ham, be my guest feel free to share your thoughts.
I've got an equation for a couple of MLB teams that fits for an unexpectedly high number of situations, fwiw.
You might want to check out NBA numbers for Raiders while you are at it.
Ham, I assume you've seen your own 'classic' in the offshore forum. It's not out of context either, it's actually pretty damn funny to those that are impartial to 'contests'.
I've got an equation for a couple of MLB teams that fits for an unexpectedly high number of situations, fwiw.
You might want to check out NBA numbers for Raiders while you are at it.
Ham, I assume you've seen your own 'classic' in the offshore forum. It's not out of context either, it's actually pretty damn funny to those that are impartial to 'contests'.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've got an equation for a couple of MLB teams that fits for an unexpectedly high number of situations, fwiw.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the problem with your posting. You always have something but don't have time to go into it or don't want to share too much. Well if you don't want to share why waste time and even post about it in the first place.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the problem with your posting. You always have something but don't have time to go into it or don't want to share too much. Well if you don't want to share why waste time and even post about it in the first place.
raiders,
I said NBA numbers, not record.
"<7-8 points off> LMAO"
I hope you did well in baskets this year.
IMO, you have a hard time understanding a lot of what I am trying to convey, it seems obvious from the sports market vs stock market threads. You should realize that I am not in to attacking posters personally, I do get pissed off at people that spout off without checking the facts first. A lot of what I post is actually conservative- for example, I said NBA numbers were off 7-8 when what I have shows between 8 and 9 points historically b/c I didnt want someone to come back with obscure shop openers or closing numbers and say they were off only 8.
As far as DUE FACTORS, first one must define what this actually means. After thinking about this and asking a couple of guys, I tend to think it means something different to just about everyone. As simply as I can put it, when I refer to due factors I am referring to sporting events where the lines are shaded with little numerical justification. Sometimes this is to get more public action or because of money movement. But I am referring more to opening numbers, when the probability distribution shows a line should be -160 historically, but for 'some' reason has opened at -150 or less. This can get very complicated, and really the best way for me to explain it thouroughly would be to list hundreds of examples. The numbers are really the only thing that matters anyway.
As far as my posting:
I know I havent posted here for years, but I do well every year over my 3000 plays.
You should understand that one cant put everything out in the open. The 2.5/3.5 in football was great until the posting forums clued the offshore books. It also takes a lot of time to share info. Time away from my sex, beer, and rock'n'roll. This is what I have done in the past: I have posted my thoughts. Sometimes people agree with them and are looking at the same things. Sometimes people want to exchange email which is better for detailing. SeaUrchin seems to use a similar approach with the guys that provide him info. Forecast emailed me last winter about bases, and IMO he is very sharp. Ben Dover and Sixth have very good info, and it's tough to get much out of them but when they do share it's very appreciated. One of the posters from Australia is intereseted in applying some strategies to Australian Rules Football. These are just examples of why I post my thoughts. I may end up with a book on my hands many years from now, I havent seen much out there that I would be duplicating.
I said NBA numbers, not record.
"<7-8 points off> LMAO"
I hope you did well in baskets this year.
IMO, you have a hard time understanding a lot of what I am trying to convey, it seems obvious from the sports market vs stock market threads. You should realize that I am not in to attacking posters personally, I do get pissed off at people that spout off without checking the facts first. A lot of what I post is actually conservative- for example, I said NBA numbers were off 7-8 when what I have shows between 8 and 9 points historically b/c I didnt want someone to come back with obscure shop openers or closing numbers and say they were off only 8.
As far as DUE FACTORS, first one must define what this actually means. After thinking about this and asking a couple of guys, I tend to think it means something different to just about everyone. As simply as I can put it, when I refer to due factors I am referring to sporting events where the lines are shaded with little numerical justification. Sometimes this is to get more public action or because of money movement. But I am referring more to opening numbers, when the probability distribution shows a line should be -160 historically, but for 'some' reason has opened at -150 or less. This can get very complicated, and really the best way for me to explain it thouroughly would be to list hundreds of examples. The numbers are really the only thing that matters anyway.
As far as my posting:
I know I havent posted here for years, but I do well every year over my 3000 plays.
You should understand that one cant put everything out in the open. The 2.5/3.5 in football was great until the posting forums clued the offshore books. It also takes a lot of time to share info. Time away from my sex, beer, and rock'n'roll. This is what I have done in the past: I have posted my thoughts. Sometimes people agree with them and are looking at the same things. Sometimes people want to exchange email which is better for detailing. SeaUrchin seems to use a similar approach with the guys that provide him info. Forecast emailed me last winter about bases, and IMO he is very sharp. Ben Dover and Sixth have very good info, and it's tough to get much out of them but when they do share it's very appreciated. One of the posters from Australia is intereseted in applying some strategies to Australian Rules Football. These are just examples of why I post my thoughts. I may end up with a book on my hands many years from now, I havent seen much out there that I would be duplicating.
GER, I'm not familiar with Barne's articles, but I would love to be. Any idea where they can be found??
Raiders, I dont have RL numbers in front of me, but they look accurate. There have been fewer games decided by exactly one run lately (last couple of years or so) than historically. I feel this is due to poorer pitching and better athletes hitting the ball further, but the reason is secondary. RL's and ALT RL's have been VERY good b/c the books tend to favor historical numbers in the beginning of seasons (things DO have a tendency of regressing back to this over the term) instead of shading more towards current form. IMO a LOT of the value is gone in the ALT RL's now. I already started devaluing my position on them on my plays.
I use historical numbers as a foundation. But I concentrate a lot more on current form and team tendencies. I'm also pretty aggressive. I'll take a +190 if I feel it should be +180 in a lot of situations. I know a lot of people require a higher ROI. Sometimes I concentrate on a single aspect of a matchup as I feel this offers value by itself- ignoring a lot of other indicators (similar to Favre in domes in football). It's hard for me to get into a lot of detail without a particular matchup in front of me, kind of like a fish out of water, but a lot of the ALT RL's early this year were ridiculously over-valued, especially with a lot of the premiere pitchers struggling. There is a thread in the handicapping zone about RL'S and ALT RL's, I havent read it in a while, not sure how much it will help. The way I see RL's is if you apply them to all the plays you have had on SU ML's and you come out ahead on the RL's and ALTs over time... I play RLs/ALTS as a % of a play to help minimize streaks, it seems to help me psychologically over time.
I may be more cautious with ALT RL's in the near future. But one angle that I am preparing for is Inter-league play. I cant locate my numbers for them, and I'm searching frantically thru my files. But I'm pretty sure off the top of my head that playing the dogs has been very good. Another angle that I need to get more numbers for is for situations when a team's former pitcher faces the former team, just another thing that has caught my attention.
Raiders, I dont have RL numbers in front of me, but they look accurate. There have been fewer games decided by exactly one run lately (last couple of years or so) than historically. I feel this is due to poorer pitching and better athletes hitting the ball further, but the reason is secondary. RL's and ALT RL's have been VERY good b/c the books tend to favor historical numbers in the beginning of seasons (things DO have a tendency of regressing back to this over the term) instead of shading more towards current form. IMO a LOT of the value is gone in the ALT RL's now. I already started devaluing my position on them on my plays.
I use historical numbers as a foundation. But I concentrate a lot more on current form and team tendencies. I'm also pretty aggressive. I'll take a +190 if I feel it should be +180 in a lot of situations. I know a lot of people require a higher ROI. Sometimes I concentrate on a single aspect of a matchup as I feel this offers value by itself- ignoring a lot of other indicators (similar to Favre in domes in football). It's hard for me to get into a lot of detail without a particular matchup in front of me, kind of like a fish out of water, but a lot of the ALT RL's early this year were ridiculously over-valued, especially with a lot of the premiere pitchers struggling. There is a thread in the handicapping zone about RL'S and ALT RL's, I havent read it in a while, not sure how much it will help. The way I see RL's is if you apply them to all the plays you have had on SU ML's and you come out ahead on the RL's and ALTs over time... I play RLs/ALTS as a % of a play to help minimize streaks, it seems to help me psychologically over time.
I may be more cautious with ALT RL's in the near future. But one angle that I am preparing for is Inter-league play. I cant locate my numbers for them, and I'm searching frantically thru my files. But I'm pretty sure off the top of my head that playing the dogs has been very good. Another angle that I need to get more numbers for is for situations when a team's former pitcher faces the former team, just another thing that has caught my attention.
Years ago Jim Barnes published The Journal of Handicapping published thru Gambler's Book Club in LV....... I think GBC still sells them in bound sets. On a weekly basis he threw a lot of chit up against the wall and it was up to the reader to see if anything stuck.......his NBA Margin theory kicked butt for a couple of years but its publication and subsequent widespread use changed the way the line was made
Raiders, I strongly feel that ALT RLs on dogs offer more value than RL's in a lot of situations, especially when you get an extra +100 or more than the ML. It seems that RL's near even money (-105) on winning teams (heavy faves) are not very profitable. I have done alright on medium (-130 to -140) favorites on the RL, but I've been burned on some one run games recently. ALT RL's on interleague dogs could be very good...
Does anyone have numbers on interleague play???
I cant find mine!! I posted the same thing in the handicapping zone. I'm looking for a breakdown on how the dogs have fared in interleague play, preferably by year, broken down by +100 to +120, +121 to +140, etc. Also number of 1 run games won by fave and dog. Interleague could be a very good time for the dogs, I just would prefer to have something more concrete than just my memory...
Does anyone have numbers on interleague play???
I cant find mine!! I posted the same thing in the handicapping zone. I'm looking for a breakdown on how the dogs have fared in interleague play, preferably by year, broken down by +100 to +120, +121 to +140, etc. Also number of 1 run games won by fave and dog. Interleague could be a very good time for the dogs, I just would prefer to have something more concrete than just my memory...
