IMO, this seems like a great place to start to take advantage of both high % and best value. If a team were 60% chance of winning let's say, but juice was -150, you're return is going to be lower (theoretically) because you are losing much more per loss. That's why I'm trying to offset this by starting with a higher percentage and increasing it according to juice.
Thanks Bronco....do not let anyone tell you that you are just playing numbers...you are putting forth an intelligent system and I for one will follow...good luck to us for a great winning season....nice to hear you are looking for value on dogs too as seems there is money to be made by playing right dogs i.e, Pirates and Baltimre today...Yankees overpriced...my post was good one to fade...lol...told you I wouldn't post but I want to check out something I ran across...may just post it and watch for awhile and just play on yours and MJ's selections...thanks for all your work...JJ
Well, terrific start today! 3-0 to start the season. Hopefully I'm on to something by breaking down the percentages as I have. Maybe it was just lucky, but as I said in an earlier post, StLouis and Colorado had some initial value, but with the final filter, were no plays....they both lost. Anyway, here's to a long, profitable MLB season. :toast:
YTD Record:
3-0 (+9.00 units)
YTD Record:
3-0 (+9.00 units)
Appreciate it JJ! Hopefully we'll have a long profitable season. Like you, I also plan on tailing MJ. That guy has been money and there's no reason why I shouldn't follow him. I'm hoping between his plays and my plays, we can really clean up this year and build a nice bankroll for NFL. :toast:
Broncos-
Not sure how you get Rockies. The Las Vegas Line is Rockies +141 which equates to a 40.9% chance of winning and Accuscore says they have a 37.1% chance of winning, so they would have no value.
I understand the reluctance to play favorites that exceed -150 as most people who are successful at betting baseball only play underdogs, runlines, and small favorites but value is value. If a team is a -200 favorite but Accuscore says they will win 90% of the time that offers more value than a -110 favorite that Accuscore says will win 55% of the time. I would be careful about manipulating their value structure and also about Runlines with national league teams such as the Giants who have no offense and if they are leading will only have 8 innings worth of at bats to get more than one run ahead.
Anyways, dont mean to criticize because I think you are doing an awesome job and providing people a great service. I just think you might be slightly misintrepeting where the value is using Accuscore's projections and this could be detrimental in the long run.
Not sure how you get Rockies. The Las Vegas Line is Rockies +141 which equates to a 40.9% chance of winning and Accuscore says they have a 37.1% chance of winning, so they would have no value.
I understand the reluctance to play favorites that exceed -150 as most people who are successful at betting baseball only play underdogs, runlines, and small favorites but value is value. If a team is a -200 favorite but Accuscore says they will win 90% of the time that offers more value than a -110 favorite that Accuscore says will win 55% of the time. I would be careful about manipulating their value structure and also about Runlines with national league teams such as the Giants who have no offense and if they are leading will only have 8 innings worth of at bats to get more than one run ahead.
Anyways, dont mean to criticize because I think you are doing an awesome job and providing people a great service. I just think you might be slightly misintrepeting where the value is using Accuscore's projections and this could be detrimental in the long run.
For instance, every favorite that Accuscore says has value will also have Runline value. According to Accuscore's projections, the White Sox have a 46.7% chance of winning by more than 1.5 runs at +175, that is greater value than the Giants having a 52.4% chance of winning by more than 1.5 runs at +144.
While agreeing fully with your earlier post today (12.46pm), a little correction here. As +175 equates to 36.36% (1/2.75) and +144 to 41% (1/2.44=40.98) there is respectively a difference of 46.7 - 36.4 = 10.3 and 52.4 - 41 = 11.4. Therefore the value of both lines is about equal, with the Giants having slightly more.
(<)<
I'm not using Accuscore's RL % because I don't see any real value there...yet. That may change depending on how my current system performs. I am basing my plays off of a specific formula I've created using some of Accuscore's numbers. So with my formula, San Fran RL has the value. Like I've said, it's a work in progress. So far, no reason to tweak anything yet. One day doesn' make a season by any means, but at least it's a bit of a confidence booster. BOL!!
First of all, my excuses that this response will probably rather late, but that's simply because I'm still a member with rather few posts and thus they all have to be checked by a mod or admin or something... so ye, little delay there.
The numbers simply come from Parquet Posse's post which states that
a) The white sox runline is +175 with an Accuscore-percentage of 46.7%
b) The Giants runline is +144 with an Accuscore-percentage of 52.4%
Now, how I got the line-to-percentage numbers is simply that you are laying a specific amount to win "a specific amount + your wager". So, a toss-up would be even money if we assume the bookmaker takes no juice and since I just wrote the formula be "Wager / (Profit + Wager)" = % this easy example would be (with an $100 wager) 100/200 = 0.5 = 50% which would be the percentage.
If you are betting a favorite of for instance -140 the Wager would be 140 to Win 100. Since you as well 'win' your wager back it would be 140 / (100+140) = 0.58333 and thus for the bet to be profitable you will need a certainty of winning the bet of 58.3%
If you are betting a dog of for instance +125 the Wager would be 100 to win 125. Since you would again 'win' the wager back it would be 100 / (125+100) = 0.444 and thus you would need at least a certainty of 44.4% of winning the bet.
Since Accuscore gives the percentages how certain they are of plays, all that is left is to calculate the difference between their percentage and the "Wager / (Profit + wager)". This difference can either be calculated by substracting the percentages (as I did in my previous post with for instance 52.4 - 41 = 11.4) to see the percentage-difference or by deviding them on each other (as I did in my first post in this thread) -- both methods are equal and merely a matter of taste... even though the substracting might look easier to the eye.
The numbers simply come from Parquet Posse's post which states that
a) The white sox runline is +175 with an Accuscore-percentage of 46.7%
b) The Giants runline is +144 with an Accuscore-percentage of 52.4%
Now, how I got the line-to-percentage numbers is simply that you are laying a specific amount to win "a specific amount + your wager". So, a toss-up would be even money if we assume the bookmaker takes no juice and since I just wrote the formula be "Wager / (Profit + Wager)" = % this easy example would be (with an $100 wager) 100/200 = 0.5 = 50% which would be the percentage.
If you are betting a favorite of for instance -140 the Wager would be 140 to Win 100. Since you as well 'win' your wager back it would be 140 / (100+140) = 0.58333 and thus for the bet to be profitable you will need a certainty of winning the bet of 58.3%
If you are betting a dog of for instance +125 the Wager would be 100 to win 125. Since you would again 'win' the wager back it would be 100 / (125+100) = 0.444 and thus you would need at least a certainty of 44.4% of winning the bet.
Since Accuscore gives the percentages how certain they are of plays, all that is left is to calculate the difference between their percentage and the "Wager / (Profit + wager)". This difference can either be calculated by substracting the percentages (as I did in my previous post with for instance 52.4 - 41 = 11.4) to see the percentage-difference or by deviding them on each other (as I did in my first post in this thread) -- both methods are equal and merely a matter of taste... even though the substracting might look easier to the eye.
