MLB - Tuesday, 7/26/16

44 Mag · 07-26-16, 07:00 AM

Can't wait to see the 60%'s today.

klemopixx · 07-26-16, 07:21 AM

Something about that Nats/Indians game has me scratching my head. Almost too easy.
I'm leaning Col/Bal u 9.5 -115

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 07:26 AM

60%ers:

Mets 62% (-163) (Game #1)
Baltimore 64% (-178)
Toronto 70% (-233)
Boston 64% (-178)
Cubs 65% (-186)
Minnesota 68% (-213)

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by klemopixx

Something about that Nats/Indians game has me scratching my head. Almost too easy.
I'm leaning Col/Bal u 9.5 -115

Too close for me, I get 9.9

MrAllin · 07-26-16, 08:03 AM

im liking archer at + money tonight LT

jjgold · 07-26-16, 08:27 AM

Phils play is solid

stackz125 · 07-26-16, 10:52 AM

Minnesota should never be in the 60%

Pittsburgh?
St.louis game 2??
KC???

Day of????
Nothing really stands out to me

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by stackz125

Minnesota should never be in the 60%

Pittsburgh?
St.louis game 2??
KC???

Day of????
Nothing really stands out to me

Not just that but they are in high 60s too! Does not matter to me, I am not playing them.

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 11:32 AM

2 MLB Additions

4 MLB Plays Tuesday

Nationals / Indians UNDER 8 -115 (Bookmaker)
Phillies +136 (5 Dimes)
Rays / Dodgers UNDER 7.5 +100 (Heritage)
Reds +118 (Heritage)

44 Mag · 07-26-16, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by LT Profits

4 MLB Plays Tuesday

Nationals / Indians UNDER 8 -115 (Bookmaker)
Phillies +136 (5 Dimes)
Rays / Dodgers UNDER 7.5 +100 (Heritage)
Reds +118 (Heritage)

Interesting selection on Cinn. I liked them yesterday, but went with TT over and game total over, hitting them both. You really think they can take two in a row from SF at their house??? I know the Giants are a little dysfunctional right now but........I am leaning Cinn, would like to hear your thoughts.

Slanina · 07-26-16, 11:48 AM

LT, what does the model have for Baltimore/Colorado total? Accidentally bet today's game instead of your play yesterday. Just noticed it pending a few minutes ago. I have it at O9.5 +102.

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Slanina

LT, what does the model have for Baltimore/Colorado total? Accidentally bet today's game instead of your play yesterday. Just noticed it pending a few minutes ago. I have it at O9.5 +102.

See Post #5, 9.9

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by 44 Mag

Interesting selection on Cinn. I liked them yesterday, but went with TT over and game total over, hitting them both. You really think they can take two in a row from SF at their house??? I know the Giants are a little dysfunctional right now but........I am leaning Cinn, would like to hear your thoughts.

You know by now that Reds winning last night has no impact for me on this play.

Model only has this San Fran 51% (-104), Cain is one of lowest rated starters in the league and Reed has better peripheral numbers than fronttline stats, his positive regression may have begun with his nice last start. His 3.70 xFIP is more than THREE runs lower than his 6.75 ERA!

mohye1980 · 07-26-16, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

You know by now that Reds winning last night has no impact for me on this play.

Model only has this San Fran 51% (-104), Cain is one of lowest rated starters in the league and Reed has better peripheral numbers than fronttline stats, his positive regression may have begun with his nice last start. His 3.70 xFIP is more than THREE runs lower than his 6.75 ERA!

Maybe his peripheral #s are bad because he's on a bad team ? Unless he switches teams don't see it changing too much for the better.

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by mohye1980

Maybe his peripheral #s are bad because he's on a bad team ? Unless he switches teams don't see it changing too much for the better.

You misread, his peripheral numbers are GOOD (leading to 3.70 xFIP), his mainstream numbers are bad, 0-4 with 6.75 ERA. His good last start may have begun the convergence toward the peripherals and it is not as if the Giants offense is hard to handle these days until all of their regulars are back.

44 Mag · 07-26-16, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

You know by now that Reds winning last night has no impact for me on this play.

Model only has this San Fran 51% (-104), Cain is one of lowest rated starters in the league and Reed has better peripheral numbers than fronttline stats, his positive regression may have begun with his nice last start. His 3.70 xFIP is more than THREE runs lower than his 6.75 ERA!

Originally posted by LT Profits

You misread, his peripheral numbers are GOOD (leading to 3.70 xFIP), his mainstream numbers are bad, 0-4 with 6.75 ERA. His good last start may have begun the convergence toward the peripherals and it is not as if the Giants offense is hard to handle these days until all of their regulars are back.

I know part (A) for sure Boss. The rest is very good info. I do like Cinn. here. BOL , and hope you sweep!!!!
<br>
<br>

clockwise · 07-26-16, 01:49 PM

what you got on the privates game LT? thanks!

Antibet · 07-26-16, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by clockwise

what you got on the privates game LT? thanks!

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by clockwise

what you got on the privates game LT? thanks!

Not much to see relative to real line, Pirates 54% (-117)

thekoreanmang · 07-26-16, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

60%ers:

Mets 62% (-163) (Game #1)
Baltimore 64% (-178)
Toronto 70% (-233)
Boston 64% (-178)
Cubs 65% (-186)
Minnesota 68% (-213)

Sorry. New to this. What are the 60%ers?

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by thekoreanmang

Sorry. New to this. What are the 60%ers?

Teams that model gives at least a 60% chance of winning. I almost never bet on them myself because they are usually overvalued, but there have been a few exceptions like Milwaukee on Monday.

clockwise · 07-26-16, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

Not much to see relative to real line, Pirates 54% (-117)

While ur at it.. how abt the drunken brewers & aids? Thanks again ! Good luck on ur plays LT

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by clockwise

While ur at it.. how abt the drunken brewers & aids? Thanks again ! Good luck on ur plays LT

Just as close, Milwaukee 53% (-113)

upscope · 07-26-16, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by thekoreanmang

Sorry. New to this. What are the 60%ers?

Originally posted by LT Profits

Teams that model gives at least a 60% chance of winning. I almost never bet on them myself because they are usually overvalued, but there have been a few exceptions like Milwaukee on Monday.

They r the biggest favs on the board....Obv

I just don't get why everybody is infatuated with the 60's everyday?? They r on the edge of their seats everyday waiting for u to tell them that the -170's & above have a 60% chance of winning

Nobody should need a model to tell them that -233, -213, -186, -178, -178, -163 should win 60% of the time. That should be common sense. Anybody that has bet bases regularly before should know that firing on all the -170's & above is a recipe for disaster long term. I guess I just don't understand why everybody is so eager to see the 60%er's?? Tomorrow the 60%er's will be the biggest chalk on the board people. All the teams that are -170 & above.
Am I missing something here??

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by upscope

They r the biggest favs on the board....Obv

I just don't get why everybody is infatuated with the 60's everyday?? They r on the edge of their seats everyday waiting for u to tell them that the -170's & above have a 60% chance of winning

Nobody should need a model to tell them that -233, -213, -186, -178, -178, -163 should win 60% of the time. That should be common sense. Anybody that has bet bases regularly before should know that firing on all the -170's & above is a recipe for disaster long term. I guess I just don't understand why everybody is so eager to see the 60%er's?? Tomorrow the 60%er's will be the biggest chalk on the board people. All the teams that are -170 & above.
Am I missing something here??

Because it isn't exactly as you say. For example, model had 60% on Brewers on Monday and they were in the -120s in real life. And there are often teams that are -150 and above in real life that do not make the model's 60% list. And even within the 60%ers, there is often huge variance between model price and real-life price. I often bet AGAINST the 60%ers if the real price is right.

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by upscope

Nobody should need a model to tell them that -233, -213, -186, -178, -178, -163 should win 60% of the time.

It looks like you are quoting all model lines. The object would then be to compare those odds to the real lines.

upscope · 07-26-16, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

Because it isn't exactly as you say. For example, model had 60% on Brewers on Monday and they were in the -120s in real life. And there are often teams that are -150 and above in real life that do not make the model's 60% list. And even within the 60%ers, there is often huge variance between model price and real-life price. I often bet AGAINST the 60%ers if the real price is right.

So once in a blue moon a team that is -120ish is a 60%'er. And occasionally when a team is -150ish they are only 58-59%

The 60%'ers r going to be the biggest chalk That should be obvious. Nobody should be waiting in anticipation wondering if Boston @ -230 is a 60% or the Cubs at -200 ect ect....

Let me guess...Tor -270 today was a 60%er?? Of course they r

You want tomorrow's 60%er's?? Just check the lines & all teams above -170 will be 60%er's.

I guess what you're saying is the point behind the 60%er's is that you compare the model price to the real price & look for discrepancies. My point is shouldn't you be looking to do that with every game?? What difference does it make if it's big chalk or small chalk??

I just see 60%er's as completely unnecessary to group into a special pool. I have a feeling some people are confused as to what they really mean & how they should be used & are just blindly tailing them because they r labeled into a special group that's supposed to win more when in reality they will likely destroy you if not used correctly.
I just see it as how you use a 60%'er should be no different than how you use a 55%'er 43%'er so what's the point in labeling them??
Call me crazy....

funnyb25 · 07-26-16, 06:43 PM

4 runs on 2 hits..jesus

thekoreanmang · 07-26-16, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by upscope

They r the biggest favs on the board....Obv

I just don't get why everybody is infatuated with the 60's everyday?? They r on the edge of their seats everyday waiting for u to tell them that the -170's & above have a 60% chance of winning

Nobody should need a model to tell them that -233, -213, -186, -178, -178, -163 should win 60% of the time. That should be common sense. Anybody that has bet bases regularly before should know that firing on all the -170's & above is a recipe for disaster long term. I guess I just don't understand why everybody is so eager to see the 60%er's?? Tomorrow the 60%er's will be the biggest chalk on the board people. All the teams that are -170 & above.
Am I missing something here??

Why you angry, bro?

LT Profits · 07-26-16, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by upscope

So once in a blue moon a team that is -120ish is a 60%'er. And occasionally when a team is -150ish they are only 58-59%

The 60%'ers r going to be the biggest chalk That should be obvious. Nobody should be waiting in anticipation wondering if Boston @ -230 is a 60% or the Cubs at -200 ect ect....

Let me guess...Tor -270 today was a 60%er?? Of course they r

You want tomorrow's 60%er's?? Just check the lines & all teams above -170 will be 60%er's.

I guess what you're saying is the point behind the 60%er's is that you compare the model price to the real price & look for discrepancies. My point is shouldn't you be looking to do that with every game?? What difference does it make if it's big chalk or small chalk??

I just see 60%er's as completely unnecessary to group into a special pool. I have a feeling some people are confused as to what they really mean & how they should be used & are just blindly tailing them because they r labeled into a special group that's supposed to win more when in reality they will likely destroy you if not used correctly.
I just see it as how you use a 60%'er should be no different than how you use a 55%'er 43%'er so what's the point in labeling them??
Call me crazy....

Originally posted by thekoreanmang

Why you angry, bro?

Actually upscope is 100% correct, the methodology should be exactly the same in regards to comparing a 60%ers line and a 48%ers line. I just group them separately because guys asked for them. My feeling will not get hurt if you simply ignore them.

freelee · 07-26-16, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by upscope

So once in a blue moon a team that is -120ish is a 60%'er. And occasionally when a team is -150ish they are only 58-59%

The 60%'ers r going to be the biggest chalk That should be obvious. Nobody should be waiting in anticipation wondering if Boston @ -230 is a 60% or the Cubs at -200 ect ect....

Let me guess...Tor -270 today was a 60%er?? Of course they r

You want tomorrow's 60%er's?? Just check the lines & all teams above -170 will be 60%er's.

I guess what you're saying is the point behind the 60%er's is that you compare the model price to the real price & look for discrepancies. My point is shouldn't you be looking to do that with every game?? What difference does it make if it's big chalk or small chalk??

I just see 60%er's as completely unnecessary to group into a special pool. I have a feeling some people are confused as to what they really mean & how they should be used & are just blindly tailing them because they r labeled into a special group that's supposed to win more when in reality they will likely destroy you if not used correctly.
I just see it as how you use a 60%'er should be no different than how you use a 55%'er 43%'er so what's the point in labeling them??
Call me crazy....

It should be obvious but try explaining to some of these guys how a parlay works or that it makes no sense to hedge out on a 5 teamer after winning the first four rather then just betting the first four you'll realize quickly that it isnt obvious for them.