Bronco- I think you are on the right track but if I may offer my opinion as to what I have done in the past to get the best value out of Accuscore as it pertains to baseball.
1.) For the totals, you do not have to do anything different than you have been doing with the NBA, 60% or better is a play, if not, no play.
2.)For the sides it gets a bit more complicated. Accuscore posts the listed odds, then what they call LW%, which is the translated percentage based on the Las Vegas Line, then they post the Sim %, which is the accuscore's simulation winning percentage. When these two numbers differ by more than 8% I would consider that a play, maybe 7%, you can decide how selective you want to me. I would guess that an 8% difference would correlate with the 60% barometer you have used to great success in the NBA.
As an example in tomorrow's Reds-Mets game:
Mets -155/ 60.0% LV%/53% SIM%
Reds +147/ 40.0% LV%/47% SIM%
So even though Accuscore predicts the Mets will win the game, they predict the Mets will win the game only 53% of the time which is in contrast to the linesmakers, who made the line as if the Mets would win 60% of the time. So, in this case, there is a 7% difference in these values in which case the Reds would offer up some nice value.
I have played Accuscore totals to great success over the past year, particularly NFL totals, and have played the 60% NBA system thanks to Bronco and that has worked as well.
I think we just need to find the right percentage difference in baseball to make the value such that it is a play.
1.) For the totals, you do not have to do anything different than you have been doing with the NBA, 60% or better is a play, if not, no play.
2.)For the sides it gets a bit more complicated. Accuscore posts the listed odds, then what they call LW%, which is the translated percentage based on the Las Vegas Line, then they post the Sim %, which is the accuscore's simulation winning percentage. When these two numbers differ by more than 8% I would consider that a play, maybe 7%, you can decide how selective you want to me. I would guess that an 8% difference would correlate with the 60% barometer you have used to great success in the NBA.
As an example in tomorrow's Reds-Mets game:
Mets -155/ 60.0% LV%/53% SIM%
Reds +147/ 40.0% LV%/47% SIM%
So even though Accuscore predicts the Mets will win the game, they predict the Mets will win the game only 53% of the time which is in contrast to the linesmakers, who made the line as if the Mets would win 60% of the time. So, in this case, there is a 7% difference in these values in which case the Reds would offer up some nice value.
I have played Accuscore totals to great success over the past year, particularly NFL totals, and have played the 60% NBA system thanks to Bronco and that has worked as well.
I think we just need to find the right percentage difference in baseball to make the value such that it is a play.
No problem-
I was looking further at tomorrow's match-ups and I think for MLB sides, the 7% difference would be about correct and that under those circumstances the Blue Jays and Reds would be plays that offered value. Obviously, tread carefully here as baseball in April is very strange.
What would be really interesting is to correlate Accuscore's plays with a couple of top cappers. As an example, I listen to the Sports Memo show every day and those guys are knowledgeable, experienced cappers. When Erin Rynning or Fairway Jay has a nice play and Accuscore's numbers back it up you might be able to have a perfect storm of numerical stats, hardcore number crunching and old fashioned motivational, situational handicapping that could lead to some really nice results.
I was looking further at tomorrow's match-ups and I think for MLB sides, the 7% difference would be about correct and that under those circumstances the Blue Jays and Reds would be plays that offered value. Obviously, tread carefully here as baseball in April is very strange.
What would be really interesting is to correlate Accuscore's plays with a couple of top cappers. As an example, I listen to the Sports Memo show every day and those guys are knowledgeable, experienced cappers. When Erin Rynning or Fairway Jay has a nice play and Accuscore's numbers back it up you might be able to have a perfect storm of numerical stats, hardcore number crunching and old fashioned motivational, situational handicapping that could lead to some really nice results.
Bronco...have looked at the Accuscore %'s for sides tomorrow and was curious how you will determine what is equal to your NBA system. Have read the thread and believe you have some good insight from fellow cappers to fashion a paying system. I will look forward to your selections and am sure we will see minor adjustments as we go along to fine tune your selections. Best of luck and will be following you and MJ as I have not bet baseball since a disaster in 1992 where I lost a ton of money....good luck to us all...JJ
Have been thinking a couple of minutes what would be the best way to decide value; either the one Parquet Posse and I described (even though the posts might look different, the theory is exactly the same... and maybe he explained it a little bit easier 
) or the one ljump12 got from the Accuscore-article. Accuscore being the statistical experts obviously should be right...
well, I highly doubt it. Let me show it with an example first that the systems are clearly different.
Example 1: Imagine 2 situations (unrealistic ones but good for clarification)
a) Accuscore gives 80% and the line is -203 (implying 63%)
b) Accuscore gives 60% and the line is +133 (implying about 43% [43% -> 132.6])
With both there is a 17% difference sticking with Parquet Posse's post and thus being equal picks AND with the strength I described they would both be approx 2.00 (as I mentioned, the theory behind both systems is the same)
Following the formula from the Accuscore-article though we would get 0.80 * 49.3 = 39.4 and 0.60 * 132.6 = 79.6. Well, it is clear that this seems to indicate a huge difference in value.
I think we can safely agree that both methods are not equal, however the question now is: "Is Accuscore right, or are we?"
Looking at the lines we see that both (or at the very least the 60/43 line with the Accuscore method) are having a definite and clear value over the given line; this has been confirmed by both methods. Now let's compare it with a common sense example where none of us will have to calculate odds for; let's throw and bet an imaginary dice.
The odds for a dice are obviously 1/6 and thus .1666(...). Odds for equality would obviously be +500*. According to the accuscore article this bet would have a side-value of 0.16667 * 500 = 83.3333(...). WHAT?!
Common sense tells us this bet would have no side-value for the odds are exactly what they should be, however the Accuscore-method would give huge side-value, more than both earlier (80/63 and 60/43) bets while we did agree that there was side-value.
Conclusion: I see no reason why we would not assume that The Accuscore-method is flawed and instead use the method both Parquet Posse and I described.
If there is any flaw in my logic, let me know... but I highly doubt it, as strange as it seems that Accuscore makes such a fundamental statistical mistake.
*Imagine throwing 6 average throws for $100 each, on average you would lose 5 (-500) and win 1 (+500) giving equality.
) or the one ljump12 got from the Accuscore-article. Accuscore being the statistical experts obviously should be right...well, I highly doubt it. Let me show it with an example first that the systems are clearly different.
Example 1: Imagine 2 situations (unrealistic ones but good for clarification)
a) Accuscore gives 80% and the line is -203 (implying 63%)
b) Accuscore gives 60% and the line is +133 (implying about 43% [43% -> 132.6])
With both there is a 17% difference sticking with Parquet Posse's post and thus being equal picks AND with the strength I described they would both be approx 2.00 (as I mentioned, the theory behind both systems is the same)
Following the formula from the Accuscore-article though we would get 0.80 * 49.3 = 39.4 and 0.60 * 132.6 = 79.6. Well, it is clear that this seems to indicate a huge difference in value.
I think we can safely agree that both methods are not equal, however the question now is: "Is Accuscore right, or are we?"
Looking at the lines we see that both (or at the very least the 60/43 line with the Accuscore method) are having a definite and clear value over the given line; this has been confirmed by both methods. Now let's compare it with a common sense example where none of us will have to calculate odds for; let's throw and bet an imaginary dice.
The odds for a dice are obviously 1/6 and thus .1666(...). Odds for equality would obviously be +500*. According to the accuscore article this bet would have a side-value of 0.16667 * 500 = 83.3333(...). WHAT?!
Common sense tells us this bet would have no side-value for the odds are exactly what they should be, however the Accuscore-method would give huge side-value, more than both earlier (80/63 and 60/43) bets while we did agree that there was side-value.
Conclusion: I see no reason why we would not assume that The Accuscore-method is flawed and instead use the method both Parquet Posse and I described.
If there is any flaw in my logic, let me know... but I highly doubt it, as strange as it seems that Accuscore makes such a fundamental statistical mistake.
*Imagine throwing 6 average throws for $100 each, on average you would lose 5 (-500) and win 1 (+500) giving equality.
Figured some ppl would want an explanation as to how I decided which plays to track here. LOL. Alright, I'll try to explain it a bit. Again, this is just a starting point as this is unexplored territory. If it tanks or doesn't do well, I'll adjust accordingly, but this seems to be a good starting point.
Plays that are over 63% that have both money line value and side value will be plays, UNLESS the juice 150 or higher. If the juice is higher than that, the value must be 65% or better. Again, this is what I was talking about in other posts regarding value. To pay more juice, there has to be more value there, otherwise the risk/reward isn't justified. I will increase increments of % according to juice. For juice of 175 or higher, I will play 67% or better. Now, once we get into 200 or higher, it will change. If juice is that high, and percentage is 69% or better, the play will be a RL play.
BTW, I am still working on numbers and calculations to figure out a good way to play dogs. The strategy above is obviously just for favs....which if you pick the right favs, isn't necessarily a bad system, but there is obviously value in playing dogs. I WILL FIND IT!
Hope that clears up the way I will determine plays for this system.
BOL!!
Plays that are over 63% that have both money line value and side value will be plays, UNLESS the juice 150 or higher. If the juice is higher than that, the value must be 65% or better. Again, this is what I was talking about in other posts regarding value. To pay more juice, there has to be more value there, otherwise the risk/reward isn't justified. I will increase increments of % according to juice. For juice of 175 or higher, I will play 67% or better. Now, once we get into 200 or higher, it will change. If juice is that high, and percentage is 69% or better, the play will be a RL play.
BTW, I am still working on numbers and calculations to figure out a good way to play dogs. The strategy above is obviously just for favs....which if you pick the right favs, isn't necessarily a bad system, but there is obviously value in playing dogs. I WILL FIND IT!
Hope that clears up the way I will determine plays for this system.
BOL!!
bronc -
Just wondering what your thoughts were on if the Rockies had value earlier in the day. When I checked the simulations, they were at 47%, but I was being offered +145, which would put the percentage at about 41%. Just curious as I saw this earlier, and I was wondering what your thoughts were on this particular situation.
Just wondering what your thoughts were on if the Rockies had value earlier in the day. When I checked the simulations, they were at 47%, but I was being offered +145, which would put the percentage at about 41%. Just curious as I saw this earlier, and I was wondering what your thoughts were on this particular situation.
