MLB Regressing vs. Increasing Odds System

**mohye1980** · 05-06-17, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Mackballs

Braves, red Sox, cardinals, Marlins, Orioles, Phillies (would have to become the favorite it looks like, possible though), Rockies,.

This is what I came up with as possible plays today.

TT did say there could be days when we have 5+ plays.

Barryt, how long after the game starts is the closing line posted? I monitored the Indians like yesterday up to like the minute before first pitch and it was showing -170. I see it dropped to -160 close. Im thinking if the closing line is posted within 5 minutes of the first pitch then a hedge can be made live as long as there hasn't been any real action in the game to that point. The line should be about the same.

Braves play the cards. They both can't be plays.

**Mackballs** · 05-06-17, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by mohye1980

Braves play the cards. They both can't be plays.

Yes, corrected in my next post

**Mackballs** · 05-06-17, 03:01 PM

Baltimore almost certainly a play. Philly looks good too. Atlanta gonna be tight.

**Mackballs** · 05-06-17, 04:46 PM

Philly and Atlanta looking good now

**AceofSP2107** · 05-06-17, 06:39 PM

Anyone know how long TT banned for or is it for good ?

**sportsbetter21** · 05-06-17, 08:41 PM

Why was he banned?

Originally posted by AceofSP2107

Anyone know how long TT banned for or is it for good ?

**Mackballs** · 05-06-17, 08:54 PM

Referenced a another site one too many times I'm guessing.

**Mackballs** · 05-06-17, 10:19 PM

Terrible day. TT did warn about may. No success following the system thus far

**barryt** · 05-07-17, 07:03 AM

April 2017 SU: 30-18 (0.92, 62.5%) ( don't know what 0.92 means. Avg margin?
April 2017 RL: 21-27 (-0.58, 43.8%)
May 2017 SU: 8-3 (2.55, 72.7%)
May 2017 RL: 6-5 (1.05, 54.5%)

ps couldn't figure out how to use table function

**teecee** · 05-07-17, 08:16 AM

.92 is probably a measure of units won.

**Mackballs** · 05-07-17, 08:47 AM

Today:

Currently qualifying plays:

Red Sox
Cubs
Angels

Red Sox and Cubs would be RIOF4. Angels would not be.

Close and could become plays:

Mets
Rockies

If these qualify, neither would be RIOF4.

**kilopro** · 05-07-17, 10:35 AM

don't know what 0.92 means. Avg margin?

You are correct. In that case 0.92 is the avg margin of victory.

**kilopro** · 05-07-17, 10:43 AM

I backtested both RIOF and RIOF4 from 2013 forward and RIOF is down slightly on the ML for the month of May. RIOF4 is up for May although up less than all other months (13 units on ML, 5.8 units on RL).

**kilopro** · 05-07-17, 10:46 AM

RIOF

237	149-88 (1.10, 62.9%)	+$2,518	-$3,455	106-131 (-0.40, 44.7%)	+$1,113	-$2,284	April
272	162-110 (1.14, 59.6%)	-$38	-$1,256	120-152 (-0.36, 44.1%)	+$978	-$2,434	May
259	168-91 (1.09, 64.9%)	+$2,726	-$3,831	117-141 (-0.41, 45.3%)	+$1,541	-$3,142	June
276	190-86 (1.51, 68.8%)	+$5,218	-$6,351	134-142 (0.02, 48.6%)	+$3,347	-$4,919	July
277	185-92 (1.60, 66.8%)	+$3,851	-$5,087	139-137 (0.12, 50.4%)	+$3,605	-$5,254	August
243	164-79 (1.35, 67.5%)	+$3,951	-$5,003	125-118 (-0.15, 51.4%)	+$3,288	-$4,396	September
39	31-8 (2.23, 79.5%)	+$1,847	-$1,947	26-13 (0.73, 66.7%)	+$2,198	-$2,502	October

**kilopro** · 05-07-17, 10:58 AM

RIOF4

158	105-53 (1.43, 66.5%)	+$3,028	-$3,602	74-84 (-0.07, 46.8%)	+$1,699	-$2,548	April
169	106-63 (1.21, 62.7%)	+$1,311	-$2,056	74-95 (-0.29, 43.8%)	+$583	-$1,494	May
166	113-53 (1.30, 68.1%)	+$3,103	-$3,731	81-84 (-0.22, 49.1%)	+$2,171	-$3,115	June
189	130-59 (1.47, 68.8%)	+$3,606	-$4,357	87-102 (-0.01, 46.0%)	+$1,015	-$2,025	July
181	117-64 (1.40, 64.6%)	+$1,562	-$2,362	85-95 (-0.08, 47.2%)	+$1,049	-$2,183	August
180	120-60 (1.37, 66.7%)	+$2,397	-$3,211	92-88 (-0.13, 51.1%)	+$2,058	-$2,894	September
29	24-5 (2.28, 82.8%)	+$1,562	-$1,632	20-9 (0.78, 69.0%)	+$1,791	-$2,021	October

**kilopro** · 05-07-17, 11:07 AM

System is solid but challenging to follow at times. But I've found others systems that rely on a specific line to be met are challenging as well because these databases are not updated in real time.

Does anyone know with certainty where the lines are coming from?

**barryt** · 05-07-17, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by kilopro

System is solid but challenging to follow at times. But I've found others systems that rely on a specific line to be met are challenging as well because these databases are not updated in real time.

Does anyone know with certainty where the lines are coming from?

couldnt agree more. Like in horse racing betting at a certain odds and the money comes pouring in after betting is closed.

no one seems to know where the line is coming from. I'll ask!

**barryt** · 05-07-17, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Mackballs

Today:

Currently qualifying plays:

Red Sox
Cubs
Angels

Red Sox and Cubs would be RIOF4. Angels would not be.

Close and could become plays:

Mets
Rockies

If these qualify, neither would be RIOF4.

One of us is doing something wrong as in addition to Angels and Red Sox, I have mariners as a play and RIOF4 and Cubs only a maybe if they pass >-130

ps Angels now dog at my book( albeit still -1.5 RL) so I'm passing on the assumption the system line will catch up

**Mackballs** · 05-07-17, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by barryt

One of us is doing something wrong as in addition to Angels and Red Sox, I have mariners as a play and RIOF4 and Cubs only a maybe if they pass >-130

ps Angels now dog at my book( albeit still -1.5 RL) so I'm passing on the assumption the system line will catch up

I think I'm just reading the wrong dates.

But wasn't the system updated to allow a 10 cent difference? So Rockies would've needed to be -126 based on yesterday's closing line but -116 would qualify it as a play today because of the 10 cent difference...idk if this is right but I ended up taking Colorado as they were -118 at first pitch.

**barryt** · 05-07-17, 05:35 PM

The 10 cent diff was brought out to facilitate plays when the 'line' on the SDQL was close and live lines indicated it was aplay and we were missing those plays. TT never got around to rechecking the system to properly query the effect. So I'm neglecting anything that doesn't meet the criteria on the SDQL and not searching for additional maybe plays. Theoretically Angels were/ are still a play but I used my judgement to eliminate them based on sbrodds.
looks like Rockies will cover, but -118 isn't close to the 126 needed to meet the system.
the CUBs on the other hand are right on the #, so a one point change after first pitch could make it a play and TT decided that was playable.
But I've put my foot down and if the SQDL doesnt spit it out ,I'm not playing ON, but if I see it could become NOT a play , like the Angels, I'm not playing it.
hope this is clear., but it's just me. you can play what you want.

**barryt** · 05-08-17, 07:09 AM

One RIOF today:Yankees
one Maybe RIOF:Nationals @-107 need -116( qualifies on 10 point exception rule)
no RIOF4
gl
barryt
On my way back home to Ottawa from Daytona beach tomorrow. And no internet up in Ottawa. Will need Starbucks/ McDonald's .. lol

**Mackballs** · 05-09-17, 06:56 AM

Not seeing anything today...

**kilopro** · 05-09-17, 09:35 AM

RIOF

Rays over Royals. 7pm Eastern game so keep checking it until gametime.

RIOF

Nothing so far.

**kilopro** · 05-09-17, 05:37 PM

RIOF - Rays and Cubs so far

**Mackballs** · 05-10-17, 06:52 AM

Rangers, Rays, nationals currently qualify.

RIOF4 - rangers and rays
RIOF - nationals

**Mackballs** · 05-10-17, 07:02 AM

Possible plays:

Philly - needs to become favorite - would be RIOF4.

SF - needs to become favorite - would be RIOF4

Houston - needs to get to -191 (-181 if using 10 cent adjustment) - would be regular RIOF

Cubs - needs to be -143 ( -133 if using 10 cent adjustment) - would be RIOF4

Cardinals - need to be -116 (-106 if using 10 cent adjustment) - would be RIOF4

Tigers - would need to become favorite - would be RIOF4

Feel free to correct any errors I made here. Right now the nats, rays and rangers all look like they will be plays, with rays and rangers being RIOF4. All others I think are worth monitoring, especially if you are using the 10 cent adjustment in making plays.

**barryt** · 05-10-17, 09:37 AM

Just for the record, if you review the CUBS games yesterday, the 8-1 win was played before the 10-4 loss while the Cubs query page shows the reverse order that would infer 2 RIOF games. However the RIOF query on May 9 shows just the 8-1 game as it should.
However when looking at today's games the CUBS should not be a play as the line order of the previous two games should be -142, -135 not -135 -142 . Let's hope the Cubs go to -131 and we don't have to deal with it. At least the Rockies used 4 pitchers in each game so we don't have to worry about the RIOF4 or not.
Such a simple system is frought with difficulty!

**2buckluck** · 05-10-17, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by barryt

Just for the record, if you review the CUBS games yesterday, the 8-1 win was played before the 10-4 loss while the Cubs query page shows the reverse order that would infer 2 RIOF games. However the RIOF query on May 9 shows just the 8-1 game as it should.
However when looking at today's games the CUBS should not be a play as the line order of the previous two games should be -142, -135 not -135 -142 . Let's hope the Cubs go to -131 and we don't have to deal with it. At least the Rockies used 4 pitchers in each game so we don't have to worry about the RIOF4 or not.
Such a simple system is frought with difficulty!

You sure about that?
The 10-4 Rox win was played at 12:10 MST and was the makeup from the night before's rain out (5/8)...
The 8-1 Cubs win was the game that was originally scheduled for yesterday May 9 and the pitchers that were scheduled...

("The teams will play a day-night doubleheader Tuesday. Cubs ace Jake Arrieta (4-1, 4.63) and Rockies rookie Antonio Senzatela (4-1, 2.84), the scheduled starters Monday, will oppose each other at 12:10 p.m. MT in the first game.

Chicago's John Lackey (2-3, 5.14) and left-hander Kyle Freeland (3-1 2.65) will start in the regularly scheduled second game at 6:40 p.m. MT.")

**Mackballs** · 05-10-17, 12:03 PM

Houston now at -195 and would qualify. Definitely monitor up until first pitch at 2:10 est.

This is a regular RIOF play if the line holds.

Note: if you are using the 10 cent adjustment, this would qualify is an RIOF play at -181 or better, -191 or better if not using adjustment.

**Mackballs** · 05-10-17, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Mackballs

Possible plays:

Philly - needs to become favorite - would be RIOF4.

SF - needs to become favorite - would be RIOF4

Houston - needs to get to -191 (-181 if using 10 cent adjustment) - would be regular RIOF

Cubs - needs to be -143 ( -133 if using 10 cent adjustment) - would be RIOF4

Cardinals - need to be -116 (-106 if using 10 cent adjustment) - would be RIOF4

Tigers - would need to become favorite - would be RIOF4

Feel free to correct any errors I made here. Right now the nats, rays and rangers all look like they will be plays, with rays and rangers being RIOF4. All others I think are worth monitoring, especially if you are using the 10 cent adjustment in making plays.

The cards are not a possible play, my mistake. However, the Marlins are in play if they become -116 (-106 with 10 cent adjustment). They would need to become the favorite at closing line and they would qualify for an RIOF4 play as well. They are -104 now but definitely monitor it. -116 for a play, -106 or just the favorite if using 10 cent adjustment. Sorry for the confusion but I believe this is correct because at -106 the cardinals would then be -104 and be the underdog. -116 for Marlins and we're good to go on all fronts.

Anyone want to confirm this?

**barryt** · 05-10-17, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by 2buckluck

You sure about that?
The 10-4 Rox win was played at 12:10 MST and was the makeup from the night before's rain out (5/8)...
The 8-1 Cubs win was the game that was originally scheduled for yesterday May 9 and the pitchers that were scheduled...

("The teams will play a day-night doubleheader Tuesday. Cubs ace Jake Arrieta (4-1, 4.63) and Rockies rookie Antonio Senzatela (4-1, 2.84), the scheduled starters Monday, will oppose each other at 12:10 p.m. MT in the first game.

Chicago's John Lackey (2-3, 5.14) and left-hander Kyle Freeland (3-1 2.65) will start in the regularly scheduled second game at 6:40 p.m. MT.")

No I m not sure!
now I'm pretty sure I was wrong, but can't give a decent explanation of why. Just confused. Then there should have been 2 RIOF plays on Cubs yesterday.
i was travelling yesterday and looked at the scores this am and assumed the 10-4 game listed after the 8-1 game was the second.
sorry about this red herring.

**Mackballs** · 05-10-17, 05:30 PM

Interesting that Marlins have moved to -115 at most places, yet remain -104 on the site. Got a a feeling this is gonna close at about -115 and we won't know it til way later. Might play it on an assumption the line will catch up to what most books now have it at.

**barryt** · 05-11-17, 10:43 AM

May 11.. no plays today with my search!

**Mackballs** · 05-11-17, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by barryt

May 11.. no plays today with my search!

I concur.

**Mackballs** · 05-12-17, 06:55 AM

Currently qualifying RIOF4:

Washington -190 (needs -179, -169 with 10 cent adjustment)

Boston -165 (needs -146, -136 with 10 cent adjustment

Currently qualifying RIOF:

St Louis -126 (needs -107, or just to be the favorite)

Note: the giants may be an RIOF play. Their odds have improved 3 straight games including today and are -155 today. However, the reds have gone from -104, -103 to 145 today. Technically they haven't regressed 3 straight games but that middle game at -103 they were the underdog. I don't know if that matters. Does anyone know if the 10 cent adjustment would apply here to that -103 line from yesterday? I feel like the giants should be a play because they've had increased odds 3 straight games and the reds essentially have had decreasing odds...