SSI's Play for tuesday

gambling resume

2006 CWS: 2-8 (-2.62 units)
2006 World Cup: 16-4-3 (+11.45 units)
2006 MLB 1H: 107-160 (-27.64 units)
2006 MLB 2H: 8-5 (+5.76 units)

Play for tuesday: june 27th

Brazil -1.5 (-1.20) 1.20 to win 1.00 first 90 min

Ill list my MLB play tomorrow, ive let a few winners go by the last few days by not going with my best play.. wont happen again.. im a very selective capper, so price matters little to me.. ill try and explain what i mean as i go along..

play for tuesday:

Twins (-1.58) 4.74 units to win 3.00 units..

Liriano and red hot twins at home..
best of luck..

My success in capping can absolutely be tied to the day that I realized that I should consider mainly who should/would win and not concentrate on value or who 'could' win. Value playing killed me. Some people may find that a way to go, but I did not. I don't doubt the value players at all. I just have a different way and fewer plays. I believe the capper that considers value first must play many more plays than I do to get into the same spot as I am. Why? Because they are using the law of large numbers to get the winners at value and the payout they require. It's in the volume. (I know that there are those that don't fit this, but I'm speaking generally...look at Poker King Jim's plays!!
http://forum.therx.com/showthread.php?p=2975253#post2975253 )

I do not play at any price but my very first and foremost consideration is if I feel strongly a team will win or not. Value is second but a distant second. I certainly avoid high prices and sometimes I will use a two-team parlay to offset the high prices for the return, but only if I believe strongly that the two sides are good wagers in their own right. I know that parlays do not give any statistical or value/dollar return but I can play two -1.90 favorites and get the type of money I want for my dollar. My risk goes up but I try to be careful when I use the two-team parlay. It has worked for me.

ALSO, I've learned to have a maximum amount I wager regardless of the 'to win' amount. My 'to win' amount varies but my wager size stays the same or at least has a maximum that I try not exceed.

SSI, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I just believe that we are very close in what we use as methodology and I am just sharing how I look at it. Good luck to you and thanks for the play! tulsa

my sentiments exactly... a (-2.00) favorite that wins --- is much better than a losing dog with value...

i only make this statement, because in my handicapping -------- i prefer to make very few plays....... should i play many games per day, id have to look for value...

incredible run of: 17-4-3 (+12.45 units) in world cup soccer of all things..

I totally agree with the way SSI plays and what Tulsa posted. I don't understand where the concept of value is relavent in baseball. In sports with a spread (football/basketball) plays certainly value because a team is either getting or giving points. A football team with a strong defense playing at home and getting points has value. There are other situational plays in football and basketball that given the line on the game would add value to picking on side or the otherl

There is value in playing the under in a Chicago Bear game in late december. In baseball all you have to do is decide who is going to win and have a money management policy for dealing with big money lines when you really like the game.

The biggest mistake I see players making is avoiding games with large price tags. What happens then is they get funneled into higher risk games such as totals which are a coin flip in baseball IMO anyway. If you really have a good reason to think a big fav will win you have to play it. You should be able to hit at least 2 of 3 to make a profit but big favorites win all the time, especially if you know baseball and you have done your homework.

correct alamorich...

however i could only play the favorites, especially the bigger ones in a very limited way...

i would never play 4 or 5 ($2) favorites at the same time...

im talking of betting in a very strategic, methodical way.. in which you can maneuver your betting amount around...

SSI said:

correct alamorich...

however i could only play the favorites, especially the bigger ones in a very limited way...

i would never play 4 or 5 ($2) favorites at the same time...

im talking of betting in a very strategic, methodical way.. in which you can maneuver your betting amount around...

Click to expand...

I think we are in agreement. You certainly can't make a living playing two buck favorites on a regular basis. I do not seriously look at anything over two hundred. I can always find a game to play that has less risk involved. I was thinking about 1.60 to 1.90 type games. I just think those games should be automatically eliminated from consideration because of the price.

agree, sort of..

i am at my best, when i play a VERY limited amount of games for larger amounts.. i would think that very few people prefer this method.. my days of playing 4-10 games a day,,, are long over....... i am talking strictly about handicapping, when i say this...

Great Job SSI. Too bad I missed it. I was leaning LAD and saw you on the opppsite. So I skipped. Thanks for the win with I didn't lose.

BTW, I notice most of your plays are favorites since they are at home. Any home dogs? Will you play them?

Keep up the good work!!!

your talking about something totally different..... i think home dogs for the most part, are a good value play... if i were looking for ALL the plays that i think has value, then id play many of them................. however, i usually am looking for my best play, the play in which i think has the best chance to win.......

i like to have.

the better team, the hotter team, the better pitcher and the home team.. hard to get those and still have a dog...

and in saying this, i have to limit the plays...... i really prefer one at a time. this lets me look at my account (bankroll) and think about my next wager amount...

Th eproblem with playing big favorite is that Vegas knows you all want to play big favorites. The odds they offer are not the true odds on who will win the game. Yea you can definitely win by playing this way by picking your spots, but you are at a disadvantage to the big dog player in baseball IMO. Winning at this game and at all gambling is the process of accurately comparing odds offered with PROBABLITIES. get your money in when you have the best of it, get it out when you don't. And when you look at a game and see the Mets and Pedro playing the Rockies and Josh Fogg, where do you think all of th emoney is going to be? The odds are in favor of the people playing the Rockies, even if they don't win on that specific day. You are going to be paying an inflated price that is a long term -EV more often than not.

-174 isn't a big fav in baseball... when the Yankees were -500 to the Royals, THAT was a big fav.

No, but seriously, it's definitely proven that you can win betting favs in baseball. It's pretty much proven that you can win betting a lot of ways in baseball. With the 162 game sample set, things are a lot easier to track long-term. You might not find the holy grail of baseball betting, but finding a cubic zirconia in the rough is better than just digging a hole for yourself (god that was a crappy analogy).

One of the best lines I ever heard was from one of my buddies who's big into betting baseball dogs. "Dogs will be dogs." There's truth to that. If you're a dog, you're a dog for a reason. Forgetting everything else there is to know about the game, including how big of a dog that a team is, it's pretty well proven that there's something about a team who's a favorite, especially in a circumstance like this where we clearly have the better team, that makes them a favorite. Doesn't mean that they'll win, but it typically means that if you're going to lose on a stupid play, it's not going to be the team that's the favorite making the stupid play more often. How many times have we said "damn you bullpen" or "damn you infielder for botching that ball" and "costing me the game?" Then check how often those teams are dogs... You'll see that it's a better % of the time than it's the favorites, the better team.

SSI is right. It all boils down to who wins the game. Nobody asks how you got there, just if you got there.