totals, did the Yanks have a 40 home run guy lately, i don't think they even had a 30 hr guy last year. Watch McGwire disappear in the playoffs, go something like 2-17 with 2 home runs and 8 K's. They need to decide what they will do with their pitching staff before they worry about finding hitters. If they make a huge trade for Sosa, will they have anything left to trade when they realize they need a pitcher or two. In using an example from another sport, I had to sit here while my Red Wings traded all their young talent for older players the last two years(after winning back to back cups). Now they lose their best young player(Stacey Roest, Yzerman loved playing with him) and Darryl Laplante(a young speedy winger) to the expansion draft, and their system doesn't have much left, and their team isn't getting any younger.
If they really want Sosa, I think they should put it on the back burner right now(no one will run away from them before the trade deadline is up) and decide what they want to do with their pitching. Tell the Cubs they are still interested and to call them if someone else makes a bid for him. If it is someone they are worried about(Boston), decide if they want to try to beat it. That way they can take care of what they needs before their wants.
I agree with everything you said. I believe they will get both,Sosa and a pitcher.I've been hearing since spring training Radke was target to replace Cone,he would be perfect fit.Big advantage Yanks have is several top prospects at key positions (SS,CF)other teams need but they have filled.Note besides clutch pitching Yanks success has been based on patient hitting style that wears down opposing pitchers,than pound middle relievers.Don't understand why this style which worked great for 2 yrs seems to have disappeared. Although it was interesting to note its resurgance in Atlanta series few weeks ago. When maddux's pitch count was 100 in the 5th looked like vintage Yanks(what a differnce few weeks make).By the way it has been noted that they lack speed,that's not accurate.Jeter,Williams,Knoblach,Ledee are all fast but do not run enough.
Who said they lack speed? I think the one problem with their running is all the left handed(including switch hitters) they have. You don't want to take the hole away from them. It is kind of ironic because most of the people who have success against Maddux(very few at that) jump on one of his first two pitches. After two years of being patient, pitchers have learned that first pitch strike will be taken. Hitting is like poker at times. You have to change your style. I was very aggressive, first pitch strikes usually got hurt. When I was slumping, it usually was because pitchers were throwing 1st pitch crap(sliders starting down the middle breaking in, changeups or splitties starting down the middle falling into the dirt). I would have to take a few pitches for the next week or so to get back into the groove, then pitchers would come see the scouting report and come back with first pitch strikes and it was tee off time again.
One thing to remember about the Yankees situation: when you have the money the Yanks have, then you can go out and get almost anybody you want and to hell with the financial bottom line. So, its somewhat like a fantasy league team with the Yankees, where they can just go out and get the best players and price is irrelevant. Yes, they do need pitching, and yes, some of the prospects they give up for Sosa will hurt them when it comes time to trade for a pitcher, cause they will have less to deal from. But, with their money and their system, they will probably be able to get Sosa and still have enough left to get a quality starter in trade. Sosa will not hurt this team, and he can only help. So when you're the Yankess, you can go for it. They really have nothing to lose. And if they dont win this year, they can sign a free agent pitcher over the winter and have Sosa, the new acwe they signed, along with the rest of the studs for 2001. They can only win, they cant lose in this deal for one simple reason: The money is irrelevant
Sooner or later, you need help from your system, and if you gut it to fill one or two positions, it will come back to hurt you. Granted they can afford it, all the big teams can afford to make big deals and go for it, but it isn't just about signing players. If they get them through free agency(which I hate), then money is the only object, but when you are talking about trading 4-6 players for one guy, then a couple more for someone else, that will kill your system because you don't have that many potential pro stars in your system. Even the best systems over the last ten years(Atlanta, Cleveland, Montreal, Yankees recently), can't keep up with that production. Montreal was a different case, they lost them after they had proven themselves for the most part in the show. Think about the great players that have come through those systems. What if the Braves wanted to win in 1989 and traded Glavine, Smoltz, and Gant to get a top pitcher? What if Cleveland traded Belle and Thome to get better then? Sometimes it works out great, the prospect is all hype and you get a steal, and sometimes it kills for a long time. Usually big name teams have more "name" prospects, but many are so called because of their parent franchise's reputation more than their ability. Detroit hasn't had an ace since Jack Morris, and they traded John Smoltz(who grew up an hour away from Detroit), while in A ball, to Atlanta for Doyle Alexander. Alexander got them to the playoffs, lost in the 1st round, and that's all. Think Boston wants Bagwell back? Think Houston wants Halama back(can't remember, was Garcia part of that trade too)? The Yankees need pitching, do you think they would like to have Eric Milton right now? Chuck Knoblauch is a good player, despite his problems right now, but they didn't need him to win any of their World Series, they could have found a solid 2nd basemen for much less that could have gotten the job done. Sometimes you need to give your young players a chance, but the Yankees seem to be following the media's panicking. Yeah, they aren't playing that well right now but no one is pulling away from them and there are still 3 months left. All the breaks they have gotten the last two years are gone. I watched a couple of games earlier in the year when Rivera had pretty much blown two saves. Base loaded no one out and they get a break when the ball bounces off the hitters leg, Posada grabs it steps on home and tags the hitter and the ump calls them both out. Rivera gets the next guy and they "steal" one. A couple days later Rivera allows 2nd and 3rd 0 outs. Gets the first out(forgot how), then gives up a liner to left that is caught and the runner on second is off on the crack of the bat. They double him off and "steal" another one. Those were the kind of breaks they had been getting the past two years(although not all that blatant of course). Breaks tend to even out. After 2+ years of pretty much everything going their way, now it is time for the even out. What if the Yankees didn't give Jeter a chance and traded him for a "known" SS? Sosa may help them get in the playoffs, but he won't hit when they start, he is just not the right type of hitter. Hell, Bernie Williams doesn't really hit in the playoffs but he won't hurt you in any aspect of the game. You need to be sound in every other area before hitting, and Sosa's game has been lacking in most every other aspect the last few years. He got mad when Baylor said that because it is true, he is looking out for himself now, home runs mean dollars, not titles. He has gotten lazy. The Yankees don't need him. The talk of them getting Alou should scare opponents more than Sosa. Alou is one of the most sound all around players in baseball, and may be the smartest player in the game. He is a team player and will fit in like a glove with the Yankees in left field. Alou and Radke, maybe even a multi-player trade with Alou and Lima if he can prove he wasn't a one year wonder(he sure is better than 1-13), and that would make the Yankees much more solid than getting Sosa. Stats blind people, and Yankee fans should be the first to know that is true. No one on the Yankees have put up big numbers the last few years, just solid numbers, and they have the titles. The only totally dominating player they had last year was Rivera, and that is the best position to have that one player. 9th inning, game over.
Talking about blinding numbers, living in Michigan, I listen to all these people ripping on Gonzalez and I don't understand it. Sure he isn't putting up his usual MVP type numbers which everyone here wants to see and he is fishing on too many sliders out of the zone, ok he is struggling, but to get mad at him for not signing that big contract before ever playing a game year is a joke. Would anyone who already has a lot of money sign a contract to stay somewhere for 7 years when they don't even know if they like being there? He now says he likes it here but wants to wait until the end of the year before talking contract. Nothing wrong with that, no player wants to talk contract during the season. He turns down a trade to the Yankees, proving that he is happy here(Tiger fans should be happy too because they weren't offering anything the Tigers need). Everyone says trade him because he won't sign here. There is a chance he will sign here but the fans are running him right out of town. They have never had a run producer like him(even though he is struggling), and there are few out there that can do what he does. The Tiger front office knew there was a chance he may not sign so don't blame Juan if he doesn't re-sign. They should only trade him if they really feel they have no chance of signing him and they get an offer for what they need, but one thing that everybody here seems to be ignoring is Bobby Higginson? Why is Bobby hitting again this year after taking a dump the last 2 years? Well, when he was hitting well before his 2 year slump, Tony Clark was hitting well behind him and Higginson was getting pitches to hit because of it. When Clark slumped, Higginson slumped. Now Higginson has Gonzalez hitting behind him and no matter how much Gonzalez is struggling, people still want to pitch to Bobby instead of him and it is showing, but fans don't realize these things, all they look at is Juan isn't putting up big numbers(hasn't had that many runners on base for him until recently). Clark is starting to crush the ball again. They should stick him right behind Gonzalez(Palmer is there now and is hitting well, but strikes out more than Clark). This is not that bad of a team, pitching is their only problem. If they trade Gonzalez, they better ask for all pitching, nothing else.
My heart is always with the Dutch, but my wallet is on the stout Italian D at a nice underdog price on Thursday. What sayest thou, Andy?
Tough game to call. Yugoslavia gave Holland 10 times more room than Italy will. But Holland still have the quality right across the front 6 to create good chances. If the underdog price is nice, I think your wallet is in the right place. I wouldn't put the house on it though.
PS Extra-time is very likely. Make sure you know exactly what you're betting on (90 minutes or overall result).
Andy.
Thanks for the tip! I put some on Italy in 90 minutes, and an equal amt on Italy overall, so I'm pretty happy!
I'm starting to think about betting soccer on a more aggressive basis. Andy, could you please email me in private at sportsprophet@yahoo.com?
Can someone please explain this move by the Yanks? I don't see a damn thing positive about Justice, he seems worse than O'Neill. Ledee had some speed and could play left, what good does taking an inferior right fielder do for you when you have to give up one of your trade bait prospects for him?
I am really stumped here, I would have defended many possible moves by the Boss but now he just seems outright stupid. Maybe I am missing something here?
1)Justice may due better then you think in The Bronx.
2)They did not have to gut their system to get him.
3)They still have time to address their pitching woes before the deadline.
Just my 2 cents.
Howard
I'm no fan of Justice but compare his stats to Sosa's they are very similiar with 1/2 the strikeouts.He is signed for 2 more years at a paltry 7 mil(Sammy wanted 16).This is just the first step,they now have 3 starters out indefinetly.The non- prospects they give Cleveland leave them with a lot of prime kids to get pitching.Radke/Mussina would help a lot more than Sosa.Ironically Gammons wrote an article congratulating Cubs/Yanks front office for Sosa deal(as if it was done)now Cubs are stuck.They have unhappy Sammy,and no one to gve him to,as usual they are near bottom of standings with no future.The fact is if Yanks injurys to pitching don't staighten out they aren't going anywhere either.Anyone who questions value of pitching only has to look at them,about 1 month ago had best record in sport and had just taken 2/3 in Atlanta.Top 3 starters get hurt now they are starting triple A relievers and trying to stay above 500.
While having nothing but good things to say about Justice, he said "It doesn't matter unless we get someone pitching" (paraphrasing).
Of course Gammon prematurely congratulated both squads on the deal. He is just never on top of these things, nor is anybody else for that matter. And the Yankees are better off this way anyway. This is just a small deal compared to what they will do to shore up their pitching. But again, dont worry about the obvious names being talked about, beware the arms the media hasnt even thought of.
Other Gambling Games
June 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo