The Padres are absolutely Terrible could you fade them and Make Money.Im going to try. Using Southpoint Lines.Starting Tonight. Seattle -132 ovr SD.1320 To win a 1000.
-
-
I spelled money wrong but this dam typing on this site I have to slam the keys down takes me 1 hour to type this.Going to fade fro a month.Comment -
Nice choice with the padres. GLGL
Comment -
There are no angles in Gambling.SD loses 3 in a row the day I start the fade Seattle has King Felix on the mound SD Wins it was my fault Tony Gwin night.So 0-1 - 1325.So today Seattle is +107 at Southpoint.Comment -
You probably need to fade a team the public expect to win to make money, mathematically.
If the team is terrible there is a good chance that terribleness is already implied in the odds and they won't lose enough to produce a profit over the season betting every match..Comment -
The above poster is right. Wow I woke up SD.I do not have Emir money. Obviously not betting a 1000 game just using the 1000 to make it easer to keep track. Im just trying a little experiment thru the end of July just to see if it is possible to fade a team that is lousy. So far 0-2 down 2302.Tonht La - 110.Comment -
The problem is bad teams go on winning streaks. Padres could hit a hot streak and win 8 of 10 and the next thing you know your bank roll is gone.Comment -
Fade a good team.....ride a bad team. Choose your spots and know when to bail. There are ebs and flows.Comment -
Well I guess I found out the answer and it is NO.Can you believe this I thought about if u could fade a bad team weeks ago thought about either the padres or AZ and I chose the Padres.I started the fade 3 days ago.I sure woke up them up eh, they have won 3 In a row ouch.Need ur team to start winning let me say how bad they are.Comment -
Im going to keep trying it is a marathon not a sprint I just will keep track at home and update maybe a couple of times right now stands 0-3 - 3402.00.Of course im not betting a 1000 a game just using that number for tracking purposes. Easier then 50 here or 300 here. .Tonight La -1. 10.Comment -
I avoid bad teams all together. They either screw you by losing when you pick them to win or winning when you expect them to lose.Comment -
When fading the Padres every game this season on the ML, you would have made a ROI% of +9.3.
When fading the Padres every game this season on the RL, you would have made a ROI% of +23.9.
When always playing the under in Padres games this season, you would have made a ROI% of +27.6.
32-42 (-0.82, 43.2%) avg line: 101.8 / -111.9 on / against: -$1,169 / +$812 ROI: -14.2% / +9.3% 28-46 (-0.62, 37.8%) avg line: -109.0 / -105.3 on / against: -$2,815 / +$2,433 ROI: -27.3% / +23.9% 23-48-3 (-0.41, 32.4%) avg total: 7.2 over / under: -$2,835 / +$2,290 ROI: -35.7% / +27.6% Comment -
You can use killersports for some queries and you will be surprised how easy betting would be sometimes. The problem is that sometimes people overcomplicate it IMO (I do it myself). Especially when you take certain time spans into account. E.g. until all star break, after all star break, and so on. Or you look at some home stats, away stats, day stats, night stats, and so on.Comment -
I also think if you are going to do something like this, you need to do it from season beginning to season end. Picking a random month or week, could be devastating as that could be when they win a few.Comment -
E.g. look at this, Padres after the All star break in 2013:
Giants before AS break in 2013:34-32 (-0.32, 51.5%) avg line: 123.2 / -135.0 on / against: +$928 / -$1,251 ROI: +13.2% / -13.6% 38-28 (0.36, 57.6%) avg line: -113.8 / 100.8 on / against: +$747 / -$1,132 ROI: +8.4% / -13.6% 24-40-2 (-0.04, 37.5%) avg total: 7.6 over / under: -$2,000 / +$1,325 ROI: -27.7% / +18.1%
Fading the Rays this year would have brought a lot of money:43-51 (-0.43, 45.7%) avg line: -111.9 / 101.5 on / against: -$1,590 / +$1,193 ROI: -13.8% / +11.1% 37-56 (-0.69, 39.8%) avg line: 106.3 / -120.0 on / against: -$2,045 / +$1,585 ROI: -17.2% / +12.0% 48-42-3 (0.80, 53.3%) avg total: 7.7 over / under: +$215 / -$1,150 ROI: +2.1% / -11.1%
You would have made profit this year when going with the over in Rockies away games:29-46 (-0.67, 38.7%) avg line: -121.3 / 110.4 on / against: -$2,862 / +$2,452 ROI: -29.8% / +29.7% 25-50 (-1.25, 33.3%) avg line: 110.4 / -123.0 on / against: -$2,519 / +$2,213 ROI: -28.1% / +21.4% 35-36-4 (0.15, 49.3%) avg total: 7.7 over / under: -$380 / -$250 ROI: -4.7% / -3.0%
Fading the Mets at home since the start of 2013 would have brought money, so would have playing the under:15-24 (-0.90, 38.5%) avg line: 127.3 / -138.2 on / against: -$567 / +$390 ROI: -14.4% / +7.2% 22-17 (0.37, 56.4%) avg line: -163.4 / 149.3 on / against: -$443 / +$254 ROI: -6.8% / +6.2% 21-13-5 (0.68, 61.8%) avg total: 7.6 over / under: +$720 / -$1,055 ROI: +17.0% / -24.1%
You see - in general it shouldn't be too difficult. I don't get why I am unable to use this for myself.49-68 (-0.72, 41.9%) avg line: -101.8 / -109.4 on / against: -$2,402 / +$1,856 ROI: -17.9% / +13.3% 50-67 (-0.37, 42.7%) avg line: -101.4 / -111.2 on / against: -$2,187 / +$1,631 ROI: -14.7% / +10.6% 49-65-3 (-0.04, 43.0%) avg total: 7.3 over / under: -$2,050 / +$1,060 ROI: -16.2% / +8.1% 
There are much more such numbers, e.g. fading certain starting pitchers on the road or at home or in day or night games.
Fading McCarthy in all games since 2013 would have brought a lot of money:
Yu Darvish is an under machine in home games:10-27 (-1.89, 27.0%) avg line: -104.4 / -105.9 on / against: -$1,992 / +$1,818 ROI: -46.8% / +42.4% 10-27 (-2.01, 27.0%) avg line: 102.9 / -117.2 on / against: -$2,218 / +$2,008 ROI: -45.1% / +38.3% 15-21-1 (0.03, 41.7%) avg total: 8.5 over / under: -$755 / +$440 ROI: -18.9% / +10.6%
Backing Vogelsong on the road and playing the under in his away games would have brought money since 2012:27-14 (1.66, 65.9%) avg line: -193.4 / 171.1 on / against: -$97 / -$213 ROI: -1.2% / -5.2% 20-21 (0.16, 48.8%) avg line: 116.5 / -127.4 on / against: +$83 / -$297 ROI: +1.9% / -5.5% 15-25-1 (-0.85, 37.5%) avg total: 8.6 over / under: -$1,225 / +$875 ROI: -27.1% / +19.4%
Tim Hudson is a stud in home games since 2013:8-6 (-0.79, 57.1%) avg line: 118.9 / -128.9 on / against: +$414 / -$497 ROI: +28.2% / -26.7% 9-5 (0.29, 64.3%) avg line: -156.1 / 142.7 on / against: +$210 / -$249 ROI: +9.5% / -16.8% 5-9-0 (0.11, 35.7%) avg total: 8.2 over / under: -$485 / +$315 ROI: -32.1% / +20.0%
16-0 (3.06, 100.0%) avg line: -149.8 / 138.8 on / against: +$1,600 / -$1,600 ROI: +66.8% / -100.0% 9-7 (1.56, 56.2%) avg line: 153.8 / -167.3 on / against: +$731 / -$856 ROI: +45.7% / -32.0% 10-6-0 (1.06, 62.5%) avg total: 7.2 over / under: +$335 / -$495 ROI: +18.9% / -28.3%
You see what I mean.Comment -
Yup, the chart you posted hit the nail on the head. OP says he is losing money by this, but in reality had he done it since season start, hed be up.
I think if you are going to try this, you have to pick your team at season start. You must have a bankroll that can support all 162 games and you must stay committed. Just picking a random week or month will not work. You will either lose and say it not possible or you will win and say its best system ever, but in reality your sample size is way to small to say either way.Comment -
Right, that's it. Maybe it would be possible to use similar queries from above when set up for certain dates, e.g. using the stats from last 20 home games of home team, last 20 away games from away team, home starter stats, away starter stats (in this case stats = ROI%). But the problem is, as you said, sample size is too small and one would have no clue when to stop fading/backing.Comment -
I think one would have to use 'streaks' of teams and be faster than the bookies, meaning that you pick the streak plays before the bookie and the public start recognizing it, but that is very, very difficult IMO.Comment
