Check this out for tonight's Mets/Cards game...

Ramonskee · Apr 1, 2007

I'm using Bodog, look at this...

If I take Mets ML (+130) for $100 it pays out $130
and Cardinals -1.5 (+155) for $100 it pays out $155

The only way I lose is if the Cardinals win by exactly 1 run. It's a very possible that the favorite wins by just 1 run in baseball, I know, but any other outcome makes me a winner. Is it worth the $200 risk?

jim333 · Apr 1, 2007

Ramonskee,

Thanks for bringing this up.

This is a true scenario for most games where the fav is -150 or less.
I actually looked at this last year, but never followed through.

Has anyone out there used this type of wagering and how did you do? I will look at the stats for one run games last year.

Thanks.

mike0187 · Apr 1, 2007

this is basically true for every game

lets put it this way, the books arent stupid

Ramonskee · Apr 1, 2007

mike0187 said:
this is basically true for every game

lets put it this way, the books arent stupid

yeh, like i said in the other thread, this maybe a good theory to use when a 2nd tier team is involved as a favorite. because chances are if they win they'll win by a lot or they'll lose the game outright. only the top 3, maybe 5 teams, in the league end up having an impressive 1-run games record.

i'd use this in the cubs game tomorrow vs. the reds

FatTony · Apr 1, 2007

Most books carry those lines.

What you have there is a "Polish Middle". Your risking 200 to win $55. You might get lucky for a little bit, but it will eventually catch up to you if you keep doing it.

jim333 · Apr 1, 2007

Ill track this and see how it does:

New York Mets +130 Action
St Louis Cardinals -1½ +155

Florida Marlins -1½ +130
Washington Nationals +113 Action

Los Angeles Dodgers +106 Action
Milwaukee Brewers -1½ +185

Arizona Diamondbacks -1½ +130
Colorado Rockies +106 Action

Tampa Bay Devil Rays +157 Action
New York Yankees -1½ +120

Cleveland Indians +109 Action
Chicago White Sox -1½ +175

Texas Rangers +129 Action
Los Angeles Angels -1½ +155

Of course it makes more sense in risking 200, to make the most possible in this "system", like in the ariz/col game where you would make only either $6 or $30, or in Mets/STL game either $30 or $55. Of course picking and choosing the right games is the hard part.

At what point is there any value in doing this, I dont know. Any math people out there can answer this I appreciate it.

Ramonskee · Apr 2, 2007

We'd be +30 ($) if we had used this tonight. Let's keep it going tomorrow. We can't use it on all games though.

Monday's games...
$100 on Angels -1.5 (+155) pays out $155
$100 on Rangers ML (+130) pays out $130

$100 on Yankees -1.5 (+128) pays out $128
$100 on Devil Rays ML (+160) pays out $160

These are the only two games w/ value that we can use. Let us see how it does after day 2.

THEMASK · Apr 2, 2007

jim333 said:
Ill track this and see how it does:

New York Mets +130 Action
St Louis Cardinals -1½ +155

Florida Marlins -1½ +130
Washington Nationals +113 Action

Los Angeles Dodgers +106 Action
Milwaukee Brewers -1½ +185

Arizona Diamondbacks -1½ +130
Colorado Rockies +106 Action

Tampa Bay Devil Rays +157 Action
New York Yankees -1½ +120

Cleveland Indians +109 Action
Chicago White Sox -1½ +175

Texas Rangers +129 Action
Los Angeles Angels -1½ +155

Of course it makes more sense in risking 200, to make the most possible in this "system", like in the ariz/col game where you would make only either $6 or $30, or in Mets/STL game either $30 or $55. Of course picking and choosing the right games is the hard part.

At what point is there any value in doing this, I dont know. Any math people out there can answer this I appreciate it.

I came with this ealyer if you have checked all threads in here ..already won some cash on Mets.

Ramonskee · Apr 2, 2007

Ramonskee said:
We'd be +30 ($) if we had used this tonight. Let's keep it going tomorrow. We can't use it on all games though.

Monday's games...
$100 on Angels -1.5 (+155) pays out $155
$100 on Rangers ML (+130) pays out $130

$100 on Yankees -1.5 (+128) pays out $128
$100 on Devil Rays ML (+160) pays out $160

These are the only two games w/ value that we can use. Let us see how it does after day 2.

+58 ($) after the Yankees won by 4 runs. One more game tonight.

Ramonskee · Apr 3, 2007

3-0, +113 after the Angels beat the Rangers by 3. Off to a solid start. Be back later w/ Tuesday's qualifying plays (if any).

Ramonskee · Apr 3, 2007

Plays for Tuesday 4/3:

$100 on Pittsburgh Pirates ML (+156) pays out $155
$100 on Houston Astros -1.5 (+128) pays out $128

$100 on Los Angeles Dodgers ML (+119) pays out $119
$100 on Milwaukee Brewers -1.5 (+173) pays out $173

$100 on Arizona Diamondbacks ML (+126) pays out $126
$100 on Colorado Rockies -1.5 (+155) pays out $155

$100 on Texas Rangers ML (+134) pays out $134
$100 on Anaheim Angels -1.5 (+148) pays out $148

The Marlins/Nationals and Orioles/Twins games both qualify as well, but I will not make them plays as I think one or both of those games will cause us some problems. I have a weird feeling about the Brewers game but if they somehow win by 2 or more, we get a very nice payout.

TheWolf · Apr 3, 2007

Fat Tony said:
Most books carry those lines.

What you have there is a "Polish Middle". Your risking 200 to win $55. You might get lucky for a little bit, but it will eventually catch up to you if you keep doing it.

Interesting concept but I thought I read most games are decided by 1 - run.

JohnnyB · Apr 3, 2007

The Wolf said:
Interesting concept but I thought I read most games are decided by 1 - run.

Not most, but enough to make this a losing proposition long term. It's discussed here every year at the beginning fo the season. Trust me, you're not the first one to ever come up with this idea Ramonskee, if it worked, tens of thousands of people would be retired and living in Costa Rica right now.

trains40 · Apr 3, 2007

Fat Tony said:
Most books carry those lines.

What you have there is a "Polish Middle". Your risking 200 to win $55. You might get lucky for a little bit, but it will eventually catch up to you if you keep doing it.

BUT, HONESTLY TONY HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE HERE RISK 6 OR 7 UNITS AND NET 1 OR 2 UNITS? :think2:

trains40 · Apr 3, 2007

Johnny B said:
Not most, but enough to make this a losing proposition long term. It's discussed here every year at the beginning fo the season. Trust me, you're not the first one to ever come up with this idea Ramonskee, if it worked, tens of thousands of people would be retired and living in Costa Rica right now.

I BELIEVE THE IDEA IS TO TRY AND FIND QUAILFYING PLAYS THAT HELP THE SYSTEM OUT BETTER NOT JUST TAKING ALL OF THEM. CAUSE YOUR RIGHT ALL IT TAKES IS 2 THAT ARE ONE RUN GAMES AND IT THROWS IT OUT OF WACK.

Ramonskee · Apr 3, 2007

The Wolf said:
Interesting concept but I thought I read most games are decided by 1 - run.

That's true, but don't forget if the favorite loses by 1 run, we still win. Only the favorite winning by 1 run hurts us. Here is a list of the 2006 playoff teams and what their 1-run game records was...

Detroit Tigers: 24-20
Minnesota Twins: 20-11
New York Yankees: 24-22
Oakland Athletics: 32-22

Los Angeles Dodgers: 20-20
New York Mets: 31-16
San Diego Padres: 30-22
St. Louis Cardinals: 22-27

You would figure that the playoff teams were favorites most of the year. There are only four teams with very impressive 1-run records on this list and those teams are the Mets (+15), A's (+10) Twins (+9), and Padres (+8). Toronto is not on this list but they were 20-10 (+10), Boston was 29-20 (+9), and Cincinnati should be noted as they were 27-20 (+7). It'd be interesting to know in how many of these games these teams were favorites but thats a lot of research that I don't have the team for right now. If anyone can do it, please share your results w/ me.

Now looking at all this info, you'd be safe to say that the Mets were the favorites in a majority of those 1-run games because they were regarded as a great team all year long. But for all we know, the A's, Twins, Padres, Jays, and Red Sox won half or a majority of their 1-run games when they were the underdogs. Also looking at this info, we can say that according to last season's stats, only a handful of teams tend to do well in 1-run games. Out of all the 30 ML teams; 23 teams were +4 or lower in 1-run games, 21 were +3 or lower, 18 were +2 or lower, and 15 were at or below .500.

Ramonskee · Apr 3, 2007

Johnny B said:
Not most, but enough to make this a losing proposition long term. It's discussed here every year at the beginning fo the season. Trust me, you're not the first one to ever come up with this idea Ramonskee, if it worked, tens of thousands of people would be retired and living in Costa Rica right now.

I knew I wasn't the first, but you can't just pick every game and throw money at it. You have to pick and choose. Is there any thinking behind it? Not really. But knowing the game would help a lot. Avoiding the better teams in the game is a usually a good idea because they have the ability to comeback and squeak out a 1-run win as a favorite in a game they had no business winning. When a lower tier team is a favorite the ML for the underdog is usually very low so it knocks that game off the "qualifying board". When a real good team is a heavy favorite it makes for an interesting game as the dog's ML is usually high and the home team's -1.5 price is either +120 or lower, which may also knock the game off the board.

auggiedawg · Apr 4, 2007

Ramonskee said:
I knew I wasn't the first, but you can't just pick every game and throw money at it. You have to pick and choose. Is there any thinking behind it? Not really. But knowing the game would help a lot. Avoiding the better teams in the game is a usually a good idea because they have the ability to comeback and squeak out a 1-run win as a favorite in a game they had no business winning. When a lower tier team is a favorite the ML for the underdog is usually very low so it knocks that game off the "qualifying board". When a real good team is a heavy favorite it makes for an interesting game as the dog's ML is usually high and the home team's -1.5 price is either +120 or lower, which may also knock the game off the board.

any more info on this roman? This look pretty interesting.....

what about today (4/4) any plays??

Doug · Apr 4, 2007

This isn't new, I don't think it has much potential.

If doing it, you need the best lines, so Matchbook would be essential.

fav by one is bad, I think home team is more likely to win by one.

Maybe filter it so you only take road fav -1.5, with home dog ML ?

auggiedawg · Apr 4, 2007

Doug said:
This isn't new, I don't think it has much potential.

If doing it, you need the best lines, so Matchbook would be essential.

fav by one is bad, I think home team is more likely to win by one.

Maybe filter it so you only take road fav -1.5, with home dog ML ?

so, with what u are saying DOUG, what do you think about this? (oak@sea)

OAK -1 1/2 (+120)
SEA +123 (ML)

HERE, im taking the road fav (-1 1/2) & home dog ML (+123).

How would this be any different than taking

Cleveland Indians +109 (ML)
Chicago White Sox -1½ (+175)

Just trying to figure out your filter.

thanks
:modemman: