![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Could someone please explain to me how you can bet 3 or more horse to place and make any damn money?
I think this is the implication I got from reading Gambling for a living.
It seems to me the best place bets are usually on short price horses. I fail to see how you can profit betting multiple short price horses to place even if they are all good place bets.
Do you mean three horses in the same race? That is an unlikely event but it is theoretically possible.
Yes, I mean 3 horses in the same race. In order to bet multiple horses to place in the same race what qualifications must be met?
They all have to be significantly underbet compared to their win price. In theory their could be even more than three good place bets in the same race. Wht do you doubt that?
I don't doubt that there could be (in theory) more than one good place bet in the same race. I have witnessed this. However, I don't see how it could be the least bit profitable if you don't have at LEAST one big long shot in there.
In other words if the good place bets are a 7-5, 2 to one and a 4 to one you just about have to hit the exacta to make any money.
Or here's another scenario: say the 6-5 favorite is a good place bet and in theory the favorite runs 1st or 2nd 50% of the time; this horse will have to average paying MORE than $4 to place in order to make any money. Yet, this rarely happens, at least not enough in my opinon to make it profitable. (They usually pay somewhere between $3 and $4.) And these are the types of horses that are usually underlaid in the place pool.
David Sklansky made the most recent posts concerning moneylines and information. But your incisive comment about power ratings particularly prompted my post. I hope my elaboration was correct and would welcome any amplification on your part.
Of course, on Howard Grossman's radio show you have implicitly agreed to discuss how to beat the line. So after rejecting power ratings maybe you could suggest alternative ways to find information that is not in the line.
1. I have never appeared on Howard Grossman's radio show.
2. We do not reject power ratings. We just say that it is not necessary to calculate your own.
I further challenge the concept of finding something "not in the line". Come on in this day and age little isn't in the line that you are going to find. You might think you found it but maybe its just offset by something you did not find. The whole idea of looking for winners like that is silly. Further since we all accept that information is more readily available than ever before and the linesmakers get all this info, why is it that they all collectively say its easier than ever to beat the numbers? Maybe there is something more to it than just finding an incorrect line...
"Of course, when the table is hot, you will win more, and when the table is cold, you will lose more, "
What a perceptive guy. So if it's real hot I will win a real lot and when it's real cold I will lose a real lot. If it's an inferno I will win the casino and if it's "outer space" I'll lose the farm.
BTW - professor. 60*1000=60,000 and 80,000 + 60,000 = 140,000 and 684/140,000=.0488. Now please explain o genuine fossil genius guy.
Vince
Like I said, sometimes I make a mistake the FIRST time I post something. If I doublecheck it and post it again, you can bank on it being correct.
BTW, I agree with your post. The 2 mistakes you cite were mistakes. Fortunately, they don't invalidate the point I was trying to make. I was correct about that, right?
But, for my 2 mistakes, I will wear the dunce cap a bit myself.
Hey! You stretched it out of shape!
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Fossilman,
You were correct but I believe you missed my point. I misstated my position I admit it. I was trying to say that to take advantage of double odds you must increas your bankroll and or you pass line bets or I suppose you could reduce your pass line bet depending on your bankroll but you will see, I believe, what I was trying to point out by my example below. BTW - my example is correct so I am sending the dunce cap back.
Dice.
Pass line disadvantage = 1.14%
Double odds disadvantage = .6%.
When you look at these numbers it first appears that you sholud bet doulbe odds because it reduces your disadvantage. Effectively that is true. However, one must risk double thier normal session bankroll with an expected loss equal too the amount they will lose if they never take odds.
For example if one bets the pass line for $1000 and completes 39600 decisions they will win $19,520,000 and lose 20,080,000.
Total bet = 39,600,000
Loss = $560,000
vig = %1.14
If the same player then decides to take odds the following is the result:
Total Bet = $91,760,000
loss = $ 560,000
vig = %.6
From this point of view one can see that how you play your bankroll effects your expectation at least in relation to br size. However, given that one bets an equal amount on the pass line wheter they take odds or not one can see that the absolute result is the same. So much for double odds.
Vince.
Come on Vince, get it right
The house edge is 1.4% for the dont, 1.41% for the pass.
Further, dont play double odds! There are places in town with 5X, 10X, 100X, why not cut those bets down and play the same bankroll for far lower disadvantage?
Wildbill,
You been hanging around them side shows too much agin. You an Geronimo need to stop smokin that peace pipe so much at night.
"The house edge is 1.4% for the dont, 1.41% for the pass"
Pass line - Houses edge %1.14. Bank on it! Slightly different for the "don't". don't make me prove it!
"why not.. play..for. lower disadvantage"
Spoken like a true GAMBOOLER!
Vince.
Vince you must be smoking something...everyone with any basic gambling knowledge knows the house edge is 1.4%, ask anyone. Why can't David back me up on this, I guarantee he knows this!
I gaurentee you don't
vince
Vince wrote: >You were correct but I believe you missed my point. I >misstated my position I admit it.
Oh. ... OK.
Hey, let's give the dunce cap to WildBill. I sure don't want to wear it. Admittedly, he just made a memory error of minor importance, but, what the heck.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Hey, let's give the dunce cap to WildBill. "
Seconded!
Vince
I have trouble believing this one. How much of a bet spread are we talking about? Are we using any info from uncounted cards (aces, 7s, 8s?). Are we taking insurance? Just curious.
"Abdul Jalib: Hi-Opt I (3..6=+1, T=-1) with an ace side count does not outperform High-Low (2..6=+1, T&A=-1) without an ace side count in single deck simulations.Dan Hanson:I have trouble believing this one. How much of a bet spread are we talking about? Are we using any info from uncounted cards (aces, 7s, 8s?). Are we taking insurance?"
Dan, aren't you familiar with the parameters of SCORE-ing the major systems? It's all in the two BJF articles.
Imperial Palace and Ceasars Palace has had o/u for season wins the past few years,so I would try them first.
Good Luck,Howard
Everyone has them eventually. For internet though it might be tougher. Try sports.dbc.com once it gets closer to the season starting. Otherwise just scan the internet sports books and get a good idea of what they are going at.
Wild Bill: I always enjoy reading your posts. Everyone in the islands may eventually have season over/unders for baseball; but not here in Vegas. Very few casinos will book this bet, not even Stardust or Hilton Super Book. When I asked personal at Stardust why they do not book this bet, there reply was "It is just to easy to beat." The three I am aware of right now are IP, Ceasers, and Mirage Resorts. Thanks Howard
Sorry!
Station casinos has put them up the last few years too.
Wild Bill: I always enjoy reading your posts. Everyone in the islands may eventually have season over/unders for baseball; but not here in Vegas. Very few casinos will book this bet, not even Stardust or Hilton Super Book. When I asked personal at Stardust why they do not book this bet, there reply was "It is just to easy to beat." The three I am aware of right now are IP, Ceasers, and Mirage Resorts. Thanks
Wild Bill: I always enjoy reading your posts. Everyone in the islands may eventually have season over/unders for baseball; but not here in Vegas. Very few casinos will book this bet, not even Stardust or Hilton Super Book. When I asked personal at Stardust why they do not book this bet, there reply was "It is just to easy to beat." The three I am aware of right now are IP, Ceasers, and Mirage Resorts. Thanks Howard
If I remember right Stations took it last year as well as the Horseshoe. Now if the Shoe didnt take it that wouldnt be a surprise, nothing else they do to ruin that place surprises me
Speaking of changes at Binion's Horseshoe,in December when they took the $1,000,000.00 display away, I asked them if they were taking it down permanently? their response was "No, the money is just being cleaned and will return soon" Sure enough,it was never too return, just another vegas institution biting the dust. It's their money, they can do what they want with it; but it just goes to show how the "new Vegas" wants every last dollar!
Did you hear the story about it? They sold it to an investor who paid well over a million dollars for it. Seems the investor thinks the bills are all worth far more than $10,000 each to collectors. Add that to the infamous $3 steak dinner that they were well known for. Now its only Sun-Thur and its $4.99. Soon it will be $6 and only from 2am-4am or something like that. Needless to say, Becky Binion has no idea what tradition means nor how gambling economics work. I figure WSOP will be out of there soon enough...maybe she will just sell it back to Jack where he will know what to do with it.
and WildBill is vindicated.
Vince and I have made statements about the house edge in craps being 1.14%, and WildBill said 1.4%.
WB is correct.
Just to make sure, I calculated the odds from scratch, no reference sources. My math says:
Pass Line bet, house edge is 1.414%. Don't Pass bet, house edge is 1.403%.
Sorry WB.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Fossil is wrong!
%1.14 is correct. I'm taking all bets
Vince
Vince is wrong %1.4 is correct.
I'm taking all bets.
Vince
I have seen CrapSim software for sale in some very reputable gambling catalogs. What is the point? I mean you run a 100 million "roll" simulation to find out you've lost so much that only Bill Gates could recover? Not to be cynical, just wondering if anyone sees benefits to using the software.
And why not a Roulette simulation, Keno simulation, Chuck-A-Luck simulation and Let It Ride simulation?
All that software should target the non-believing gamblers. As in "You don't believe that you can't beat Craps?!? Here's how Bill Gates would go broke trying!.."
What's the point of minibaccarat players "tracking" banker and player wins?
What's the point of the electronic board in roulette that shows the last 20 numbers?
It doesn't make sense to us rational people, but to negative expectation players, anything they think will give them an edge is worth trying.
You all forget almost all gamblers aren't playing to win money. If you understand that the edge isn't on your side, there is nothing wrong with playing these games. The CrapsSim software isn't intended to prove anything to anyone. Just to give an accurate simulation of the game as far as I can see it. I play craps occasionally for very small stakes. Its fun, its gambling! Sometimes those of us on this posting forget that. These are games to most people, not propositions to attempt to beat. Few of us make as much money beating these games as most people make in their jobs that allow them to gamble.
I can't think of a better name for such a program.
Perhaps it should be sold with an 8th grade math book included.
i aint gonna do it again but i remember figuring dont pass at 1.369% against you. check out my memory. all is out the window though as nowadays many casinos allow 2 to 10 times odds. this lessens your total edge to maybe around .5% against you if you take or lay the odds. even less with the places that allow big odds. so for every total $100 you send over the table figure you pay the house from about 50 cents to a buck and a half for the privilage of watching the dice go around and being able to participate.
Ray,
Don't it figure the only two I've met on this forum and their DUNCES!!!!
ukw
It's true Paul, and so is the saying "Three's a charm".
Thus, this is NOT a coincidence.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
As a member of the "Holy Trinity"! DAF!
Vince
Here's the arithmetic:
First, get the well-known table of ways to roll a number (Number-->ways):
2-->1 3-->2 4-->3 5-->4 6-->5 7-->6 8-->5 9-->4 10-->3 11-->2 12-->1
Next, calculate what happens when you establish a point, say a 6.
The only rolls that interest us then are rolling a 7 (loss of 1 bet) or rolling a 6 (win 1 bet); overall, only 6+5=11 rolls. All other rolls we could care less. So 5/11 times it's +1 and 6/11 times it's minus 1. Adding those two, resolves into -1/11, which is our expectation after establishing a point of 6.
Similarly calculating the expectation of each number, after that number is established as the point, gives the following expectations (point=expectation)
4 = -1/3, 5 = -1/5, 6 = -1/11, 8 = -1/11, 9 = -1/5, 10 = -1/3
Now, the total expectation is the sum of the expectations of all outcomes in this bet:
Expectation of rolling a winning 7 = (6/36)*(+1 bet)
Expectation of rolling a winning 11 = (2/36)*(+1 bet)
Expectation of rolling a losing craps 2 = (1/36)*(-1 bet)
Expectation of rolling a losing craps 3 = (2/36)*(-1 bet)
Expectation of rolling a losing craps 12 = (1/36)*(-1 bet)
Expectation after rolling point 4 [see above]= -1/3 of our bet
Expectation after rolling point 5 = -1/5 of our bet
Expectation after rolling point 6 = -1/11 of our bet
Expectation after rolling point 8 = -1/11 of our bet
Expectation after rolling point 9 = -1/5 of our bet
Expectation after rolling point 10 = -1/3 of our bet
So, finally, summing the above expecations (do it with a calculator) gives us the total expectation of the Pass line bet, which is -0.01414 of our bet or -1.41%.
[This is detailed, among other books, in Olaf Vancura's Smart Casino Gambling]
[The above was still not complete! Ignore it, since the probabilities of the points were omitted. My request for the option of self-deleting posts is perversely vindicated!]
Here's the arithmetic:
First, get the well-known table of ways to roll a number (Number-->ways):
2-->1/36 3-->2/36 4-->3/36 5-->4/36 6-->5/36 7-->6/36 8-->5/36 9-->4/36 10-->3/36 11-->2/36 12-->1/36
Next, calculate what happens when you establish a point, say a 6.
The only rolls that interest us then are rolling a 7 (loss of 1 bet) or rolling a 6 (win 1 bet); overall, only 6+5=11 rolls. All other rolls we could care less. So 5/11 times it's +1 and 6/11 times it's minus 1. Adding those two, resolves into -1/11, which is our expectation after establishing a point of 6.
Similarly calculating the expectation of each number, after that number is established as the point, gives the following expectations (point=expectation)
4 = -1/3, 5 = -1/5, 6 = -1/11, 8 = -1/11, 9 = -1/5, 10 = -1/3
Now, the total expectation is the sum of the expectations of all outcomes in this bet:
Expectation of rolling a winning 7 = (6/36)*(+1 bet)
Expectation of rolling a winning 11 = (2/36)*(+1 bet)
Expectation of rolling a losing craps 2 = (1/36)*(-1 bet)
Expectation of rolling a losing craps 3 = (2/36)*(-1 bet)
Expectation of rolling a losing craps 12 = (1/36)*(-1 bet)
Expectation after rolling point 4 [see above]= (3/36)*(-1/3 of our bet)
Expectation after rolling point 5 = (4/36)*(-1/5 of our bet)
Expectation after rolling point 6 = (5/36)*(-1/11 of our bet)
Expectation after rolling point 8 = (5/36)*(-1/11 of our bet)
Expectation after rolling point 9 = (4/36)*(-1/5 of our bet)
Expectation after rolling point 10 = (3/36)*(-1/3 of our bet)
So, finally, summing the above expectations (do it with a calculator) gives us the total expectation of the Pass line bet, which is -0.01414 of our bet or -1.41%.
Vince apparently confused the '1414' part in his memory. It happens.
[This is detailed, among other books, in Olaf Vancura's Smart Casino Gambling]
Not apparently! "I was wrong." Did I say that. well I'll say it again. Must add that it doesn't matter 1.4 or a little less, the neg. EV makes the game unplayable by anyone that is not a Gambooler!
Vince.
This whole line of posting just reminds me of the little mindedness of the poker board sometimes. I mean what difference does it make -1.14 or -1.4? We all agree that its a negative expectation game and everyone knows that if you bet odds, your expectation is the same, just your swings will be bigger. The bottom line is that betting the line in craps is a fairly good wager compared to others in the casino as long as you accept that its not a way to win money over the long run. Enough said...lets not forget the big picture issues in our haste to make 30 posts figuring out just how much you give the house. This is like the infamous, is it profitable to play 9-8 suited in middle position posts that seem to overrun the hold'em board. If you enjoy the excitement and swings of craps go ahead and play it, just dont go overboard and avoid betting the high vig bets.
There is my opinion on it...sorry I had to contribute to so many posts being written.
Depending on who you ask you get completely different answers to this question and the answer may be, paradoxically, that it is doing both at the the same time: 7cs's market share has declined from over 75% in 1969 to less than 20% today (I take the second figure from the playlists in PD and CP magazines). In the same period the total number of cardrooms and poker players has grown so much that there are probably a lot more 7cs players now than thirty years ago.
Mason Malmuth points out that 7cs book sales are increasing as evidence of a rosy future for the game. The crucial point however is that the sales of books on holdem are growing faster. It follows that the market share of 7cs book sales, and therefore of new players of 7cs, must be declining still, even if the total number of 7cs players may be increasing. (I'm not sure that the total number of regular stud players is increasing, in fact I doubt it, but who knows for sure? What is clear is that market share is declining.)
The popularity of 7cs as a home game is understandable: the slow pace and smaller number of players who can be dealt in aren't as much of a problem as they are in casino play; the three card start is very attractive and provides a card-reading dimension lacking in holdem and omaha, and the non-communal cards produce a greater variety of possible hands. As a casino game seven-card stud is likely to continue it's long decline, for whatever reason: a thirty year trend is hard to buck, however much 7cs players may deny that it's happening.
Rome didn't fall down in a day: as long as you can get a game of stud, what does it matter that you are probably surrounded by holdem and omaha tables?
You've made your point clear, and you're beginning to sound like Doug Grant. If you don't like stud, then play holdem and shut the hell up! Go on a baseball forum and tell people that baseball is dying and they should switch to cricket! Many people like stud, it's a thriving game in much of the United States, and it's not going away! It isn't as suited to tournaments or big-bet play as holdem, but it plays perfectly fine as a limit ring game. The strategic complexity of stud gives the stud expert a greater edge against typical players than a holdem expert has. You can play more hands in stud than in holdem, and the ante structure penalizes players who play too tight and forces you to play aggressively even with second-best hands in many situations. Stud is more difficult than holdem, and the no-ante structure of low-limit stud leads to a boring game that is not attractive to new players. If low-limit stud was spread with proper antes, it would be much more popular.
I agree with most of what you say, except I have no idea who Doug Grant is (I haven't been reading poker posts for a while) and I am not suggesting that anyone give up stud to play holdem. Don't know where you got that from.
I think a lot of the growth is in Stud/8. The added dimension makes for a better game as the player has more choices as to how to approach the game. The two-way function makes bad players play worse and gives the solid player chances to play very agressively with the best hand and make a bad player pay off many bets, something you can't do all that much of in high stud. Further its possible to play relatively tight and win or play somewhat looser and win. The best part is that playing at lower limits, you can get fairly low fluctuation playing tightly so you can choose your road to profit. I have turned to almost playing it exclusively until the games prove to be less profitable.
The reason the lemmings like HoldEm is that it's so SIMPLE. Only two cards to worry about. Hey, if I have a pair, I'll call every bet to see if I flop trips! If my two cards are suited, I'll call every bet to see if I flop a flush! (etc.) 7-stud, on the other hand, features THREE cards in your starting hand (oh my!) and everybody's hand is different (ohmigawd!). So MUCH to think about! People don't LIKE to think. They HATE it, in fact. The dumbing-down of America as evidenced by 1)The fact that most people can't parse a simple English sentence 2)The continued sales of Macintosh computers (Duhhh, I don't know how to spell "deleet"--I like it when I can just click the little mousie on the pitcher of the garbage can, ayuck, ayuck) 3)The election and RE-election of Clinton (this one is really inexplicable) means that simplistic-seeming games such as HoldEm will eventually wipe out complex, interesting games such as 7-stud.
hey kevin, the reelection of clinton is easily explained: the majority of Americans who voted did not share your viewpoint.
I am a Hold'em player, and a Mac user, and I voted for Clinton. In short, I'm offended by your post. It's as narrowminded as the masses you're putting down. Who are you, John Rocker?
In referring to the general "dumbing down" of America (a phenomenon most persons would concede is real), then I consider those two occurences highly symptomatic of the disease. 1. Mac computers were basically invented to appeal to the persons who were intimidated by the need to learn an English-word-based operating system. Apple invented this cutesy little picture-based operating system which was actually inefficient as hell (it consumed huge amounts of system resources). Then they shafted their customers by refusing to release system schematics to peripheral and software vendors. The result was a series of unupgradeable machines, for which the software and peripherals cost double or triple that of the identical item for a PC. I know a few people who profess to just LOOOOOVE their Macs, but their protestations sound hollow when I point out to them that they can purchase an identical amount of computing power for 1/3 the price in a PC system. I realize some were painted into a corner by their initial Mac purchase, but going out and buying ANOTHER one after the brand's glaring shortcomings became apparent is an act of the rankest stupidity. And I still have to listen to them complain when they, for example, need a new mouse and have to search all over town to get one--and then pay $65 for it. 2. I can see where someone, who votes Democrat as reflexively as he or she eats Wheaties in the morning, could have voted for Clinton in 1992. A lot of people vote this way (and, yes, vote Republican in the same manner). But in 1996, as it was becoming apparent what an incredibly unprincipled, lying, philandering sleazeball this person was (and, it was soon to come to light, a traitor as well), this SHOULD have set off warning bells in even the thickest of diehard-Democrat skulls--but it apparently didn't. Now, we have a sitting President who shames the office. I am disgusted that this man represents my country. When someone tells me that they voted for this---THING---in 1996, I usually give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they are a member of the vote-Democrat-even-if Genghis-Khan-is running school. If the opposite is true: that they examined the relative character and record of Clinton and Dole, AND THEN VOTED FOR CLINTON--well, I then presume that person has the judgement of a stalk of celery. I find it truly frightening that Clinton got more than ten votes in 1996. It means that people don't CARE anymore if they are being led by human slime. I also contend that limit HoldEm appeals to the masses because of its simplicity. If someone invented a game where everybody got ONE card, there was a round of betting, and then a showdown, it would be wildly popular. While you don't agree with my opinions, they are carefully considered, and I don't see how not liking the most corrupt and dishonest president in American history makes me "narrowminded". Also, the implied comparison with John Rocker is silly, although I must say he is perfectly entitled to say that he dislikes any ethnic group or members thereof without being attacked. If Jesse Jackson can call New York "Hymietown" and get away with it then Rocker should be able to remark that there are too many foreigners in New York with the same lack of censure. It's called free speech--something America's legions of dummies don't really understand. (And BTW I agree with Rocker--there ARE too many foreigners in New York.) The above is just my opinion, freely stated in accord with my First Amendment rights. If you disagree with me and wish to try to convert, argue with, or insult me please do so by sending e-mail to mkl54321@yahoo.com.
I'm not going to try to convert you (it would be a waste of time for both of us), argue with you (I get the feeling you wouldn't budge an inch), or insult you. What I was trying to say is that when I come to this site, I'm not here to talk politics or operating systems. I'm hear to talk poker. You seem to have mountains of pent up anger, and you seem very bitter about a lot of subjects. I guess I feel sorry for you. I'm guessing it will only get worse when George W. loses to Gore in November, but we'll talk then.
shooter
I second the idea of mostly keeping politics out of gambling discussions. I have to admit though the Dalla article on the candidates was a nice touch. Too bad McCain is out. In this day and age, we really do need to consider these things as obviously politicians have decided to get aggressive with telling us, the people they serve, what we can and cannot do. One thing I am glad about Clinton is that he did not push this type of agenda. I am by no means a Democrat and have mostly voted Republican before, but since this is a gambling forum, I have to admit I am disillusioned that some Republicans see it fit to sell out to people who would prefer that we live their lifestyle and consequently these people are the ones who want to have our rights taken away.
I personally can't say we have too many dumb people on this board that post regularly and to insult people who made an informed decision and voted for the candidate they thought was best is ridiculous. This is a democracy after all and obviously Clinton did something right during his 8 years...he stayed the hell out of the way and this country is better off now than it probably ever has been. Thats what I want in the next President, someone that won't get in our way and tell us all how to live and try to control our lives. All of us on here probably have that same interest. Keep all our forms of gambling legal and stop with all the prohibitions and regulations that are there just because some people don't feel gambling is right or that all gamblers are shady people up to no good. If you haven't already, please read Dalla's article in Card Player and think of the consequences of Bush being President considering his actions as governor. Further think of how he has based a lot of his power on people that think that we are all sinning here by gambling. Sure you can't pick who to vote on just on one issue but these are still scary thoughts...
tst
I was playing a lot of poker and had only dabbled with the ponies. I didn't really believe you could beat them. I got some books and became intrigued. So, I took some private lessons from a guy in California that is really good. That got me started. I saw what he could do and what I could do too with some study and practice.
Now I mostly play the horses and only occasionally play poker. I'm amazed that more poker players don't take up the ponies. Most poker players will bet on sporting events but not even look at the horses. The horses aren't that hard really once you learn a few things. I am starting to do quite well.
In almost every race you can easily eliminate horses that have no chance of winning--fillers they call them. Eliminate enough of these--especially when one of them is the favorite--and you can almost always find a profitable bet to make. It's amazing. I love places like Las Vegas because I can look at 4 or five tracks for my favoite kinds of races (maidens) and pick the cream of the crop. When I'm through with the horses I play a little poker to wind down.
Anyway, I think people should look into this a little deeper, especially the really smart mathematically oriented types. Horse racing can be very profitable and actually quite logical. Happy punting!
As to why more people don't play the horsies--sorry, horses---at the track (which is the only venue at which non-Nevada residents can bet) you are fighting a 20%-plus "house edge" (the amount of $$ the track removes from the pari-mutuel pool). There is also the effect of breakage, which can kill you on chalk-horse payoffs. The net effect is that EVERYBODY loses, even the so-called wise guy, prognosticator, analyst, expert handicapper talks-to-horses self-styled genius. The seductive part is that horseplayers are drowned in a flood of statistics, so many that those seeking some kind of pattern/correllation will eventually find one, even if it's only something like you should always bet a horse with three or more spots on his behind if he runs on a cloudy Tuesday and is being ridden by a jockey named Sidney. In Vegas, you get paid at "full track odds", which I presume simulates the effect of the "house rake" at the track (you get less than "true odds"). There as elsewhere, you have to be 20% smarter than everyone else just to break even. I sincerely doubt this is possible. Nonetheless, I know several people who swear up and down that they can beat the horses. One drives a 1974 Pinto; another works at McDonald's (but it COULD all be part of a clever disguise :)
Well part of the reason is look who bets the horses now. Its no longer a variety of people just gambling for fun anymore. I remember back in the 80s when on a weekend there might be 30,000 people at the track and you had to figure a vast number of those had no clue what they were doing. Thats a lot of really dead money in the pot. Now 10,000 seems to be the norm and I would tend to guess its mostly die hards that aren't exactly giving up a lot. They may not be winners, but if they are only 10% losers, thats still detrimental to everyone else and forces you to be that much more successful. I do know a few successful horse players and they do drive decent cars, but they aren't exactly millionaires either. Thats the amazing thing about the horse industry. To me it seems almost no one has it good except maybe the touts and the Racing Form. The tracks are all losing money unless they have casinos, the horsemen are losing more and more jobs, the purses are smaller and smaller so the trainers, jockeys, agents, etc...the main on track employees aren't making as much, almost all owners will tell you they don't make money and are in it for the thrill, and to top it off very very few bettors winning either. What a miserable situation and yet it still goes on. If you ask me they probably would be a better industry if humans raced for money. Take all the track events and make them bettable and you might have something. Imagine a daily double, the 800 and the javelin...
Wow, a lot of misconceptions in the above two posts.
First of all the track take on the west coast is about 15% not 20% (except for gimmick bets like exactas which is about 20%)
What Wild Bill said about dead money is partially true but even though track attendance is down simulcast wagering is up and track purses were just raised 5% (in non stakes races) in California.
Like all games the proliferation of knowledge that wasn't available in the past has hurt prices but nonetheless I still get nice overlays on a daily basis.
After all if you can eliminate the 2-1 favorite you can just about bet every other horse in the race and have an edge!
I guess it's good that the forgoing attitude is prevalent otherwise it would be even tougher game to beat, but beatable it is. Happy punting!
155, 20%, whatever. It's still far too high to be beatable. It's kind of amusing to hear you say that you "get nice overlays on a daily basis". How do you KNOW you do? If you bet a 8-1 horse to win--and it does--it still doesn't mean that the bet was a good one. The zombies staring at the Racing Forum on the bus to the track are ALL convinced they have overlays--otherwise it makes no sense to bet, right? Everyone who takes a bet to the window believes "his" horse has a better chance to win than the posted odds would indicate. Answer me this: are you making money? How much? For how long?
If you want to know why more people dotn bet the horses, here are a few good reasons:
It is almost impossible to beat. Going to the track and losing $1,000 is easy, but to win a grand is very difficult. You could book horse bets and wouldnt need a dollar to back you. and it doenst matter how many people you have betting with you. Players have no shot at winning. Ask any bookie you know and they will tell you that if they had 20 horse players that played everyday, they would give up all their sports bettors if they had the choice between one or the other.
Another reason racing is dying is because it is slow. it is basically a long tedious day of waiting 35 minutes for 2 minutes of action. you can spend 6 hours at the track and get like 15 minutes of action. and in this era, that wont cut it. Look at the faces of the typical track goer. Not many people under the age of 30 or even 40 and 50. Just a lot of old men in Members Only jackets. And what is with this Members Only jacket phenomenon among old horse players??? and it doesnt matter the time of year or temperature. Walk around the track next time you go out and count the number of Members Only jackets you see. Its amazing.
Anyway, it's just a dying sport, unfortunately, cause I actually enjoy a day at the track once in a while (as long as there's a game on the TV to watch in between races). and for those who say they can beat it consistently, well, I would love to book your action for a year or as long as you like
Gambler
In sum, if dog racing were allowed in NY, CA, and IL, it would just trump horses in the biggest way. However the lobby is strong because of the industry and tradition and that won't happen anytime soon. Lets face it dogs are more compelling a gambling industry for many reasons. First the races are faster, 30 or 40 seconds. There is more luck involved in terms of winning a particular race since there are no inquiries and breaking from the box is just about everything. Not to say there is more luck in winning over time, but the odds reflect this as a big favorite at the dog track is 2-1 whereas most horse races have a 2-1 or lower horse. Second there is more exotic betting. Who ever sees someone just betting a dog to place or show? Almost every bet is an exotic and its not uncommon to bet $2 and win a couple hundred so this appeals to the gambling public that doesn't go to the track to squeeze out a $50 winning day as some prudent wagerers might. Third there is a much lower cost to dogs so the track take is much reduced. The prize money is small but so is the cost of maintaining a dog. All in all, if allowed, dogs would take over the racing portion of the betting world if it weren't for entrenched horse industries and tradition. Most people don't care about the past, all they care about is action at a reasonable cost and dogs provide it and increasingly horses dont. That should simply show how bad the horse industry is.
The successful horse players are akin to the successful poker players in that they don't go put money on every race on the card. Good poker players can wait hours or days for the right hand to bet. Good pony players can pass on a whole day's action .
But, when they find an overlay, they play it. If they are good enough, they are being 20% or more smarter than the betting pool.
Almost all horse players are losers. Why? They bet race after race with no real edge. The 15% to 20% "rake" is impossible for them to overcome.
It is said 95% of all poker players are losers. Why? They play too many hands trying to win pots. Even a fairly good player has to overcome the rake.
First of all, not every horse player even considers the concept of overlays. 90% of racegoers just want to "pick a winner." Cash a ticket. Hit the pick 6. If you ask the average horseplayer that likes two horses in a race, one at 2 to one and the other at 7/2, what he is going to do, invariably they will say, "Well, the 7/2 is the best price but I'm gonna bet the favorite." wrong, Wrong, WRONG!
As far as horse racing being slow you are right. But with the advent of simulcast wagering it is much faster. I don't know of any track that doesn't offer simulcasting. I play two tracks a day, sometimes three. (One at night.) This picks up the pace considerably. It also lets you be more selective and just pick and choose the most profitable races--or the races you feel the most comfortable betting.
I have been playing the horses off and on for 30 years. I won, then lost and then won. Over all, for that time, I am a small loser. I just recently began playing again. I hadn't played in about 10 years--too busy playing poker. 6 months ago I started doing some research and playing on "paper" only.
I started betting 3 months ago. My goal was a 20% return on investment. For the last 3 months I am achieving about a 17% return. Very close to my expectation of 20%, and I am still learning. In fact, I had to UNLEARN everything I THOUGHT I knew. I virtually started over. Things I used to look at first I now look at last. I don't bet exactas or the other gimmicks--yet. I want to master win betting first. Contender-pretender selection, etc.
This game CAN be beat. Open your eyes a little wider and try to read between the lines. If you don't believe me ask David Sklansky. Happy punting!
You hit the law of diminishing returns quickly since even a $200 bet is enough to drop your odds. On the other hand if you are in Vegas, you have a choice of 300 races a day and unlike poker where there is an ante, you lose nothing if you don't play. Furthermore there are many bets that start off with less than a 15% disadvantage even if you weren't looking for overlays. Win bets on longshots lose way more than 15% while very short priced favorites do much better for instance.
I have heard it suggested that, since this "fact" became fairly widely known in the mid-80s as a result of Ziemba etc., the returns now look somewhat bowed, with short odds now returning closer to avg expectation and the middle odds horses gaining the benefit.
Maybe its coming down because of more sophisticated to unsophisticated ratio that prevails now. The price will never be evenly distributed because of the nature of betting. If you are like most people after the first race, behind, betting 4/5 horses isn't gonna get you unstuck. The poker table mentality takes over as the bettors bet more and more recklessly trying to end the day even or up. The smart money rides out the storm and takes those solid favorites and my guess is as the day goes on, a slight advantage creeps into the price. Notice the last race of the day almost always is set up not to have a big favorite. Usually a big card so there are lots of big money opportunities should you catch the right combination. Trifecta, superfecta, you name it they offer. The racing secretary has to make sure of it or else people leave early. He puts the most competitve race with the biggest field he can get in that race.
On another note, no doubt in my mind exists that racing can be beat. Remember what Caro says, if a game cannot be beat, it will cease to exist. Now this won't apply to games that don't attract pros such as most table games or slots, but games such as poker, slots, horses, sports...all rely on pros to keep them going. They are the foundation of the game. If they couldn't beat the game and there wasn't a reasonable chance to either break even or win a little, racing forms would become unprofitable and all the other sources of information would slowly dwindle to. This isn't to say that if one uses the form or other info they will win, but it is to say that knowledgeable bettors are the core subscribers to all this information and without them, these businesses would be struggling. I do know of a few pros in horses, but they all say the same thing. Every year their "bettable" tracks are reduced. Used to be you could bet just about every circuit, but now only a couple are bettable weekdays unless you spot a really juicy situation because the handle is too low and you affect your odds. Not only that, but when you do bet you have to play a game with the track. Bet $50 now, $50 in 3 mins, and so on until you get out a $400 bet. Otherwise all the trackgoers watching the board for action can be swayed by a bet as large as just $300 if it comes too early. Not only that, but you don't want to bet too much late cause those moves are read too. Its like playing BJ and matching your skill against the bosses detection skills. These tracks really do have such light action that with 10 mins left before a race, a $400 bet on a horse you figure will go off at 12/1 will be half the action and can move the odds down enough to get some attention. Not a pretty picture and my associates say they are figuring the sooner the industry consolidates the better. Bring it into 3 or 4 circuits that race year round and you will have at least a decent industry that has a chance to last.
I disagree that the racing secretary cards the last race to be "competitive", rather he cards it to be as unpredictable as possible. Usually the cheapest, lamest, most unreliable horses on the grounds. Ironically, cheap claiming races are more usually more undecipherable than older maidens.
As far as the early and late betting action, it also is totally as an indicator. Bookies and big bettors move money into the win pools both early and late in order to jerk the price around in order to manipulate the naive.
Finally, with an average 17-20% rake, the betting approach favored by Andy Beyer is of course the most profitable. He rarely best to win, focusing on the exotic pools for overlays -- despite the fact that the exotic pools are often have a higher rake. My favorite all-time quote: "I'm convinced of the inevitability of failure when attempting to secure a small safe return."
Exotics may have the best value, but they are murder on a solid players bankroll. Just think if you are playing an exotic with a 100-1 payoff. Say you spot a good overlay. Say this overlay indicates its actually a 60-1 shot. Well if you were to go 180 situations like this and not cash a ticket, it would not really be that unusual a circumstance, just normal fluctuation. Thats why I tend not to bet too much on big dogs because you can very easily go through a very long dry spell not cashing any bets even if they value is there.
Dear Mr. Wild Bill,
Do you really believe a $400 bet at Santa Anita is going to make much of a dent in the odds?
Regarding takeout: here are some percentage takeouts for 5 different racetracks.
Sam Houston: win, place & show 18
Daily double and exactas 21
trifectas & pick3 25
Bay Meadows & Santa Anita: win 15.43
All other exotics 20.18
Penn National: win 17
Daily double and ex. 20
Tri and super tri 30
Twin tri 31
Turfway: win place and show 17.5
All other exotics 22
I'm curious if anyone knows the percentage takeouts from say, the 1930's? The 40's, 50's 70's, etc. I'd be interested in seeing how they have changed.
Also, if horseracing were to consolidate, I believe it would be possible to get the takeouts even lower. It seems like a necessity if the game is to survive and thrive. But then again they have been saying that for years so who knows. It seems like the smaller tracks are taking the biggest gouge. Happy punting!
There have been a number of easily testible claims made in this thread. "Early and late money is smart." "Final race cards are more 'competetive' (meaning, I guess, with less extreme odds and thus contradicting the claimant's assertion that these races have more longshots)." "The favorite-longshot bias hasn't changed since its wide public dissemination in the mid-1980s." Does anybody have any data to back up these assertions?
Its almost impossible to back these types of theories up. How do you prove smart money is there? Someone wins every race, how do you know just who it was that won it? Smart money's goal is to make their moves as least perceptible as possible and they sometimes succeed so don't assume that a big move on the board is a sure sign that smart money was on the horse. As for the competitive comment. Well to me competitive means that the race can be won by any number of horses. The last race rarely has a standout horse, that was what I was trying to assert and I would imagine this would bear out as almost all last races have large fields. I personally don't have the time or interest to bother with horse racing research as I will rarely bet a thing on it. I bet for fun on the dogs occasionally, but thats just entertainment.
Time is probably one of the main reasons. You have to live it, love it, know it, and respect it. 20 years ago I got into horse racing. I learned from some horse players who had been playing all there life. The key as I understood it is to know the honest trainers and get up with them in the morning for workouts. They are the most knowledgeable people to learn from. Once you do this for a couple of months then you can go from there to handicapping them thru trainers that you respect. If you want to make a heavy bet I would suggest you talk to the trainer that day. Now you have to spread the bet. It takes time and hard work like anything in life if you want to be good at it but it can be done.
good luck paul
http://www.churchilldowns.com/kderby/pools/
I'm not going to bother transfering because it doesn't do it well and I'm getting lazy.
Observations: the payoff on the field for this pool was the highest last year of the three. You don't have the clown from Texas betting the field like in the first pool. There doing the same as last year dropping six and adding six new ones. IMO the field bet is the way to go on this pool. This pool had the smallest total also last year. If it goes up like the first pool did this year it should be around 300K. If you make horse bets wait until Sunday to see the approx. final odds it can definitely help in making your selection.
good luck paul
I like Mason's idea in Gambling Theory.... about placing "free bets" (bets with little or no negative expectation) to earn casino comps, but the only strategy that I've studied is poker.
What free bets can I make without studying to achieve "perfect strategy"? I'd imagine blackjack would require quite a bit of skill, but what about video poker and progressive slots?
Thanks in advance
Ryan
IMO, BJ basic strategy is much easier to learn than video poker optimal strategy. But, I don't follow BJ anymore, and the edge the house has over you varies noticeably with the rule changes. There may or may not be any games left where perfect basic strategy can negate the house edge entirely. Contrarily, I have heard of the existence of video poker games in LV where optimal strategy gives you an edge over the casino, AND you still get some free stuff through the slot club.
BTW, I believe that you can forget progressive slots unless it's video poker. For any other slot machine, you can never calculate the exact edge on the machine, because you never know how often the winning combinations are programmed to appear.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Go for the Video poker. Easy to learn, easy to play, comps can be quite good.
Danny S
Well, as Greg points out, there is no free lunch with video poker or slots.
Most places don't count you free craps bets.
Learning and banking Pai Gow poker may be an option, but I don't know how good comps are for that game.
IF you can really learn a good blackjack count, try this:
FLAT BET a double-deck game with good rules - 1) try to sit at 3rd base of a crowded table. 2) learn a sophisticated strategy count - I recommend Hi opt 1 with a seven side count (and eights if you're ambitious). 3) "good rules" means - Stand on soft 17, double after split is allowed.
Notice that this is a LOT of work. You will have trouble finding games like this. You will still be LOSING money at play even if you do. Forget about finding games like this outside Vegas, from what I hear.
One could also do the same at some single deck games, but I am not sure how well the action will be received...
Learning Video Poker sounds so boring and tedious to me I can't speak objectively about it.
Sounds like your "free vacation" should come from winning at poker and using that $ to pay your way.
Good luck.
Buy a basic strategy card and practice with it at home for a little while. Basic strategy is very easy to learn in a couple of hours. Then go and play in the games at the Horseshoe. If you are betting $10 hand you will get free food and casino rate rooms very easily with 4 hours of play. Their game has a .17% edge against you using the calculations found in a Snyder book: single deck, hit S17, no double after Sp. They probably will write you up for a 1-2% edge. If you play around 7pm the tables are fairly crowded so you will only get out maybe 100 hands in a hour, probably less. If you bet $10 hand, that means you give up about 1.7 cents a hand, or about $1.70 hour. If you ask for a comp after 4 hours you will have paid about $6.50 for your hand but you can get a $10 food ticket in return or a comp for two to the buffet which is worth about $20 if you really value it at full price. Add to that a room that is generally about $35 except during busy weekends or WSOP. Add it all up and you are a slight winner with very modest risk as a flat bettor playing basic strategy shouldn't experience huge swings.
If you really want to add to it, learn the basics of card counting and sit out a hand during the most negative of decks and you stand to just about even the odds out. Spread a modest 1-2 and you will have the edge. Learn a basic count and make adjustments in your play due to the count and get a solid edge. Learn a very complicated count method that can help you dominate a single deck game over time thru playing strategy changes and you can be a fairly solid winner over the long run. Like most things in life, you get out what put into it. Heck you can even take that basic strategy card with you to the tables, but I wouldn't suggest it as the boss will know you are about a break even player and probably won't be too generous with the comps.
Thanks guys... Maybe I'll learn some blackjack, but Dan Z is probobly right.
cya
There's a book by George Lund. The banking slot machines are quite different. Lund's book describes strategies for playing the different types of machines. He indicates which ones to avoid. I will be trying these strategies on my next Vegas trip in May.
Has anyone seen the charachter on the late night infomercial, with site at changetheodds.com?
I've seen parts of it, as in don't waste your time, This is the same guy who did the same infomercial ten years ago, just stick with High-Opt I and you'll make more money.
Funniest thing happened tonight. I was at Borders to buy a travel guide and some guy I had never heard of was giving a little speech and sign opportunity. His book was beating blackjack without counting (boy there is a unique subject!) As if there weren't enough books out there with about the same claim, he has written some shoddy looking book on this. I really didn't want to talk to him about it since it was his stage so I kinda avoided it. He then left shortly after greeting all these people who were saying things like "well I can't count all those cards" or "I want to be able to get some comps". Such a brand of geniuses, guess he was lucky no one would bother challenging him. So after he left he still had a few copies of the book left out so I thought I would take a look at these treasure chests priced at a mere $11.95. Wouldnt you know it, it was like a shameless copy of John Patrick!!! I am not kidding, all the way down to the big 5 or something of gambling and the 212 system. My buddy many years back bought the Patrick BJ book so I recognized all these things. I didn't bother reading much, but I was shocked! I have to admit his money management system was much different, but other than that it was like a total knockoff. Only thing was that this book was maybe 50 pages.
David/Mason what do you guys think of me writing "beating stud without reading 400 page books" and doing a knock off of 21st Century Seven Stud??? I swear it won't be over 50 pages either...haha. Judging from the intelligence level of the people there, I won't have to write much more than..."if you don't have rolled up trips, dont play cause you don't know enough on how to win you inexperienced putz and with your ideas about gambling I doubt you will ever learn it."
I checked out the website you wrote. It is Bobby Singer. He does teach correct information for the most part. He teaches the hi/lo system.
Having said that he is more of a showman than a respected member of the blackjack community. One thing I do NOT like is the quotes he has on his page. He gives the impression that you can just walk into a casino and make thousands of dollars with just a little practice.
From what I have heard, people pay lots to go to his seminars because he is a great entertainer. He could be talking about any subject and would probably have people pay to hear him speak.
I know very little about him. What I wrote above was from what others have told me.
David
Well there was another guy on TV here in Vegas with an informercial and I know it isn't him because he claims he does no card counting and that casinos welcome him in. He implies it all has to do with playing basic strategy and your betting system that makes you a winner. Dont remember his name, Larry something I think.
Larry Grossman is a radio personality in vegas. Maybe it's him. One of his claims to fame is his craps system. It involves a sequence of negative expectation bets.
Anyway, the website changetheodds.com was selling Bobby Singer's system, but maybe the guy on the infomercial is different.
My advice for blackjack -- stick with Wong or Snyder. "KO Blackjack" and "Blackjack for Blood" are good books too. Too bad Olaf Vancura is working for the other side now. I hate recommending "KO Blackjack" because of that fact, but it is a good book for beginners.
David
Come on what obvious advice. If it weren't for the easy get rich quick nature of the gambling public people would heed your call. I think everyone on this board knows you need to count cards to get a definitive long run edge and really any counting system works as long as you properly bankroll yourself and have the talent not to get booted. Therein lies the problem. Not many people are good actors and even more people don't have a sufficient bankroll. Counting isn't easy at all and for most people I would say you really are wasting your time. Obviously saying things like this won't sell books, but I am sure a majority of the authors would love to say it. The fact is that you have to have a real love for the game, and I don't mean Blackjack. You have to have a love of beating the house, beating the pit boss, beating the eye in the sky, beating negative fluctuations, just plain beating the game in every way to be a long run success...unless of course you don't mind winning $5/hour or thereabouts. Most of us surely are better off working for a living and leaving blackjack as recreation, not a profession or serious hobby. Like I say, if you really love all that, then by all means go ahead. However it never will be as simple as read a book, learn counting, go to tables, get rich. For all the discussion we have on counting systems, I think this is most important disclaimer to those who haven't been bitten by the blackjack bug yet. It won't be easy, it won't be consistent, heck most who try it will lose money in the long run. Most of all, its not something simple you do to pick up some easy comps. Thats the reality of blackjack today where even $20 counters are sometimes run off.
I have no interest in a craps system. I know it's a farce. I mentioned that as a reference to HIS credibility. I should be more careful how I word things.
David
Also, I know that blackjack is much more than simply reading a book and making millions. Check out my Bobby Singer post.
For the record, blackjack requires much more than many people have in the way of discipline, counting skills, basic strategy, knowledge of bankroll requirements, an actual bankroll for that matter, casino comportment, etc... I would never want to say that it is easy. The books I recommended seem like the best intros to the game in my opinion.
I have no vested interest in selling "their" books in particular.
Gosh... didn't mean to rock the boat!
David
This has been debated to the death in the past, but what the hell.
Which is more boring to play, poker or blackjack? I mean, if sex rates 0 on the boring scale and watching paint dry rates 10, where would you place the two games?
Tough to answer. Poker can be anywhere from a 10 to a 1 maybe. If you are a rock, playing AA or KK then its close to a 1. Hell could be negative numbers having to deal with smokers and drunks. Playing like most tourists probably close to a 10. Only craps probably can rate in excitement, but once again all has to do with how you play. If you are a winning player or try to play a winning game probably closer to 3-5. I think from the standpoint of most people, poker is much more interesting. BJ requires you to play very much by the book. Then again its hard to tilt because even a steaming BJ player won't do something too stupid such as hit a 15 against a 5, but good players on tilt play bad hands such as 4-3 suited. Poker has strategy that can differ from hand to hand. No two hands really are exactly the same. In BJ, you don't have consider how badly the other players play, you just play your hands in a way that realizes the highest mathematical edge. All the "excitement" in BJ, if there is any, is in playing cat and mouse with the pit (provided you are counting of course). The solid long term winners in BJ tend to love this part of the game more than anything. They love to act, they love to give one impression while living up to quite another. They say to really succeed in poker you have to live, eat, and breathe the game. I don't think thats necessary to be a winner, maybe a big winner though, but for BJ I think that applies to almost all consistent winners using quarters or more.
It is not Larry Grossman on tv selling his system. Larry is as honest as the day is long.Larry does have a craps system he calls "The dinner system" but freely admits it is not really a system but merely a method of play just for fun.
Since the conversation is getting a bit dull I thought I would spice it up with this prop. First I will say that I have done VERY well in the past so an off season might not be out of place. Being in a good mood and hoping to get some dialogue going, I will give you my best bets on this prop and my read on each team in regards to these numbers. Please do post responses and disagree with me, but I do ask that you provide at least a semblance of reasoning for your disagreement or else we will fall into the muck that often clutters the Poker boards.
Two notes on my thinking of this whole prop. First of all remember that the prices against you are 20 cents and you can get most regular season games at 10 cents. Added to this that regular season games are generally at higher odds (ie, -150 instead of the -110 to -125 you might see on these) and that means these bets are more than twice as high a vig against you so I do personally insist that if I like a bet here, that it be a very strong play since I could do better just betting a regular season game with some edges that I find. Second never underestimate the cost of leaving up money for 7 months. Its not the fact that the house gets to earn interest on those funds for so long, its the fact that if you are successful at handicapping, you could easily have doubled such funds if they were still part of your day to day bankroll. If you don't at least double your roll in the course of a baseball season, you are probably not doing well at all. I generally am pretty conservative in resizing my bets yet still at least triple my BR in all but bad years. Therefore I only play this prop because I feel very confident about my ability to beat it. Now for you not so good handicappers, thats maybe a good idea as you get a "refund" of sorts when the season ends if you manage to get a winner out of these. Ok enough said, onto the numbers. They are all acquired from an online book I use at times, but I did it just for basic line purposes. Do go out and shop and find better numbers...
For each team I list the current line, then last years wins, and then my suggestion on a bet, if any.
NY Yanks 98.5 (98) Under I feel a fairly good under bet as they depth is taking shots now and the age of the team is starting to become a factor. Besides still gets every teams best shot each night. Looking at maybe 94-96 wins.
Atlanta 93.5 (103) Over Readjusted number for the loss of Smoltz as this number was 98 a couple weeks back. Not going to say it was a good adjustment as I don't think losing Smoltz is worth 5 less wins. The do regain Galarraga and added speed in the offseason. I would lean to the over since they have gone over this number just about every year, so look for 96-98 wins.
NY Mets 93.5 (97) Pass Right where I would expect them to go. The division is improved this year and they played far above recent trends last year. They did add Hampton, but I would expect a bit of a bounce down from 97 wins. I will say right on the number at 93.
Cleveland 94.5 (97) Over Division is just lacking in talent so don't really expect them to drop down much. New manager should give them a little more spunk, but losing Lofton for part of the season does hurt. I will go with the same as last year at 97.
Boston 90.5 (94) Pass Tough call here as I think last year was a bit of an aberration, but the talent is clearly there and the resolve to win means potential deals during pennant race time. Pedro can't possibly pitch at last years level as he will wear out if they aren't careful. I will call for 90-92.
Arizona 92.5 (100) Under My gut feeling says this number is a bit low, but I would expect a bit of a bounceback from LA and SF has a sold out stadium all year so that will eat off a few wins. This is actually a pretty old team so age could hurt them in many spots, but having a closer for the whole year might be a plus. Just they added so many wins last year that its hard to call for more than 88.
Cincinnati 93.5 (96) Pass Lot of hype on this team, but I don't know if they really strengthened themselves that much. Griffey does help, but they always had a patchwork rotation and lost a starter from it and still have injuries there. Asking a potentially suspect rotation to get 94 wins is really risky. New enthusiasm though is also hard to gauge too. Could be anywhere from 88-100.
Houston 88.5 (97) Over Losing some players now, but still a great core of dominant stars such as Bagwell, Lima, and Wagner. I don't think they lost much except Hampton and Dotel might get 14 wins so I don't think you can call for a 8.5 win dropoff. Still I would say more talented overall than Cincy and getting a better price too plus the added bonus of new ballpark. The call is for 94.
Texas 87.5 (95) Under I am still trying to figure this team out. Their staff is a joke and they traded a highly productive player and are counting on Mateo to be a big producer. Asking quite a bit. When your staff is putting up plus 5 ERAs, a few breaks and you can be a losing team fast. Still leery though of such a big dropoff in wins. Call for about .500, say 82-84.
St Louis 86 (75) Under This is one of my better bets. I have been against this team 2 years in a row make it 3 now. The team did make some strides in the rotations offseason, but is still full of underachievers to play alongside BigMac. They haven't been near 86 since they went to the playoffs a few years ago and I am sorry, but Ankiel won't be Koufax by year end. Call is for 77.
Philadelphia 81 (77) Under Not a real strong feel on this team. They don't do much, just kind of a status quo team hoping their youngsters will come through, but then suddenly they made a move and got Ashby and Jackson. Schilling's problems are obviously a huge factor and will he be the same pitcher when he is cleared is hard to say. Just going under because I think the bottom feeders in this division are getting better and they didn't improve enough to cover for Schilling problems so why is the number up so much? Call for 75.
Oakland 83 (87) Under Just a play against this team truly having improved that much. Hudson is a junkballer and I think the league might figure him out a little better this year. They have an absolute joke of a pen too and blowing late leads causes morale problems and finger pointing. Worst of all their up the middle players are among the weakest in the league. Still a long way to go for the A's. Call is 75-77.
San Francisco 84 (86) Over This team just surprises each year. Great manager and now a great park that will give them a home field edge. Not paying anything in value either as the number is down from last year. Having a sell out each game alone could be worth 3 or 4 wins and having Nen healthy again could be huge too (if he is indeed healthy now). Call for 87-89.
Toronto 83.5 (84) Under Only if they find another gem the caliber of Koch can they reach this number. Mondesi is a cancer, a me player that will eat at the locker room. Green did everything better too. Problem for the Jays is that everyone is about at top potential for them except for Vernon Wells. I don't think any of their young starters will be that special and they have dead weights in the rotation like Hamilton and Wells so back under .500, maybe 76.
Los Angeles 84.5 (77) Pass Right about where I put the Dodgers as they almost have to improve on last year. Things were pretty bad from expectations last year, but they didn't really clean things up that much to say they will win the division. Green is a nice addition, but still have lots of underachievers to go with their couple of really top notch players like Brown and Green. I put them right at 85.
Baltimore 82 (78) Over I really was surprised to find this number. I think the O's could surprise this year as they really couldn't have done much worse last year with the talent they have. Mussina is among the best and Belle might just break out and have a monster year. Age is definitely a problem, but this is a very makeable number since Angelos will make deals until all hope is lost. I will call for 87.
Seattle 77.5 (79) Over This is easily my best bet. I am getting a team that clearly improved themselves and tailored their team more to their new park, and best of all, at a lower wins number. Losing Griffey hurts, but his production was bound to be reduced by the park. Lost in the Griffey shuffle is that Tomko has shown number one stuff before and in a better pitcher's park just might blossom. The rotation is strong 6 deep now, something you never could say about Seattle before, and maybe one of the best from top to bottom in the AL. Oakland figures to drop some and so does Texas, and the Angels don't have a clue. All in all, should be the division winners and an outside threat at AL crown. Further by declaring ARod stays, fewer media hassles. I see at least 90 wins in this weak division.
Anaheim 77.5 (70) Under A real messed up team that can't even pull the trigger on obviously needed deals. I mean how can you not think you need to make moves when you have a lethargic team that finished far in the basement? When management is lost, the team usually follows. I don't know how they got so many wins added to their line. I call for a repeat of 70 wins.
Chicago Cubs 75.5 (67) Pass This was my best bet last year, an incredibly easy winner as all I needed was a .500 season and I would have won my under bet. Not much has changed, but seems the Cubs are making a bit of an effort to improve with some signings and I couldn't have expected things to get as bad as they did last year in Wrigley. A bit of a bounceback, but close to the number as I call for 77.
Detroit 75.5 (69) Pass Well a new park factor has to come in here. Tigers made a bold move, but still didn't address their abundant weaknesses. I don't see much with this team, but the new atmosphere and a legit star might give them enough wins to go over. I will call for 74.
Pittsburgh 76.5 (78) Over Hard to figure the Pirates as they are probably not going to make much of a move this year. A quality staff but not much production in the lineup so for them to move up will need a breakout season from a youngster. Call for .500 at 81 so lean to the over.
Chicago White Sox 75.5 (75) Pass Same as Pittsburgh although the staff is more suspect, but the lineup a bit more potent. Not going anywhere but number didn't either. Another repeat of 75.
Tampa Bay 76 (69) Under A franchise desperate to put fans in the seats obviously isnt building a winner. A bunch of lumber in the lineup, but all of them are terrible with the glove and have no speed to speak of. I certainly don't think adding the lumber will add wins when the pitching is so potentially woeful. For God's sakes they are counting on Steve Trachsel and Norm Charlton to make contributions! I call for 66.
Montreal 71.5 (68) Over Improving atmosphere is almost as important as improving team. No longer just giving away players, they actually will build around Guerrero and Hermanson which is news. I don't know how Irabu will really help them, but at least they showed they would make a move and take on some salary. Clearly a team on the rise as they have some quality talent for a change and the youngsters such as Vidro have been panning out. Call for a move to 74 this year.
San Diego 73.5 (74) Under The once a decade fire sale is on. I can't understand how you can make such giveaways of talent and say its building for the future. Ashby for some mediocre starters? Sanders/Veras for declining Klesko/Boone? Team has a long way to go unless stuggling youngsters like Clement and Rivera develop in a hurry. Think they won just 74 with a 14 game win streak thrown in. Call for 68.
Colorado 71.5 (72) Under A bad year ahead here for Rocks. The need to shake things up is one thing but they downgraded the talent to try a different angle, and that doesnt make much sense. Castilla for a mediocre pitcher and Bichette for an often injured and underahieving player strikes of desperation to me. The pitching is a little better, but who knows how it works out in that park. However still some quality players so its hard to go too far under this number. I will call for 69.
Milwaukee 71.5 (74) Over Team isn't really doing much, but at this level, usually the proper play is to go up. They did take a bad hit with Nilsson gone, but the team doesn't appear to be that bad overall with some possible breakthroughs in the younger talent. The type of team I would just expect a repeat performance out of, since the number is down, slight lean to over with 74.
Kansas City 67.5 (64) Pass The bottom really feel out on this team. Not much going for them right now and they appear to be much the same as the Twins, a no hope for the future franchise. The number they have to reach right now is reasonable though because there are teams that could be worse than them. Call for 68-70.
Florida 66 (64) Over My second best bet of the year. I went with this team over last year just because the number was so low and I rightly predicted it would be hard for a team to lose 100 two years in a row. This year I have more positive reasons. First of all is that there is no one left to trade! Taking a major league talent and filling it in with a minor leaguer is a big fall off. Now the team won't have that to deal with. Further even though they are still young, all the talent is getting fairly experienced over the last 2 years. They are also stockpiling up top prospects from all these deals and those players are bound to pan out. This team is truly ready to break out soon and wouldn't be surprised to see them be a playoff contender if they put money into them as the owner says. After all at $10 mil payroll how can you not make money? I see close to 75 wins this year and maybe over .500 next year. You heard it here first.
Minnesota 64.5 (63) Pass I don't have a clue to tell you the truth. They dont either. They don't seem to get the quality of prospects the Marlins get and hence their future seems a lot darker. The cloud of possible moves or sales has to wear on them too. However they do have Radke and for some reason haven't moved him. He might get them a quarter of these wins himself. I just call for 64 so I don't have to deal with a team that I don't know what to expect.
Well there you have it. I probably will just bet the Astros, Mariners, Marlins over and the Cards and DRays under with close considerations given to the bets involving the Padres, Angels, and A's. I look forward to hearing some other opinions on this subject.
Baseball futures are one of my favorite bets. And while tying up money for a long period of time is a big drawback, that is only the case if you bet with a Vegas casino. I made all my bets with local books and didnt need to put up any money. we just settled when the season was over. And my bets were far from small.
Anyway, as for Wild Bill's handicap of the upcoming season:
I agree with his Over play on Seattle. They lose Griffey but are still improved. Safeco is a pitchers park and the Mariners rotation is easily the best in the AL West. And I love the signings of good veterans like Stan Javier and Mark McLemore as bench/role players.
And sadly enough, being a huge Angel fan, I have to agree wtih your opinion on this team. They made no moves whatsoever and will eventually trade Edmonds at some point and that means they will be even weaker as the seaosn goes on, cause you know what they get in return will be of less value. It's just a mess out here.
Florida is better than people think, Houston not as good. In that new hitter-friendly park, Houston pitching could struggle. Lima was among the league leaders in home runs allowed picthing in the Dome, so look for his ERA to be over 4.00 this year.
I agree with your opinion on the Devil Rays. This team looks like a fake.
But my best bet for the second year in a row is Pittsburgh. Every move they have made in the past two years has been a good one. And most have been seemingly small ones that the average fan wouldnt pick up on (like the signing of Pat Meares and the Brian Giles for Rincon trade (rape)last year, the trade of Brant Brown for Bruce Aven this year, etc..)
The Pirates lost their best player, Jason Kendall, for over half the year, their No.1 starter, Cordova, had a down year, Sprague was a mess defensively at 3rd, which they have since fixed, and they still won 78 games last year, and I believe lost like 6 or 7 of their last 8 games. They have a solid rotation made up of former No.1 draft picks, a bunch of tough lefthanded relievers in the pen (how many teams can say that), and their lineup is solid. Giles is a monster who hit 40 homeruns last year, Kevin Young is a consitent 25-100 guy, you know about Kendall, Warren Morris was nearly rookie of the year and will only get better and Chad Hermanson is another No.1 pick who will play a full year this year in the outfield. Pittsburgh is easily a .500 team and I think Wild Card contender, and will be one of the leagues best teams when they move into their new park next year, as they look like they are taking the same path Cleveland did as they were building Jacobs Field.
Gambler.
Your points on the Yanks are valid however there are a couple of other factors.1)Clemens free agent year,coming off a bad year(he played hurt all year)look for a big bounceback here.If you look at the stats of guys in their free agent year production skyrockets for most.2)Oneill's last year,he's let mgmt know he wants to retire on top.He has told people in the organiztion that this is his last year.He is a team leader may help motivation.3)Resources,have the money,young prospects,and willingness to do anything to win.This is a major plus as season wears on.Personally,I'd pass on this number.
I've noticed the numbers are too high for every team with an "impact" player (Cards-McGuire; Cubs-Sosa; Reds-Griffey). The public tends to overvalue the impact of one superstar player (given that the existing line is essentially a function of public perception). On another note, I LOVE the Giants at 10-1 to win the NL pennant. The morale boost of getting out of Candlestick and into a spiffy brand new sold-out park; the coming back healthy of Nen and Bonds (Bonds in particular being irritated at his sub-par season, only .289 and 40 homers or thereabouts--it's frightening to think what kind of numbers he could put up this year if he remains healthy); the security of having the core of the lineup (Kent/Snow) signed to multiyear contracts; the fact that the DBacks can't possibly have eleven players having career years again; the weakening of the Braves; a lot of games against the Rockies and the (still lousy, below-expectation) Dodgers, each of whom have home-field DISadvantage in their own parks. I think the Giants are 4-1, maybe 3-1 for the pennant if they stay healthy, making 10-1 a great shot. I would bet Houston (still best team in Central despite Reds/Griffey hype) if I didn't bet SF. Comments?
I wouldnt suggest it. First even with all that you say, I make them between 2/1 and 3/1 just to make the playoffs because the Mets or Braves will almost certainly have a better record. I don't think the Braves will fall that far because a rather weak spot at first last year becomes a strength now. I mean look at the sad players they filled it at first for some games. Therefore if they are even 2/1 to get to the playoffs, they would have to be favored in one of the two NL playoff series and near even money at the other to make this a good value play. Just think of it this way, say they are 1 in 3 to get to the playoffs. Then they are even money in series 1. So 1 in 6 to get to the NLCS. 10/1 implies 1 in 11 chance so they have to be a favorite in NLCS just to get to fair value of 10/1. The bottom line is that future bets are horrible plays when betting on teams unless you are pretty certain that the team will make the playoff and I can't say I would go that far in this scenario. Sure the DBacks figure to drop some, but the Dodgers could just as easily take their place. Add to that the woeful depth of the Giants and their pitching staff and they are going to have to be lucky and stay real healthy to get there.
I doubt these figures are correct, since I would have to think that the Giants would get into the playoffs more than once every three (hypothetical) yr. 2000 seasons. I think there probably about even with the Diamondbacks, and have a small edge on L.A. True, you have to figure in the Padres and Rockies, but I would guess that the chances of one of these teams winning the division is almost wholly negated by the fact that the Giants could get in as a wildcard.
However, let me add that WildBill makes a great point. Even if the Giants would get into the playoffs once every two seasons, they'd still have a long way to go to win the NLCS. So, while I'm not sure I agree with WB's numbers, I do agree with his reasoning.
Basically a bet on this team is a bet that they will be far above expectations. Always remember these equations when thinking of betting future book items. They make teams that are 2/1 impossible to bet because it would be rare for you not to get a better price just parlaying them through the playoffs. Especially in baseball almost all future prices are a joke. Look at the Yanks last year. If you had bet them at 2/1, you would have gotten about the same odds parlaying them at their series prices of -400 (vs. Texas) -300 (vs. Boston) -130 (vs. Atlanta). This would have yielded +195 odds, so almost the same price yet you would have avoided potential catastrophe should they have had a few injuries or suddenly been ineffective. Those prices last year are about as high as any team will ever get in a playoff series, especially -400. Baseball series just are that certain. Had Atlanta swept the Mets, they probably would have been favored and that would have made the bet more than 2/1. The same goes for the higher priced teams as their chances of just making the playoffs are often half their future prices. Saying Minnesota is 100/1 to make the playoffs isn't much of a stretch, since baseball has the fewest teams of all sports for playoffs. Simply put, take advantage of the fact that you can get a price on season wins and if you think a team will play above expectations, just bet them over for the wins.
My man who is a hell of NBA capper has opinion on one game tonight,DET + 5.5 at home against LA LAKER. He tell me that DET has a chance to win straight up,with SHAQ 75% healhty and RON HARPER not heathy also LAKER played last night.This will be DET last game at home before five game road trips,their positon in playoff not secure only seven games at home and twelve games on a road left. DET play good basketball lately,I go with my man try to get $$$$ back from juicy poker game that I lost last night. I take small $$$ on money line too +210.
Shaq is 75% and he had 40 last night. The Lakers just came off the third longest winner streak in ever in the NBA. And your going agaist them?
Yes,Phil Jackson think about put Ron Harper on injury list so he can be fresh comes playoff time. Do you think they care about history or winning it all and keep everybody healhty?
You may be right, but Kobe and Rice mean a lot more than Harper.
But, I think there are some easier games today
Suns over Van Denver over Clips Jazz over 76ers Boston over Hawks
My man look real bad with yesterday pick but he guarantee me winner today with WAS by double digit,now Jordan owns WAS play against CHI team that played double over time last night,no mercy here.
NT.
You would think that would quiet him down, but NOOOOOOOO. Another pick eh? Oh well, I am don't have a bet on the game so I am rooting for the Bulls to hopefully keep the pointless touts out...
I'm not tout but I'm out.
I doubt too many touts are here, they all spend enough time at rec.gambling.sports
There're many people who post their picks here but you don't call them touts,you picks on one guy or not.
I guess we didnt have any for awhile, it was nice. Not being football season they seem to stay away. I frankly think this should be an informed forum involving sports betting theory, not selections. Like I have said before, no one goes on the poker board and predicts who is going to win the first hand of the hour in the big game at the Bellagio, nor do people speculate much on who is going to win poker tournaments, but everyone wants to take a shot at telling me and everyone else here who they like in games tonight. Its pointless cause as everyone knows, we all have opinions. If touts came on here and started being annoying I am sure we would all harass them.
Since I started contributing heavily to this board, I have given picks on one game, an all-star game, and the baseball season wins. The last one I did hoping to get some reaction and discussion on each teams fortunes, maybe spotting some things I had missed, but few contributed. Its a shame because I think it reflects greatly on the attitudes of most bettors. They spend hours thinking and researching buying a stock. They can spend lots of time thinking about poker hands if they are decent players at that game. But when it comes to sports they think for five minutes, maybe think how a team played its last game, think about how the team "does well" at home and then find one reason to bet them and its off to the window. Of all the beatable gambling propositions I think sports is by far the most beatable, yet the one that requires the most work. The reasoning given by most people that put up picks here is either non-existant or just falls under what I just described. Long-term success comes with having a "feel" for the teams involved and getting yourself into feeling out their cycles of good and bad play. To say a team is going to win cause they are still in the playoff race and that their opponent lost the night before is far from thorough analysis and doesn't even address if you are getting a good number on the game. If I gave out a pick and analysis on a game, I would write so much, people might get bored reading it. Very few spots require light analysis, such as the all-star game I posted on. Most require quite a bit of thinking and reasoning, so if you all want to post a pick, I say you be ready to back it up with at least a good paragraph of reasoning, including why you are getting a good number on that team. Fair enough?
I think you make your own conclusion that somebody else spends five minutes before picks a team,I can take less than five minutes if I just lay money line on big favorite. To get a feel for the teams,here a link to a newspaper for all NBA teams www.nbascout.bizland.com/newslinks.htm
If you did all this research why did you tell us you had a hot tip from your bookie of all people? I mean your man may like your business, but he aint out to give you his bankroll or the keys to his Caddy. I am sorry, but if someone comes up to us and says their man has a hot tip, most of us would outright laugh. That makes as much sense as me walking up to him and saying I got a hot tip for you...that line on the UCLA game is bad, better move it a couple of points.
I personally won't doubt you do research, but please just avoid giving us your bookie tips...
Wild Bill--
Cannot agree more. Touts have no business on this site because an individual pick is worthless. No one is going to play the game because someone posts it, and a random pick sheds no insight into making me a better handicapper. Since my serious betting period (NCAA FB and BB) is coming to an end, I think I will post more about general theory and good stuff to make us better handicappers. Hopefully others will join. In that vein, I analyze the baseball over/unders like you did...
NY Yankees (98.5) The under looks pretty decent, but I wouldn't actually bet it cause the American league is very divided between haves and have nots. There aren't many mediocre teams that could really challenge the Yanks. Injuries should catch up, especially pitching, but you cannot count out a good farm system and George's ability to get more talent. PASS
Atlanta (93.5) You like over, but I would stay away for same reason as Yanks. First off, I think NL is tougher. Second, like Yanks, pitching is getting mighty old. Their bullpen is also questionable. Offense is good and they do have GM that will improve team, but I don't think it's worth a shot. Plus, motivation has to be a question. The regular season cannot be that interesting when you have won it a zillion years in a row.
NY Mets (93.5) I like this team. Starting pitching is tough and bullpen is good too. The offense is good, despite loss of Olerud, because Melvin Mora is rising star. Most in their favor is the fact they are really hungry for the division and should put out a good effort all year in trying to beat Atlanta. I would go over, but very small because it is a high number and with high numbers, one injury can screw ya.
Cleveland (94.5) Over, agreed. Pitching still sucks, but Colon and Finley are two more pitchers thatn most of the league has. Offense is still top notch and a new manager should fire up the troops. Cannot take anyone else in the division seriously, so it's good. Strong over, but again be careful cause of high number.
Boston (90.5) Pass to under is my lean. Pitching has to go down a bit. As stated, you cannot expect the same out of P. Martinez. As for R. Martinez, Wakefield, Rose, who knows. No Saberhagen hurts too. Offense is good with Everett, but any injury to Garciaparra/Martinez is death. Oh yeah, Derek Lowe is the closer. The same Derek Lowe who called for over/unders of 12.5 when he started in Seattle. They are hungry and well managed and AL is weak, but under is still good.
Arizona (92.5) Under looks good. Starters are old, hitters are old, Buck Showalter is garbage. Plus, the division is stronger as you said. Randy J. is pretty old and he really holds the rotation together. I'll take the under, especially cause it's high and one injury would work in our favor.
Cincinnati (93.5) I would pass, but lean to under. Offense has improved with Griffey and damn fine hitter Sean Casey, but pitching is very questionable. With Griffey trade, I would expect a move for a starter that might push them towards the total. Another thing working against them is the fact that the division is close and guarantees they'll try all year. Pass.
Houston (88.5) I don't like the over as much as you do. New ballpark is hitter friendly and that should help with the good hitters they have. Problem is that Lima and Dotel are flyball pitchers and this may turn out to be Coors south because of park dimensions. Billy Wagner is God and Larry Dierker can manage, so I wouldn't count them out, but I would pass.
Texas (87.5) I would bet my first and second born on the under. This team is garbage, pure and simple. No pitcher that I would want. Bullpen had good stats, but really tailed off once people figured out Zimmerman and Co. Rodriguez is a stud, but manager sucks and team morale has to be dipping after the trade of a star. What they got in the trade is OK, but it won't really help that much. Lock Under. If such a thing as a lock existed.
St. Louis (86) Rotation moves look nice, but I don't see a huge upsurgence. Kile and Hentgen are good, but they aren't the stuff playoffs are made of, they are good 2-3 starters. Kent Bottenfield is still here right. My guess is that the league figures him out. McGwire has to drop off a bit (isn't he due for an injury?) and Tatis is good but that's it. Under.
Philadelphia (81) If Schilling were around, I would like the over a lot. Good young rotation with enough vets to help the kids get good. Bullpen is shaky, but Mike Jackson might be ok. Great young offense that really excites me. Being so young, I would count on a good effort. Will they make in season moves? Yes. If Schilling comes back I would say it's a certainty to go over, but since he isn't I'll just go small over.
Oakland (83) Another team we disagree on. I think they have a decent rotation and bullpen improved once Izzy became the closer. Another young lineup that should keep trying throughout the dog days of the summer. Plus, the division is wretched and should keep them interested. With Giants new park they won't have same attention and should produce without a lot of scrutiny. Over.
San Francisco (84) I like to pass here. Dusty is the best manager in the game so I can't count them out. On the other hand, their rotation is weak and bullpen isn't that great. I think Nen is highly overrated. Lineup is tough especially if Bonds is healthy. Nothing would surprise me with this team, but no value equals no play.
Toronto (83.5) Nothing good in the rotation, a good bullpen, and a joke of an offense. I mean, Shawn Green was the whole offense and he's gone and he's replaced by one of the game's most overrated players. AL is weak, but not weak enough. Fourth in their division cannot mean over .500, so I am going under. Koch is a stud, but other than that even the bullpen ain't that great.
LA (84.5) Cannot play over as you cannot expect these headcases to suddenly turn it around. On the other hand Green for Mondesi is orgasmically good tradeoff. Rotation is ok, but loss of Valdes hurts. Loss of Eric Young hurts too. I have to agree with Wild Bill's analysis here. Stay away.
Baltimore (82) Totally agree with Wild Bill. Rotation is OK, offense is good, and they have a sense of urgency since this figures to be Cal's last year. They should make moves too which will help. Problem is that they will have a tough time making the playoffs anyway and figure to possibly lose hope if it looks unreachable. I would play over if I had to, but I would make it small.
Seattle (77.5) Have to disagree with this pick. Griffey is gone, but Rodriguez is going to be a huge distraction all year. Normally I like young clubs, but that is the kind of thing that ruins morale all season. Key offensive people are getting old and the rotation is not that good. Garcia/Halama/Meche may have been successful because the league hadn't seen them yet. I am not advocating under, but I ain't betting the over either.
Anaheim (77.5) They are worse than Seattle that I will tell you. Who is pitching for this team? Percival is Ok, but other than that... Ken Hill, Jaret Washburn? The offense sucks too because they will undoubtedly have injuries. If they make moves, it will be a firesale which usually doesn't bode well. Under is good.
Chi Cubs (75.5) Cannot write objectively, but everything they are doing is good. Baylor is good, Valdes trade is a coup, Kerry Wood could backfire, but could breathe life into this team. Corey Patterson is the best player in the minors, but there is some other dead wood offensively that will counteract what he brings when they call him up. Bullpen is still hideous. I would pass, but wait til next year.
Detroit (75.5) Another year, another manager. Gonzalez trade sucks because he will become bored with losing and stop trying. Count on it. Tony Clark, Higginson, etc. are good and will have a decent offensive year, but the pitching is bad. Not like most teams bad, but like really bad. Tough to call, but I lean towards the under.
Pittsburgh (76.5) Tough division to grow up in for these kids. They have young talent, but how good is it? No one knows. I would count on a consistent effort, but I really don't know any of their offensive players except Kendall and Giles. I would pass again. Chicago WS (75.5) I would go over here. The rotation is decent and they are probably the 2nd best team in the division. That should account for something. Manager is good and if Big Frank gets his act together it should be good. The fact that they stood pat in the offseason tells me they are a little more confident. I would go over since I expect a game or two over .500
Tampa Bay (76) This team is going 76-86 or better. Yeah, and I am banging Cindy Crawford tonight. Let me say that they have 4 DH's and Quentin McCracken. And Steve Trachsel who might be the biggest clubhouse poison nobody knows about. If they are lucky, all the old people in the Bay will be too senile to notice how much they suck. Under is a lock.
Montreal (71.5) Resurging team with a good owner. Hideki may fool NL who hasn't seen him before. That is what Asian pitchers seem to do for a season. Guerrero is good and the young players will try all year. Pitching has weak spots, but this team is better than a lot of the dregs who have similar O/U's to them. Over
San Diego (73.5) This would be one of those dregs. They have no good players except for Gwynn who cannot be counted on for that much more. Pitching is ridiculous and will be reminiscent of 97 when they went over the total 30 something straight games. Except this year, they won't have the offense to do it. I don't like going under low numbers, but if you have to bet it wouldn't be the worst move ever.
Colorado (71.5) I don't like the number, but I have to go over here. Still got talent and a better attitude by getting rid of the vets. A healthy L. Walker, if that's true, accounts for a boodle of wins. No pitching, no Arrojo doesn't count, but you never know. I would pass, but lean towards over.
Milwaukee (71.5) They fired a good manager and lost their best two players, but this team still should hang around the number. They will (should) try hard with another manager and may or may not get there. Personally, I know less about this team than any other, so I will say pass.
Kansas City (67.5) I like the over a real lot. For them to go under is difficult because it means 96+ losses which is tough without hideous luck. Last year their luck was hideous and they had the worst bullpen ever. Sheer willpower should mean a better bullpen. Muser will keep young kids trying hard and the offense is getting close to stacked. I love this team, especially with a low number.
Florida (66) Similar to KC, but the talent isn't there and they are in a tougher league. They will play hard and produce something but is it enough. I don't know that much about their young players, but if you do and they are good play over. You can't play under this number, so if you have faith go ahead because of their improving attitude.
Minnesota (64.5) 64.5!!! Who are they kidding, this team is a lock to go over. They could contend for the division! Now I put the crack pipe down and disagree with myself. They have pitching which could mean an over, but I don't like the offense. I also don't like the fact that they draw 5000 a game. That could kill morale. Pass.
In general. If I bet these things seriously, I would play Texas and Tampa Bay under and KC over big. I would play medium sized on Cleveland over, Boston under, Arizona under, St. Louis under, Oakland over, Toronto under, White Sox over, Montreal over. Small, I would play Philly over, San Diego under, and Anaheim under.
That's 14 picks, which is a lot. My general philosophy beyond analyzing talent is to look at possible motivation because trying hard or not trying is the key to success in July on when you are dealing with teams not going to the playoffs. I also am willing to take more of a chance on going over low numbers and going under high numbers because one key move or injury can seal the deal. Good analysis, please give me your feedback. Keep in mind, I am not betting these except for my big three which I feel reasonably sure I'll win 2 of. Later.
MDMAniac
Wow, hero worship. Well since I can't win the World Series of Sports Betting, I guess this will do. Fine work here, if only others would contribute like this and lead to further discussion, we would be on our way to being very productive. Well you all know my input, lets get some more subjective analysis from people that probably know some of these lower rung teams a little better than us. I admit I know little about KC and only reason why I know Marlins so well is my bet last year made me look deeper at the young talent. I am sure I have lots to learn about Milwaukee and Pittsburgh, and who is the upcoming talent for the Phils or the White Sox. If 10 people really contributed here, we all would be much better off for it.
I would like to contribute more, but really wouldn't be much help as I'm not an expert on sports -- certainly not MLB. IMO, one of the problems of the poker(something at which I am knowledgeable) boards is that the people with the werewithal to post the most seem to be carrying the arguments, theoretical truths aside. This has kinda discouraged me from participating there(which admittedly doesn't contribute to improved S/N). I do enjoy reading, scrutinizing and evaluating what others post.
Having said all that; I do follow the (local) DBacks. I think they're ripe for an under. Several of their players last year had +1-2 sigma seasons; you can't count on Matt Williams to come out of the blue again like it's 1989. Plus I sense the other teams in the NLW made better strides towards improving offseason. I predict regression to the mean.
JG
Well I don't expect them to win 100 games, but I do notice many people saying they will fall down. I don't know if I agree with that. They have the best pitcher in baseball and he didn't really get as many wins as he might have deserved considering his performance. They have a couple of emerging players especially with Durazo and Mantei who should get even better with time. To add to it, the number is asking them to win 8 less games and thats quite a bit of change for a quality team. The other teams in the division didn't really do that much other than shuffle the deck. The Rockies got rid of productive players in the name of better attitude and the Padres got noticeably worse in the name of payroll. The Giants really didn't do much at all except get a new park so I am starting to think maybe people are reading this team wrong. Same thing happened with the Astros, a still very talented team is being sold short because they didnt make a lot of hyped moves. Sure you might expect less out of Williams and Bell, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Unit get Pedro like numbers this year and Durazo to go deep 35 times in a spot that they got worthless production out of last year. Its easy to say they might have a fall, but I think you would be betting into a bad number and there is no value in that.
I think its best to stay away from the NL West completely. Too many questions. If anything, I like what the Rockies have done. They added a ton of arms (of which they are sure to trade one for a good player at some point)and added speed, and more importantly speed to the outfield. And while most people think the high batting averages at Coors are due only to the air, the fact that the outfield is the widest and largest in the league is a bigger factor. Adding Goodwin and Hammonds on defense with Walker is a big difference compared to the gloves of past Rockie outfielders like Bichette and Burks. The loss of DiPoto is a big blow however.
As for the smaler teams, I have already posted what I feel about the Pirates. Pittsburghs emergence will drop one of the two favorties in the Central (Houston and Cincy) to under status.
As for Florida, this is a team to watch. I would be willing to bet that the Marlins starting rotation will have as many "quality starts" as the Dodgers, especially from starters 2-5. And dont think Alex Fernandez cant have nearly as many as Kevin Brown. He can. I would make the same bet with Montreal's starting rotation, probably more so. If Park and Dreifort wore Expo uniforms, they would be drafted about 8 rounds lower in fantasy drafts. And if Pavano, Irabu and Vasquez pitched for the Dodgers, they would be getting a lot of hype, especially the way all of them have thrown this spring. Watch out for the small market NL teams this year
Gambler
Hey all--
Now that baseball season is here, I was wondering what methods you guys use to pick games, both sides and over unders. I only bet college sports (football and basketball) and don't bet pros, but I am trying to pick up some good methods.
You have to understand the reason for this. I bet primarily with three methods. First off, I have a power rating for the public/oddsmaker's perception of the team. Second, I have my own personal opinion of the team in a rating. If there is a "decent" (depending on how I feel about it) overlay, I bet the game. My third method is that I use motivational factors to tweak my numbers and find additional value.
Early in the season, most of my bets are made according to where I feel the public/oddsmaker is undervaluing a team. Late in the season, most of the numbers are pretty solid, so