[BouncedCheck]

I'm thinking to get more plays, maybe we could start fading Washington in a 3-game chase for all their 3-game road series. That team is pathetic. If we pick each series selectively and don't just play them all blindly, it's probably a pretty safe system. This weekend's series at Philadelphia might be a good time to start. What do you guys think? I don't think the Phillies are getting swept this weekend.

EDIT: I'm not touching Moyer on Sunday, so this is a two-game chase for me. I have 3/10 unit on Phillies tonight, prepared to chase with Hamels on Saturday if necessary.

[G's pks]

I doubt Philly gets swept, but be aware of Phillies home record...it is horrible... My chase system now has some filters I added..but has cut picks down again.... But I am 2-0 in series plays... GL G.

[G's pks]

I got out of my bet. I originally bet the Cubs at matchbook +103, then I hedged the Dodgers at -103 and both were offers, so I make profit on the commission regardless of the outcome.

I have 1/10 unit each on San Diego, San Francisco, and Atlanta tonight.

I wouldn't touch that Toronto JM play with a 10-foot pole this weekend.

We got another 4-game series starting today with the Oakland/Texas doubleheader. If Oakland wins the first game, the Rangers pass all my filters, so there's a chase starting with Game 2.

Just a response...check out Toronto at home..they are awesome...good idea to back comments with facts... G. Toronto will probably at least win one in the JM chase...

[Panekkkk]

I'm thinking to get more plays, maybe we could start fading Washington in a 3-game chase for all their 3-game road series. That team is pathetic. If we pick each series selectively and don't just play them all blindly, it's probably a pretty safe system. This weekend's series at Philadelphia might be a good time to start. What do you guys think? I don't think the Phillies are getting swept this weekend.

EDIT: I'm not touching Moyer on Sunday, so this is a two-game chase for me. I have 3/10 unit on Phillies tonight, prepared to chase with Hamels on Saturday if necessary.

I've been wanting to start a fade Washington chase system myself lol.

Also, NY and CLE start a 4-game series tonight. Haven't checked if CLE qualifies but they might.

[GGPLAYER]

I doubt Philly gets swept, but be aware of Phillies home record...it is horrible... My chase system now has some filters I added..but has cut picks down again.... But I am 2-0 in series plays... GL G.

How often do you think you'll have a play? I just checked out your thread for the first time and I don't see anything for today.

[Panekkkk]

Hey BC,

Question about Filter C?

Overall winning percentage of over .645 seems a little too high, no? Only one team would qualify this year (Dodgers). The highest team Angels last year finished with a .600.

.645 seems more relevant at the start of the season but after the 1st quarter of the season, .590 seems a bit more realistic?

Thoughts?

[Panekkkk]

So I went over 2008's losses. If you saw whatsit's analysis, it was actually more profitable to play the 4 game chase all year than the 3 game chase (without any filters at all).

The 3-game chase was 55-5 with no filters, realizing a profit of only about $900 if playing $50 chase all year.

The good news is that BC's filters would have for sure caught at least 3 of those loses (I'm not sure about the other 2; I didn't track some of the more obscure filters). The problem though, is how many of the wins are being filtered? My guess is a lot of them. Even if you limit the losses to about 2 per year, you need at least 30 wins per year for this system to be profitable. Remember that there were only 55 wins last year. So if these filters are filtering more than half of the plays on a weekly basis then it will not be profitable.

You might get lucky and avoid all losses but I doubt it. It seems that at least 2 losses per year defy any kind of filter.

Anywhere, here is a quick breakdown of the 5 losses. The last 3 would for sure be caught by filters. I highlighted and pointed out some of the major trends of the home and the away teams that might help in spotting some no-plays.

A key filter seems to be having the next 3 home pitchers with an ERA above 4.8 (or 2 over and 1 close)

You would honestly be better off just chasing all 4 game series and crudely attempting to filter out some losses IMO. But this would be very expensive to chase all.



2008 Losses

Cubs at Brewers (7/28-7/31)


Brewers L10 = 8-2
Lost Game 0 6-4
Lost Game A 7-1
Lost Game B 7-2
Lost Game C 11-4

Cubs Winning % = .581
Cubs prev 5 games = 5.8 runs/game
Cubs L10 = 4-6

Brewers at Cards (7/21-7/24)

Cards L10 = 7-3
Streak = 5W

Brewers L10 = 6-4
Streak = 4W
Brewers prev 5 games = 5.8 runs/game

Nationals Game

Nationals – avoid

Rays at Orioles (9/22-9/25)

Rays making late season push
1st place in division
Rays winning % = 0.597
Rays prev 5 games = 8.2 runs/game
L10 = 5-5

Orioles
L10 3-7
Streak = L5
Last place in division
All pitchers over 5 ERA

Astros at Reds (8/7-8/10)

Reds win % = 0.452
Last place in division
L10 2-8
All pitchers over 5 ERA

Houston
L10 7-3

[BouncedCheck]

Just a response...check out Toronto at home..they are awesome...good idea to back comments with facts... G. Toronto will probably at least win one in the JM chase...

Toronto is in a completely disastrous tailspin. I don't care if they're playing in Toronto, Moscow, Jerusalem, or outer space. I don't like Boston this weekend either, so the JM chase is probably going to win, but this is a series I'm staying far, far, far away from on either side. I don't like streaky teams, good or bad. Streaks are not indicative of a team's true ability. Until they come back to earth and get back to a more normal sequence of wins and losses, I wouldn't bet on any game involving them.

Hey BC,

Question about Filter C?

Overall winning percentage of over .645 seems a little too high, no? Only one team would qualify this year (Dodgers). The highest team Angels last year finished with a .600.

.645 seems more relevant at the start of the season but after the 1st quarter of the season, .590 seems a bit more realistic?

Thoughts?

The goal is to win 1 of 3 being bet on, but in reality, 1 of 4 since we wait for the home team to lose the first game. So downscaled to a 4-game series, anything under .750 should be safe in theory. Even going with 1 of 3 would be .667, which I still think is too high, because baseball is too unpredictable. When a good team gets hot, these numbers go out the window. I came up with this filter when thinking about Stephen Jay Gould's chapter about randomness in Full House. As baseball has evolved, the bad teams still usually play at least .350 and the best teams rarely play better than .650. What this means to me is that the best teams still tend to lose frequently enough that it's usually safe to fade them in a 4-game road series chase.

It's not a question of how many teams do or do not finish over .645 for the year. It's a more simplistic mathematical percentage. If a team loses more than 35% of their games, that means fading them three straight games (when you only have to win 1 of 3 to win) is like having a runner on second with nobody out and three consecutive .350 hitters coming to bat. The expected percentage that ONE of those three hitters will get a hit is more than 1 (.350 x 3 = 1.05), meaning the expected value is positive. Of course, if it goes to Game C, then there's a lot of risk for little reward, which is the obvious criticism of progressive gambling. But not taking the overall stake of each event into account, the chance of winning one game is still more likely than not. I'm sure they're are people more experienced at math than I am who could easily illustrate that the expected value of this system is negative because of the progressive chase and the number of units lost when the system fails, and they'd be totally right. There are no guarantees and that's why I'm not trying to sell this system.

[BouncedCheck]

The problem though, is how many of the wins are being filtered?

Or, it could be argued, the problem is that some people get too greedy! I tend to be more conservative when betting, and I do it only for fun, or rather, to keep myself interested and to alleviate boredom. I'm not sure "fun" is really an accurate characterization.

Anyway, if you lose 15 units on each of the two losses and you win 55 units, you'd be up 25 units at the end of the season. That's pretty good if you ask me. Even if you lose 25 units on each of the two losses, you'd still be up 5 units at the end of the year. Since I don't rely on gambling for income, any positive result at the end of the season is satisfactory to me. I just don't want to come out in the red when it's all over.

The trick you said
was never play the game too long
A gambler's share
The only risk that you would take
the only loss you could forsake
The only bluff you couldn't fake

Don't get greedy. That's when people get hurt and do stupid shit like gambling away next month's rent or mortgage payment. Just my opinion.

[Panekkkk]

Or, it could be argued, the problem is that some people get too greedy! I tend to be more conservative when betting, and I do it only for fun, or rather, to keep myself interested and to alleviate boredom. I'm not sure "fun" is really an accurate characterization.

Anyway, if you lose 15 units on each of the two losses and you win 55 units, you'd be up 25 units at the end of the season. That's pretty good if you ask me. Even if you lose 25 units on each of the two losses, you'd still be up 5 units at the end of the year. Since I don't rely on gambling for income, any positive result at the end of the season is satisfactory to me. I just don't want to come out in the red when it's all over.

The trick you said
was never play the game too long
A gambler's share
The only risk that you would take
the only loss you could forsake
The only bluff you couldn't fake

Don't get greedy. That's when people get hurt and do stupid shit like gambling away next month's rent or mortgage payment. Just my opinion.

Hah agreed. This isn't so much for greed as it is for fun. I have a stats background so this stuff is enjoyable. Remember that the 55 wins were for unfiltered plays. I don't know how many wins are removed by the filters. My guess is that the filters remove at least 10-20 possible wins. Thus you are looking at about even (or very minor) returns with just 2 losses. Throw in one more loss and it's over.

[Panekkkk]

The key will be tracking this till the end of the season and seeing how many wins were filtered. And removing some of the filters that appear to be hitting only wins.

[johncrud]

That is how we rolllll.....

[G's pks]

How often do you think you'll have a play? I just checked out your thread for the first time and I don't see anything for today.

First of all wanted to say there is money to be made in a thread like this! GL...

Second I went through my filters, and was about to take Texas...until I came upon the starting pitcher... Then I posted a thread in here this morning about who the hell is this guy Hunter. No pick yet will have one tonight or tomorrow.

GG, remember though my system is new, the very high percentage I am hitting is in my own picks. But I hardly pick any games, so in came the system I am working on. The system is 2-0 for series, and 2-2 total in games. Of course being that it is a chase, in my system bets increase or minimum are for the amount lost. A little more conservative than doubling down each time. So winning a game within the series is the important thing, not the win percentage. A little different then trying to win every game.

Remember for these chase systems you have to go by the rules/filters of the system. That can be the hardest part...

GL G.

[G's pks]

As I said, Toronto a completely different team at home they won easily.

[GGPLAYER]

Ok maybe I won't chase this one. I just took a closer look and no Big Z or Harden plus the Cubs are melting down. There will be better series to chase. I trying to learn patience

Next time I chase!! LOL! Stupid Cubs with their win

[Hard10]

The Yankees have beaten Cleveland the first two games of a 4 game series. I'm thinking of taking the Indians +1.5 in a two game chase betting lightly. Any opinions, thoughts ?

[Panekkkk]

The Yankees have beaten Cleveland the first two games of a 4 game series. I'm thinking of taking the Indians +1.5 in a two game chase betting lightly. Any opinions, thoughts ?

The price isn't bad but honestly NY is on such a tear right now I would stay away.

[BouncedCheck]

It was filtered out because none of Cleveland's starters had a low enough ERA. Yanks just tied the game in the 8th, so the outcome of today's game is completely up in the air.

So I went over 2008's losses. If you saw whatsit's analysis, it was actually more profitable to play the 4 game chase all year than the 3 game chase (without any filters at all).

The 3-game chase was 55-5 with no filters, realizing a profit of only about $900 if playing $50 chase all year.

I haven't looked at it closely, so I'm not saying you're wrong, but are you telling me there were only 60 four-game series on the entire MLB schedule last year? There are 135 this year, not counting those series that were originally scheduled for three games but had a rescheduled game added to create a new four-game series. That's certainly going to create more opportunities for plenty of wins, which is why I think we're better off using more stringent filters. The point of the filters as far as I'm concerned is not to merely reduce losses, but ELIMINATE them. I'm hoping to have zero at the end of the season. I don't expect it to happen, but it would be nice if it did. If we get zero losses, then it doesn't really matter how many wins we filter out. We'd have to come out ahead at the end.

I'm going to try to take a closer look at the two series in question from last year to see if they would have been filtered out.

[BouncedCheck]

Those two series involving Milwaukee in July absolutely would not have been filtered out. That would have spelled two series losses in less than two weeks, both involving the same team. Maybe we need a filter to protect against ace starters who are on a streak of pitching well. Sabathia beat the Cardinals in one of those chase games, and Zambrano beat the Brewers once. I'm not sure what criteria would be effective.

The thing that makes ace starters better than everybody else is that they tend to go on hot streaks for several consecutive starts. Sabathia is on a hot streak lately with the Yankees as an example. They all go through rough patches as well, and nobody is invincible. The difference is that guys like Santana, Halliday, Sabathia, etc., tend to straighten themselves out quickly and rarely have more than 2-3 bad starts in a row, and when they get hot, they can have a run of winning 8-10 straight starts over a 5-6 week period. Look at what Ford did in June of 1961 - eight starts, eight wins, pitching every fourth day, starting June 1, ending June 29. The only difference now is they get 4 days of rest instead of 3.

The flip side is that when these top starters aren't in the midst of a personal hot streak, they're not really more effective than any mediocre 4.95 ERA #4 or #5 starter. Like I said, I don't know what filters would be effective, but we'd need some kind of filter to protect us from betting against ace starters who are hot while not having it be so restrictive or intimidating that it filters out all of our wins. If we decide we're not going to play any series in which we might have to bet a single game against a top starter, we're going to end up almost never being able to place any bets.

[BouncedCheck]

Indians just won... I guess that starters' ERA filter doesn't really matter.

[mcbain]

I bet CLE from the start of this series. Nice to get rewarded today.

Does anyone have a list or spreadsheet of all 4 game series for the rest of the MLB season?

[Hard10]

I put a little action on them too with the RL, and they snuck in a run in the bottom 9th.

[Panekkkk]

It was filtered out because none of Cleveland's starters had a low enough ERA. Yanks just tied the game in the 8th, so the outcome of today's game is completely up in the air.


I haven't looked at it closely, so I'm not saying you're wrong, but are you telling me there were only 60 four-game series on the entire MLB schedule last year? There are 135 this year, not counting those series that were originally scheduled for three games but had a rescheduled game added to create a new four-game series. That's certainly going to create more opportunities for plenty of wins, which is why I think we're better off using more stringent filters. The point of the filters as far as I'm concerned is not to merely reduce losses, but ELIMINATE them. I'm hoping to have zero at the end of the season. I don't expect it to happen, but it would be nice if it did. If we get zero losses, then it doesn't really matter how many wins we filter out. We'd have to come out ahead at the end.

I'm going to try to take a closer look at the two series in question from last year to see if they would have been filtered out.

There were 60 4-games series in which the first game was a loss for the home team (there was 160ish 4-game series overall). But in order for your system to qualify there has to be a first series home team loss (thus each year you can expect around 60-65 total plays).

There has been around 5+ losses the past few years. Not all would have been filtered out by your filters. I have no idea how many wins would be filtered out. So if you filter out too many winners and don't hit the 2-3 random losses than you are worse off than simply betting every series without filtering (according to whatisit's research). Of course, if you filter out the only losses this system is $ in the bank =)

[Panekkkk]

Although Cleveland won don't discount the ERA filter. It seems to be the only filter that picked up some of the losses in 2008 and 2007

[G's pks]

Bounced Check are you keeping a record posted on this... I am rooting for you ...looks good!

[el jefe]

White Sox have a 5 game series coming up 6/8 against Detroit.

Would that be a four game chase?

[Vincepcion]

St. Louis a play now I believe

[BouncedCheck]

Cardinals are a play, but it will be interesting to see what the price is with Arroyo pitching, who is clearly superior to Thompson, who hasn't pitched in two weeks.

Reds: In his first complete game of the season and seventh of his career, Arroyo gave up five hits -- four singles and a double -- with one walk and three strikeouts for an easy 6-1 win over the Astros on Wednesday. He had only 79 pitches through eight innings and finished with 92 pitches. In the start before that vs. Cleveland, he gave up one earned run over eight innings. Arroyo has yet to get a no-decision. He's figured in the outcome of all 10 of his starts.

Cardinals: Thompson, the Cardinals' do-everything pitcher, once again gets a tough assignment. The right-hander has not appeared in a game since May 17, yet he'll get the call to start against Cincinnati on Tuesday due to Joel Pineiro's back spasms. Thompson was starting at Triple-A Memphis in late April, but since his recall from the Minors, he has faced all of 31 batters in 29 days. For his career, the Cardinals are 17-7 when Thompson starts.

[johncrud]

This is a very confident play for me. It fits the RPI criteria if you want to take that into perspective.

Anyone have the lines for it?

[netinfo]

This is a very confident play for me. It fits the RPI filtering if you want to take that into perspective.

Anyone have the lines for it?

I agree, this is a very good play. Only 5Dimes has the lines for it so far.

netinfo

[BouncedCheck]

I checked http://www.sbrodds.com/ right before I posted at 4:52AM eastern time, and it said 5dimes had the lines posted at +162 Reds / -172 Cardinals. But then I logged in at 5dimes and the game was nowhere to be found. I looked in both the regular place and under reduced juice. If I would have had money on deposit at 5dimes and I could have gotten the Reds at +162 I would have dropped a lot on them, knowing the line would drop significantly and I could scalp later. The Cards probably shouldn't have been favored at all with this pitching matchup.

[mcbain]

Cards win, another nice victory BC.

[netinfo]

Congrats for the win!

netinfo

[Bakerdew]

thanks BC

[BouncedCheck]

I hate this feeling... too buzzed and tired to make another beer run.... not ****ed up enough to want to pass out and go to sleep.... what should I bet on?