Pendulum Cycle Theory: MLB chase experiment

[keel44]

I think in the NFL, there are only 16 games, so the bubbles are indeed short and easy to see.

I have an idea that seems great for the MLB, but I don't like chases to much, but I am starting to be convinced it is worthwhile.

Check this out:

A teams offensive performance can be streaky. Hitters go through ups and downs. I believe following the last result of a teams OVER/UNDER produces wins right after alternating over--under--over--under--over.

My idea is to wait for a team to alternate over and under 5 times which would produce 4 straight losses, had you "followed the last result." Now bet that team to "follow the last result." Chase that for 6 or 7 times.

I thought of this before the season. I visually looked at every team this year and last and it never lost, but it went max about 3 times so I was scared. I know it exploits a bubble. The bubble of a teams offensive performance. Check it out.

[BarstoolProphet]

I will look into Keel, But 6-7 tiers on a chase is just too pricing. You really want to get a chase that goes 2 -3 deep only. It is reasonable and not to taxing on the bankroll.

Take a look over at allIdoiswins Over/Under system. I think I could be on to something quite nice. So far it has been promising now for 6 years. Still working on it. What I like about it (with my filters added) is the system is based on logic. The streaks that do in fact take place in MLB. And I have narrowed it down to a 2 game chase. Which yields about 35% ROI annually. Which exceeds your 20% you seek ARP.

But I am still working on it. http://forum.sbrforum.com/baseball-b...lb-thread.html

One more thing Keel, on a 6-7 game chase you would need a ton of plays to make it work in one year. Just like another "unpopular" 6-Game chase system that you and I are aware of. It has already sustained a massive loss this year. With its limited plays, it will take all of next year to make up for its losses. Given so few plays. Hence why only doing a 2-3 game chase can sustain several losses and still be profitable given the fewer plays.

[keel44]

Are the odds truly 50-50 on any spread bet at anytime? I think not. That is where the edge is. The odds reflect an estimate of public opinion. Vegas is a master of estimating public opinion. It is the public opinion that is in error with what actually happens in a real life sporting event.

The A's may be favored in every home game the rest of the year. Most of the public believes they should win all of those games. We all know they won't win every home game the rest of the way. A bubble is being formed. A pop is coming....find when to bet against the A's at home.

[posey]

Here is a post by myself from another thread which IMO shows that there are bubbles, sometimes even too clear to see and the bookies do not adjust to them in time:

BTW there are many clear patterns for certain teams and pitchers out there. Only two give you a few:
- Padres have 14 overs, 29 unders, 3 push at home this season (average score 3.1 to 3.1 = 6.2 runs on average on an avg total of 6.7 and the bookies haven't adjusted the total much throughout the season)
- Darvish's home starts have gone over 6 times, under 20 times, 1 push since 2013 (average score 3.9 to 2.4 = 6.3 runs per game on a avg total of 8.1 and the bookies have not adjusted the total)
- Red Sox have 14 overs, 28 unders, 0 push at home this season (average score 3.9 to 4.1 = 8.0 runs per game on an avg total of 8.6 and the bookies have not adjusted the total by any means)
- Orioles are have 14 overs, 27 unders, 2 push at home this season (average score 3.7 to 4.0 = 7.7 runs per game on an avg total of 8.7 and the bookies have not adjusted the total by any means)
- Henderson Alvarez home starts have gone over 5 times, under 12 times, 1 push since 2013 (avg score 3.1 to 2.9 = 6.0 runs per game on an avg total of 7.4 and the bookies have adjusted nothing, he got a 7.5 total in all of his last 9 home starts)
- Wei Yin Chen's home starts have gone over 5 times, under 12 times, 1 push since 2013 (avg score 4.6 to 3.3 = 7.9 runs per game on an avg total of 8.6 and the bookies have dropped the line only slightly in 2014 compared to 2013)
And so on.

And one could find even more for them. Next to that, I don't know the exact number any more, but there are patterns e.g. for over/under streaks for certain teams. As far as I remember the longest over streak by a team in the last 10 years was by the Rays a few years back and it went 11 or 12 games I think (may be wrong, but something about that). So when you catch a team which has gone 5 or 6 times over in a row, it is ALMOST sure that there WILL be an under coming soon. This is something one could chase for sure.

[BarstoolProphet]

- Padres have 14 overs, 29 unders, 3 push at home this season (average score 3.1 to 3.1 = 6.2 runs on average on an avg total of 6.7 and the bookies haven't adjusted the total much throughout the season)


Great example, Posey. Now lets break this down. Because Keel said it best , Vegas is great at public perception.

Ok most lines here in San Diego(I live in SD) are on average 6.5. Now what would you expect them to do? Drop it to 6 or even 5.5. Ask yourself what would happen in terms of public opinion on those lines?

6 is not a good number for bookmakers, they make no money on a push. They really do not like to start on a full number. But lets go to an extreme and take it to 5.5. Ohh my that sure would bring your numbers to almost even. But the amount of money that would be put on that number to go over would be through the roof. And since it would in fact bring the numbers to even, that would mean , bookmakers are losing money hands over fists here. So 5.5 would be out of the equation.

So at 6.5 most people still look at your numbers and perceive , those totals need to even out, and are still betting the over. And losing. Vegas knows this. and are happy about it, There really is no need to change the line. Vegas does not care if the totals even out or not. as long as the public opinion remains the same.

Trust me , it amazes me the amount of people see that number and get all green eyed and bet the over. To me this trend will continue. No need to bet the Over thinking that there is some "bubble" here. It will never happen unless they do change the lines down to 5.5 or 6. But as long as the line remains 6.5 or higher I do not see this changing at all.

And as I said earlier, if they do in fact change it , it will be a losing proposition for them. And they are not in that line of business.

So to me betting an Under in San Diego on a night game when the marine layer is moving in earlier in the day than normal. The Under is golden. Yet, people will continue to bet the Over , hoping for the bubble to pop.

It does amaze me how these totals have gone down in years. Now when you see a 6.5 First thing you think of is, wow these pitchers must be aces. But that is not always the case. The pitchers have not improved over time. It all the non-juiced players. lol

[keel44]

Are we looking for public perception to pop a bubble, or a team's performance to make a shift? Maybe a combination? Maybe there is a way to play on the trend and avoid a pop?

[posey]

@barstool:
Yeah, I understand your reasoning. In case of the trends I posted one would even not have to chase them as far as I see things correct.

@keel:
I think it's a combination of both.

[posey]

@ arppeggiomeister:
I hope you don't feel offended and I don't want to spam in your thread, but here are two tables which show much IMO:
http://www.teamrankings.com/mlb/trend/ou_trends/
Away stats (team / over-under-push/ over pct / under pct / total +-):
Colorado 26-15-5 63.4% 36.6% +0.8
Milwaukee 26-16-3 61.9% 38.1% +1.2
Baltimore 24-17-0 58.5% 41.5% +1.2
Texas 24-17-4 58.5% 41.5% +1.0
Miami 21-15-1 58.3% 41.7% +1.1
Philadelphia 21-16-4 56.8% 43.2% +1.2
NY Mets 22-17-8 56.4% 43.6% +0.7
Detroit 22-17-1 56.4% 43.6% +0.8
LA Angels 24-19-0 55.8% 44.2% +0.8
Washington 21-17-3 55.3% 44.7% +0.3
Chi Cubs 22-19-4 53.7% 46.3% +0.6
Chi Sox 22-19-3 53.7% 46.3% +0.6
Kansas City 20-19-3 51.3% 48.7% +0.6
Minnesota 21-21-2 50.0% 50.0% +0.1
Oakland 21-21-3 50.0% 50.0% +0.4
Cleveland 22-22-2 50.0% 50.0% +0.8
Toronto 21-21-0 50.0% 50.0% 0.0
NY Yankees 22-22-0 50.0% 50.0% +0.8
Seattle 21-22-0 48.8% 51.2% +0.5
SF Giants 17-18-3 48.6% 51.4% +0.3
Cincinnati 22-24-1 47.8% 52.2% +0.3
Arizona 19-23-1 45.2% 54.8% +0.4
Boston 18-22-3 45.0% 55.0% +0.1
Tampa Bay 19-24-2 44.2% 55.8% -0.3
Pittsburgh 16-21-2 43.2% 56.8% +0.4
Houston 17-23-2 42.5% 57.5% -0.1
LA Dodgers 15-25-2 37.5% 62.5% +0.1
Atlanta 15-28-1 34.9% 65.1% -0.4
St. Louis 15-28-3 34.9% 65.1% -1.1
San Diego 11-26-2 29.7% 70.3% -0.6

Home stats:
LA Dodgers 27-15-3 64.3% 35.7% +0.8
Miami 27-17-5 61.4% 38.6% +1.4
LA Angels 22-15-5 59.5% 40.5% +1.1
Cleveland 23-16-0 59.0% 41.0% +1.1
Chi Sox 25-18-0 58.1% 41.9% +0.8
Minnesota 22-16-3 57.9% 42.1% +1.1
Detroit 23-17-3 57.5% 42.5% +0.9
Tampa Bay 24-18-2 57.1% 42.9% +0.7
Colorado 21-17-3 55.3% 44.7% +1.9
Oakland 21-19-1 52.5% 47.5% +0.8
Pittsburgh 22-20-5 52.4% 47.6% +1.2
SF Giants 25-23-0 52.1% 47.9% +0.2
Washington 20-19-5 51.3% 48.7% +0.4
Chi Cubs 20-19-0 51.3% 48.7% -0.1
Philadelphia 22-21-2 51.2% 48.8% -0.2
Kansas City 21-21-1 50.0% 50.0% +0.2
Houston 22-23-1 48.9% 51.1% +0.3
Toronto 21-22-3 48.8% 51.2% +0.3
Arizona 20-21-2 48.8% 51.2% +0.7
St. Louis 18-19-4 48.6% 51.4% +0.6
Milwaukee 19-22-1 46.3% 53.7% +0.1
Texas 18-21-2 46.2% 53.8% +0.4
Cincinnati 16-20-2 44.4% 55.6% +0.3
Atlanta 17-22-3 43.6% 56.4% 0.0
NY Mets 15-21-3 41.7% 58.3% -0.0
Seattle 16-23-4 41.0% 59.0% -0.1
NY Yankees 16-24-1 40.0% 60.0% -0.1
Baltimore 15-27-2 35.7% 64.3% -0.9
Boston 14-28-0 33.3% 66.7% -0.6
San Diego 15-30-2 33.3% 66.7% -0.6

Overall:
Miami 48-32-6 60.0% 40.0% +1.3
Colorado 47-32-8 59.5% 40.5% +1.3
LA Angels 46-34-5 57.5% 42.5% +1.0
Detroit 45-34-4 57.0% 43.0% +0.9
Chi Sox 47-37-3 56.0% 44.0% +0.7
Milwaukee 45-38-4 54.2% 45.8% +0.7
Cleveland 45-38-2 54.2% 45.8% +1.0
Philadelphia 43-37-6 53.8% 46.2% +0.5
Minnesota 43-37-5 53.8% 46.2% +0.6
Washington 41-36-8 53.2% 46.8% +0.4
Chi Cubs 42-38-4 52.5% 47.5% +0.3
Texas 42-38-6 52.5% 47.5% +0.7
Oakland 42-40-4 51.2% 48.8% +0.6
LA Dodgers 43-41-5 51.2% 48.8% +0.5
Kansas City 41-40-4 50.6% 49.4% +0.4
SF Giants 42-41-3 50.6% 49.4% +0.3
Tampa Bay 43-42-4 50.6% 49.4% +0.2
Toronto 42-43-3 49.4% 50.6% +0.2
NY Mets 37-38-11 49.3% 50.7% +0.4
Pittsburgh 38-41-7 48.1% 51.9% +0.8
Arizona 40-45-3 47.1% 52.9% +0.6
Baltimore 39-44-2 47.0% 53.0% +0.1
Cincinnati 38-44-3 46.3% 53.7% +0.3
Houston 39-46-3 45.9% 54.1% +0.1
NY Yankees 38-46-1 45.2% 54.8% +0.4
Seattle 37-45-4 45.1% 54.9% +0.2
St. Louis 33-47-7 41.2% 58.8% -0.3
Boston 32-50-3 39.0% 61.0% -0.2
Atlanta 32-50-4 39.0% 61.0% -0.2
San Diego 26-56-4 31.7% 68.3% -0.6

I have highlighted all over percentages above 55% and below 45% (or 45% under and 55% over respectively).

2013 overall stats:
LA Angels 88-68-6 56.4% 43.6% +0.8
Seattle 82-72-8 53.2% 46.8% +0.8
Philadelphia 83-74-5 52.9% 47.1% +0.6
Oakland 86-77-4 52.8% 47.2% +0.6
Detroit 85-80-8 51.5% 48.5% +0.5
St. Louis 87-83-9 51.2% 48.8% +0.6
Washington 79-76-7 51.0% 49.0% +0.3
Houston 79-77-6 50.6% 49.4% +0.6
NY Mets 79-77-6 50.6% 49.4% +0.5
Tampa Bay 79-80-9 49.7% 50.3% +0.3
Toronto 79-80-3 49.7% 50.3% +0.4
Colorado 76-77-9 49.7% 50.3% +0.2
Cincinnati 77-79-7 49.4% 50.6% +0.1
Baltimore 75-78-9 49.0% 51.0% +0.4
Atlanta 77-81-8 48.7% 51.3% +0.1
Boston 81-87-10 48.2% 51.8% +0.6
Milwaukee 76-82-4 48.1% 51.9% +0.1
LA Dodgers 79-86-7 47.9% 52.1% +0.2
San Diego 75-82-5 47.8% 52.2% +0.4
SF Giants 73-80-9 47.7% 52.3% +0.6
Cleveland 74-82-7 47.4% 52.6% +0.3
Pittsburgh 75-87-6 46.3% 53.7% -0.0
Arizona 71-84-7 45.8% 54.2% +0.4
Chi Sox 69-84-9 45.1% 54.9% +0.2
Minnesota 70-87-5 44.6% 55.4% +0.3
Chi Cubs 68-86-8 44.2% 55.8% 0.0
NY Yankees 67-85-10 44.1% 55.9% -0.0
Miami 62-83-17 42.8% 57.2% -0.2
Texas 64-90-9 41.6% 58.4% -0.1
Kansas City 61-92-9 39.9% 60.1% -0.3


As you can see there was only one team which had an over pct of above 55%, but there were 6 teams with an over pct below 45%.

But I think now it will be getting clearer and more obvious why it should be easy to make profit in MLB betting, when solely concentrating on ou betting.

2013 home stats:
Detroit 48-32-6 60.0% 40.0% +1.0
Philadelphia 43-34-4 55.8% 44.2% +1.0
Seattle 43-35-3 55.1% 44.9% +1.0
LA Angels 44-36-1 55.0% 45.0% +0.8
Milwaukee 42-38-1 52.5% 47.5% +0.3
Houston 40-37-4 51.9% 48.1% +0.8
Washington 40-37-4 51.9% 48.1% +0.5
Colorado 41-38-2 51.9% 48.1% +0.3
Toronto 40-39-2 50.6% 49.4% +0.8
Cleveland 40-40-2 50.0% 50.0% +0.1
LA Dodgers 41-41-4 50.0% 50.0% +0.2
Tampa Bay 39-40-4 49.4% 50.6% +0.3
Baltimore 37-38-6 49.3% 50.7% +0.5
NY Yankees 38-40-3 48.7% 51.3% +0.2
Chi Cubs 37-39-5 48.7% 51.3% +0.4
Oakland 40-43-1 48.2% 51.8% +0.3
SF Giants 35-39-7 47.3% 52.7% +0.5
Cincinnati 36-41-4 46.8% 53.2% -0.1
NY Mets 37-43-1 46.2% 53.8% +0.2
San Diego 36-42-3 46.2% 53.8% +0.2
Miami 34-40-7 45.9% 54.1% -0.0
St. Louis 39-46-5 45.9% 54.1% +0.3
Boston 38-45-6 45.8% 54.2% +0.2
Minnesota 37-44-0 45.7% 54.3% +0.5
Atlanta 35-43-5 44.9% 55.1% +0.1
Arizona 34-45-2 43.0% 57.0% -0.1
Chi Sox 31-43-7 41.9% 58.1% +0.1
Kansas City 31-44-6 41.3% 58.7% -0.1
Pittsburgh 33-47-4 41.2% 58.8% -0.3
Texas 29-49-4 37.2% 62.8% -0.6

IMO we should expect that the teams that currently have a high home game over pct will become less throughout the season. But if Barstool is right (and I think he is) than we should simply concentrate on the under teams and make profit.

I have some difficulties to explain what I am thinking, but I hope one can understand it by looking at the numbers.

Some more numbers:
- in 2012 there were 5 teams with a home over pct of at least 55% and 8 teams with a home over pct of 45% or less
- in 2011 there were 10 teams with a home over pct of at least 55% and 6 teams with a home over pct of 45% or less
- in 2010 there were 5 teams with a home over pct of at least 55% and 9 teams with a home over pct of 45% or less
- in 2009 there were 3 teams with a home over pct of at least 55% and 13 teams with a home over pct of 45% or less
- in 2008 there were 0 teams with a home over pct of at least 55% and 6 teams with a home over pct of 45% or less
- in 2007 there were 7 teams with a home over pct of at least 55% and 8 teams with a home over pct of 45% or less
The funny thing is that when you look at different years, you see some teams regularly go over in at least 55% of their home games and some teams regularly go under in at least 55% of their home games, some teams even playing under in 60% of their home games or more. There are more under teams than home teams, so concentrating on the under (which the public doesn't like) seems to be the way to go!

Team home stats since 2007:
Over teams:
MIA 5x(07, 09, 10, 12, 14)
DET 4x (07, 11, 13, 14)
COL 4x (10, 11, 12, 14)
MIL 3x (07, 10, 12)
BOS 3x (07, 11, 12)
CWS 3x (10, 12, 14)
LAD 2x (07, 14)
CIN 2x (07, 11)
ARI 2x (07, 09)
NYY 2x (10, 11)
LAA 2x (13, 14)
BAL 1x (07)
KCR 1x (09)
TEX 1x (11)
HOU 1x (11)
TOR 1x (11)
OAK 1x (11)
NYM 1x (11)
PHI 1x (13)
SEA 1x (13)
CLE 1x (14)
MIN 1x (14)
TBR 1x (14)
= 44 over teams from 2007 to 2014, which equals 5.5 over teams on avg per season


Under teams:
SEA 5x (09, 10, 11, 12, 14)
TBR 4x (07, 10, 11, 12)
OAK 4x (07, 08, 10, 12)
KCR 4x (07, 08, 12, 13)
NYY 4x (08, 09, 12, 14)
LAA 4x (08, 10, 11, 12)
ATL 4x (09, 12, 13, 14)
TEX 3x (07, 09, 13)
SDP 3x (08, 09, 14)
BAL 3x (09, 10, 14)
PIT 3x (09, 12, 13)
NYM 3x (09, 10, 14)
SFG 2x (07, 11)
TOR 2x (07, 08)
CIN 2x (09, 14)
HOU 2x (09, 10)
STL 2x (09, 10)
CLE 2x (09, 10)
CWS 2x (09, 13)
ARI 2x (11, 13)
WSH 1x (07)
MIN 1x (07)
CHC 1x (11)
LAD 1x (12)
BOS 1x (14)
= 65, which equals 8.1 under teams per season on avg

I would have thought that the bookies would have to adjust the total numbers to maintain profit (throughout the season, especially for certain teams which have shown a lot of overs or unders over the years), but the public seems to be too blind so it obviously doesn't matter. Otherwise I can not explain how those numbers could have happened. To me this is a clear proof of Barstool's opinion being correct. The bookies don't have to adjust any trends regarding overs and unders. This is where I think we could exploit them.

And now don't forget that I have posted only the numbers for home teams. If I would start to show the over and under stats of starting pitchers (overall, home and away as I did e.g. with Darvish or Chen), it would become even more eye-catching. And when taking certain pitchers (who don't show clear trends or when their trend goes the opposite direction to the team's trend) out of selection, the numbers from above would be much more straightforward and pointing to a certain direction.

Look at this, home ou stats from 2012-2014:
Colorado 111-83-9 57.2% 42.8% +1.4
Kansas City 86-108-11 44.3% 55.7% +0.1
Atlanta 86-110-11 43.9% 56.1% +0.2
NY Yankees 89-114-5 43.8% 56.2% -0.1
Texas 85-109-9 43.8% 56.2% 0.0
Pittsburgh 83-114-12 42.1% 57.9% -0.0

IMO this site (teamrankings.com) is a gift regarding my thoughts (together with killersports.com). Look at those various stats for everything:
All Games
After A Win
After A Loss
As Home Team
As Away Team
As Favorite
As Underdog
As Home Favorite
As Home Underdog
As Away Favorite
As Away Underdog
No Rest
1 Day Off
2-3 Days Off
4+ Days Off
Division Games
Non-Division Games
Playoff Games
League Games
Non-League Games

When we take those things into account and give the scheduled starting pitching some credit, it should be more or less IMPOSSIBLE to lose in the long term IMO.

[arpeggiomeister]

Posey, don't worry about "spamming". You are offering valuable information and maintaining a great discussion. That is what I create these threads for. The only thing I ask is that everyone be respectful to each other. We have not had a problem with that here. Keep it coming brother.

[arpeggiomeister]

Are we looking for public perception to pop a bubble, or a team's performance to make a shift? Maybe a combination? Maybe there is a way to play on the trend and avoid a pop?

A lot has been said since my last post. It is awesome to see you
guys putting some serious thought and effort into this.





I am on overload at the moment so forgive me if I am completely
off the mark but I am going to respond about trying to predict the
bubble popping.





That is the entire approach that I have been doing. The purest
experiment that ties to this theory is the over/under chase. The
underdog is not pure because the underdogs must actually win the game
in order to win the bet. The over under bets on the other hand are
completely based on public perception.






We are counting on the fact that the public is going to over-react
to some kind of stimulus. After stumbling through early on I settled
on a team scoring 10 runs or more. I am counting on Joe Square
Public to see that and get in on the over for the next game. This
pushes the price and sometimes even the number higher. That means
the odds of the under hitting just got better. We will call the
moment when a team has a high scoring game the “crux event”. It
is an event where we expect the public to react in a certain manner
which is wrong. We then fade them. I have been using chase systems
because I am not trying to predict exactly when the under will hit.
I am simply stating that I believe that the under is going to hit
within x amount of games after the crux event and I use a chase system
to capture that win and profit.





I have several systems up my sleeve, but they are all based on
this one concept. I just went over my numbers for the over/under
chase and I think it is interesting to note that it has gone 36-29-4.
That is 55% which is good enough to win straight up, at least with
11/10 odds. There are bets where that has got as high as -125 so
maybe I am just breaking even. At this point in time I am not
counting on the system to beat 50%. I am counting on it to remain
balanced. I do not bother trying to pinpoint the win, just simply
capture it with a chase system. If the model can be refined to the
point where you are winning with flat bets this is by far preferable
to chase systems. Chase systems are inherently dangerous because
they put your entire bankroll at risk.





My point with these experiments is not to say chase systems are
better then handicapping. My point is that the point spread and odds
systems create a phenomenon which can be exploited by chase systems.
Once you detect these cycles you can pound them and make money
without being a professional handicapper. I have read that as much
as 99% of sports bettors lose. I can tell you two things: first is
that I am a terrible handicapper, and second is that I am using this
method and making money.

[arpeggiomeister]

Semi-Arbitrage and over/under cover. Underdog loses.





I grabbed ARI this morning before the spreads were up. When the
spreads were finally up the money line on ARI changed from +136 to
+135. That is why you see to different prices listed on the same
team in today's plays, it is not an error.





Today's plays:





Underdog Chase

ARI +136

$19.64

Semi-Arbitrage

ARI +135	$170.00
ATL -1.5 +140	$169.40 ($64.15)

[arpeggiomeister]

An update on the semi-arbitrage experiment: After I hit my target of 40% I started using an anti-martingale to aggressively pursue this strategy since I have had such good luck with it lately. I set a target that I am looking to hit and then keep rolling the profits on top of my original bet until I double. It is taking 4 to 5 bets to do this. I completed one cycle and hit my target of $500. I then backed off a little and started risking $200. I am on my 4th bet in the anti-martingale today and am risking $342.40. If I win today I will have officially doubled that $200. It will be the second series in a row using the anti-martingale. If I hit then I will risk $300 in my next series. I started this bankroll with $200. It is currently at $642. I have hit 12 in a row since my streak of 34 came to an end. If I can carry this new streak to 28 wins my $200 will become $2,000. I think that realistically it is expecting too much but I am going to try it. This series only needed 4 bets instead of 5 because I got a 21% ROI instead of the average 18% last night.

[arpeggiomeister]

ps there is no under play today. No team scored 10+ runs last night.

[arpeggiomeister]

Here is a post by myself from another thread which IMO shows that there are bubbles, sometimes even too clear to see and the bookies do not adjust to them in time:

And one could find even more for them. Next to that, I don't know the exact number any more, but there are patterns e.g. for over/under streaks for certain teams. As far as I remember the longest over streak by a team in the last 10 years was by the Rays a few years back and it went 11 or 12 games I think (may be wrong, but something about that). So when you catch a team which has gone 5 or 6 times over in a row, it is ALMOST sure that there WILL be an under coming soon. This is something one could chase for sure.

I wanted to interject a thought here as well. I have read quite a bit about bookies shading the lines because they know the public leans a certain way. For example, the public is all over the Patriots up here. The local bookies know this and you will see Pats games listed for 1 or two more points then what Vegas is offering. I don't use the local guys, I use BETdsi currently, if I did I would play the opponents. Being a Patriots fan it is hard for me to stomach betting on the Jets, but I am a bigger fan of money so do what you have got to do. I think the trends you have shown are very interesting and I think the same sort of thing is going on. Generally speaking, I assume the public does not like to bet unders because it is a finite number as opposed to the over where the sky is the limit. This is a psychological tendency. As everyone has pointed out, Vegas are masters of public perception. If they know that the public generally does not like to bet under bets they can push that line with virtually no consequence whatsoever, just like the local bookies here with the Patriots. They know damn well that most people don't care what the odds are, they are sticking with Pats... ...or the over. I strongly believe the key to unraveling this whole thing is understanding crowd psychology. You know they have tendencies. Vegas knows it too. Just like in the stock market, they buy when they should sell and sell when they should buy. The more you study this stuff from this perspective the more trends like this are going to reveal themselves.

[posey]

Yeah, I would sign your post.

The Red Sox are a good example, too, IMO.

Red Sox 2013:
- 5.2 r/g, 3.9 opp r/g, 9.1 r/g on avg, avg total 8.6
- 81 ov, 86 un, 9 push

They won the WS last year, public still thinks the Red Sox don't stinkt this year. But this is what they are doing.

Red Sox 2014:
- 3.8 r/g, 4.3 opp r/g, 8.1 r/g on avg, avg total 8.4
- 32 ov, 51 un, 2 push

IMO the public is still on the train that the Red Sox would be strong because they are the WS winners from 2013 and the public is waiting for them to start cracking. But I bet they won't. And that's what one could exploit.

The bookies set the line in the same region like in 2013 (8.4 isn't much different from 8.6), but the Red Sox score over 1 r/g less compared to last year, while they give up a few more runs. All in all their avg game score shows exactly 1 r/g less compared to last year.

But the bookies haven't adjusted the total. If a lot of guys or the public would bet on the under, we would have seen a massive drop on the game totals, so that the bookies would make money. But since it doesn't happen, we me must assume, that the bookies are still making money without changing the total, since so many guys/the publis are wrong and go a lot with the over, assuming the Red Sox to still be elite.

This is where we have to catch in and make cash IMO.

Find the team with streaks or the team the public seems to be wrong too often, and get them.

It's really too strange. I don't now what public is thinking or why I didn't go this way earlier.
Sometimes it seems to be so easy.

I would assume that the public shies away from games with a total of 6.5 or goes with the over as Barstool said. Now look at this for example:
- Adam Wainwright started in 10 games with a total of 6.5 or less since 2013
- 3 went over, 7 went under, Cards 3.7 r/g, opp 2.0 r/g
- under would have produced a ROI% of 44.7 (!!!)
- Chris Sale started in 17 games with a total of 7.0 or less since 2013
- 5 went over, 10 went under, 2 pushed
- under would have produced a ROI% of 24.8 (!!!)

There are so many similar stats, I am thinking about setting up a Excel table or something like that in the near future. I bet that if we would follow heavy trends, that we would make profit throughout the season.

[posey]

Found another funny thing I didn't know before.
Avg score for Cards away games in 2014: 6.4. (It was 8.8 in 2013.)
Avg total for Cards away games in 2014: 7.5. (It was 7.8 in 2013.)
15 ov, 27 un, 4 push, +19.9% ROI% on under. (47 ov, 38 un, 3 push, -13.8% on under, but +5.9% on over in 2013.)

Compare it to the Red Sox: Cards were at the WS and public still has high thoughts on them. Avg total didn't change much compared to 2013.

[arpeggiomeister]

Semi-Arbitrage covers. Have a late play going in for today. I am
starting a new series. My account is now $706.70. I am starting a
new anti-martingale with $300. Each time I win I add the profit to
the $300 and progress until I double. It takes 4 to 5 bets to do
this. My next target is $1,000. If I lose I will have $400 left.

[arpeggiomeister]

tor +130	$156.25
oak -1.5 +150	$143.75 ($59.37)

[arpeggiomeister]

Been on the run and just realized I did not post today's games.





Underdog

ARI +156

$36.12

O/U

WAS U/6.5 -105

10.5

Semi-Arbitrage

CUBS +148	$180.00
WAS -1.5 +140	$186.00 ($80.40)

[arpeggiomeister]

I just saw the semi-arbitrage went down. I have $400 left. I need to decide if I am going to be aggressive and risk the $400 to quickly rebuild to $700 again or only risk $200 in case I lose again. It would take 3 games in a row risking $400, plus a slightly smaller 4th bet and I would be right back to $700. It is tempting but if I lose I blow up the account.

[arpeggiomeister]

No under chase today. I messed up the Semi-Arbitrage when placing
the bet but I put the correct numbers here. Not tragic, I calculated
for +140 instead of +145.





Today's Plays:





Underdog Chase

ARI -113

$11.30

Semi-Arbitrage

CUBS +145	191.74
CIN +130	204.25 ($73.78)

[arpeggiomeister]

Today's plays:





Underdog Chase

ARI -118

$11.80

O/U Chase

HOU U/9.5 -120

$12.00

Semi-Arbitrage

SFO +125	$247.00
OAK -1.5 +150	$222.30 ($86.45)

[arpeggiomeister]

Semi-Arbitrage covers, others lose. Forgive the sparse updates.
I am working 12 hour shifts all week. I am just trying to get the
plays out this week.





Today's Plays





Underdog Chase

ARI -127

$40.39

O/U Chase

HOU U/8 -115

$36.80

Semi-Arbitrage

PHI +180	$235.02
MIL -1.5 +105	$321.00 ($102.03)

[sunnyCA]

hey I was reading all of yours posts aabout a bubble and when it will pop and trying to predict when it will. I was thinking does it help if u know the lines ahead of time so u can maybe get an idea of when the "bubble might pop". seattle seahawks for instance, have 9 of their game lines up already for this upcoming season. now obviously some of them will change but some will be spot on. heres all of their games that are up:
wk1: vs GB -5.5
wk2: @ SD -3.5
wk3: vs DEN -3.5
wk4: bye
wk5:@wash -6
wk6: vs DAL -8.5 but is up to -10 some places already
wk7: @ STL no line
wk8: @ CAR no line
wk9: vs OAK no line
wk10: vs NYG no line
wk11: @ KC no line
wk12: vs AZ no line
wk13: @SF +2.5 only dog line
wk14: @philly -2.5
wk15: vs SF -3.5
wk16: @ AZ -3.5
wk17: vs STl no line

ok as u can see there is already a bubble being created. opening game -6 then a couple of -4 then a bye, then jumps to -6 wk 5 after the bye, then it really gets jacked up when they play DAL at home. the next 4 weeks are interesting they play @stl, @CAR, then at home vs OAK and NYG, you all kno that stl line along with the oak and nyg line will be juiced as hell. the next 2 games after that is whn the bubble could pop they play @KC in wk12 nov.16 it will be cold and a tough game, then vs AZ who beat them at home last yr.

i jus picked seattle because their gonnna be atop the rankings for some time this year. im sure most of denvers games are up as well ill check later. thought it was interesting to share. good luck to all.

[keel44]

A bubble can only be formed after the results of the game prior. If they lose against the spread week 1. Then the line should shrink a little. This is according to arpeggiomeister

[arpeggiomeister]

Only play today is the Semi-Arbitrage. Underdog covered and we
are going to the 3^rd tier on the over/under. I almost
took Detroit instead of Houston yesterday on the under. Wish I had
of because Detroit covered. I may chase HOU one more time unless
something really stands out to me from today's games.





Today's Play:





Semi-Arbitrage

MIN +146	$318.00
SEA -1.5 +130	$340.12 ($124.16)

[arpeggiomeister]

A bubble can only be formed after the results of the game prior. If they lose against the spread week 1. Then the line should shrink a little. This is according to arpeggiomeister

I do not have time to respond in detail but Keel is correct. The point spread is reactionary. If a heavy favorite continues to cover the spreads will get bigger. If the favorite fails to cover the spread will start to shrink. This is how the point spread maintains balance with almost perfect accuracy. It is the bettors driving it, not some super genius who knows every aspect of the game down to the tiniest detail. All Vegas must do is gauge where the public is at, which they are very adept at doing, and the bubbles that occur take care of the rest. I use chase systems because I think it is too hard to predict when the bubble will burst. I can gauge averages and create a chase system to match it.

[arpeggiomeister]

Semi-Arbitrage wins. I played this very dangerously. After my
loss I went from $766 down to $400. I gave chase using that $400 and
rolling it over each time with the profit trying to get back to $766.
Had I lost I would have blown up the account. I won 4 in a row and
now the account is at $782. I am back on track. When I broke $700 I
started a new anti-martingale chase to break $1,000 by risking $300.
I am now at $782 so I am risking $382 and will continue rolling over
the profit until I break $1,000.





Today's Plays:





Underdog Chase

ARI +137

$7.30

O/U Chase

DET U/8 -120

$94.56

Semi-Arbitrage

ARI +137	$196.10
SFO -1.5 +150	$185.90 ($82.75)

[arpeggiomeister]

The Semi-Arbitrage and under cover. The underdog loses bringing
us to our second tier today.






I dumped HOU in favor of DET yesterday because DET scored 16 runs.
I couldn't pass that up. It turned out to be a good move as HOU
went over again and DET went under easily. No teams scored over 10
so I am back on HOU for now .





Today's Plays:





Underdog Chase

ARI +107

$25.51

O/U Chase

HOU U/7.5 -115

$11.50

Semi-Arbitrage

ARI +107	$267.35
SFO -1.5 +180	$197.65 ($88.42)

[arpeggiomeister]

Everything covers. Today is a really big deal for the
semi-arbitrage. If I win today I will cross the $1,000 mark which is
a 500% ROI on my $200. It has been working so well that I will be
interested to see what happens if I tack another zero or two at the
end of that number. It is still experimental at this phase so I do
not want to roll out big money because that is usually about the time
I get burned. lol






I wish I had of looked at the over/under before placing my bet
because it is 6.5 for this game. As I learn more one of the filters
I am thinking about applying is not taking any game with an O/U below
7.5. This is not set in stone yet but 7.5 seems to be the average
for an O/U. When you see something in the 6 range it tells me Vegas
is expecting a low scoring game. A low scoring game increases the
odds that the favorite will win by 1 run. I already pulled the
trigger on this one so now I just keep my fingers crossed, but moving
forward it is something to be mindful of.





Today's Plays:





Underdog Chase

ARI +110

$9.09

O/U Chase

ATL U/9 -120

$12.00

Semi-Arbitrage

SDG +130	$236.00
LAD -1.5 +150	$217.12 ($89.68)

[arpeggiomeister]

That hurt. Semi-Arbitrage loses. I am down to $500. I am going
to put it all on the line and try to get to $1,000. It will take 5
bets to reach my goal.





Semi-Arbitrage Play 2

NYY +128	$254.00
BAL -1.5 +135	$246.43 ($78.69)

[arpeggiomeister]

A very unexpected twist occurred last night. The NYY/BAL game was delayed and then cut short in the 5th inning. BAL was declared the winner. BETdsi counted my bet on NYY as a loss and the win on BAL as a "no bet". That is pretty penetrating dirty. If it counts as a no bet then I should get my money back for the NYY bet. If it counts as a loss then my BAL bet should count as a win. Has anyone here ever encountered anything like this? I called them out on this but they have yet to respond.

[BarstoolProphet]

See my other post. Arp it is what it is. Had it been the other way around then it would have been in your favor. And yes this has happened several times to me. Both against and for me.

Thats why I tend to check weather before placing these bets or skip the entire month of April due to so many games being called. learn from this and move on. Take that $246 and hit them for 5 in a row and you will be back in it. GL Arp. I am supporting you.

[keel44]

The -1.5 bet needs to go a full 9 innings to be official. The straight wager just needs to go 5 innings.

[arpeggiomeister]

Barstool and Keel, thanks for the clarification. Barstool prophet, I would like to especially thank you for your comment in the other thread. It is truly amazing to me how much some people on this site get their rocks off on tearing other people down. I put that thread up so other people would not get burned. So it turns out there was a rule I was unaware of. The reaction was over the top and I am left with a very low opinion of several people that posted on that thread. Anyways, it was a hard lesson but an important one. There are a couple of filters now. Checking the weather on games is pretty important. I also think checking the over/under is important. Games with a total of 6 should be avoided. That tells us there is an expectation of a low scoring game. I would rather place a bet and only make 16% and win then risk it to win 21% and get burned. I think it would be interesting if I could get my hands on to some data. I may consider paying for a service if they have what I need. I do not like the databases where you type in a certain criteria and then they tell you what percentage won or lost. That is useless information for chase systems. I need to see the winning and losing streaks. Chase systems play by different rules. Everybody is operating under the assumption that this is random, but if my theory is correct then a 40% win ratio is perfectly acceptable as long as the losing streaks are manageable. If the point spread (or odds in this case) is doing its job then no matter how you poke and prod the % should come in around 50%. Things go in and out of balance all the time but it always returns to the mean. Where my theory separates from the "random theory" is the how and why. The random theory is simply the law of large numbers, but my theory is psychological and thus will not tolerate large streaks, either winning or losing. Balance must be maintained for sports books to make money. If any streak carries on for too long and sharps get wind of it then the books will get creamed. The balancing act is too perfect. I have studied enough truly random games to know the difference in what I am seeing.