Should i blindly hammer MLB Faves?

[statnerds]

74-45

62%

???

[ZetaPsi808]

LOL NO

[THE PROFIT]

74-45

62%

???

Have you lost your mind? You're just fukin with us I hope

[TheLock]

I'm assuming he's commenting on how well MLB faves are doing so far?


I'm down about 2 units so far in bases this year after doing well the past two days so it makes sense that faves have been doing well. It will come around though.

[statnerds]

Have you lost your mind? You're just fukin with us I hope

your hope is misplaced sir. if faves are killing it, and they are, i look to drill down to get more specific. of course one would not make money just blindly betting faves, but i decided to look at any team under -150 this year. faves are 42-31 in this role, 58%. however, since last thursday faves of less than -150 are 27-15 for 64%. i don't know how long a trend like that can last, thus the question. should have posed more specific, i apologize.

Cards win. 75-45.

[THE PROFIT]

do the math & see how much you would make hitting 64% at -150, or even -130

[tltaylor89]

Hell no pick spots with real money management.

[pat venditto]

Dogs are the way to go.

[statnerds]

how long can trend continue is my question? just like Red hitting in roulette 100 times in a row doesn't mean the next one will be black. so let's not get into fallacy's here, let's stick with what is going on.

Faves 33-14 L4 days, a few games pending here. that's over 70%. prove to me why it will end. also go ask some think tank guys about sample size. they'll say a few hundred minimum. so why can't faves click at this rate for another 150 games?

[THE PROFIT]

They might, but the juice will eat your ass alive!!!

[rolltide10]

It will level out... The juice would kick your ass. What until a month or so into season when you see two or three -200+ lose the same day, you will hate yourself then

[statnerds]

It will level out... The juice would kick your ass. What until a month or so into season when you see two or three -200+ lose the same day, you will hate yourself then

that is why i concentrated on faves of -150 or less.

anyway, all faves 35-15 for 70% since Sunday is no joke.

[Boner_18]

You realize that the implied win% for a -150 line is 60% right? That means at -150 you would have to hit 60.01% to eek out a profit. At -200 or -250 (like the Phils or Card or Rockies today) you need to win greater than 66 2/3% and 71.46% respectively.

Basically the lines reflect these win rates by the faves.

[MonkeyF0cker]

If you enjoy losing money, then by all means do so.

[JEK]

blindly play the fav's? Umm, no.

[MonkeyF0cker]

so why can't faves click at this rate for another 150 games?

Let's use your own logic against you... Why can't dogs click at that rate for the next 150 games?

[statnerds]

Let's use your own logic against you... Why can't dogs click at that rate for the next 150 games?

aha, but we already have a trend under way do we not? dogs aren't hitting 70% L50 games, faves are. i'm sure if you trotted out 10 years of data, faves would be ~55-56% winners. i bet if you broke each season down there would stretches of game that fell far from the tree. and the great thing about math is there is no set length on those runs. it could last a month or a whole season. it would eventually be corrected down to the long-term level, but that could take thousands upon thousands of games.

point is none of us knows what is going to happen next, or we wouldn't be spending our time in pissing contests in online forums, we'd be rich. so why shouldn't continue on with faves?

[CashMoney27]

Gl with that

[sharpcat]

This is a great way to slowly piss money away

[MonkeyF0cker]

aha, but we already have a trend under way do we not? dogs aren't hitting 70% L50 games, faves are. i'm sure if you trotted out 10 years of data, faves would be ~55-56% winners. i bet if you broke each season down there would stretches of game that fell far from the tree. and the great thing about math is there is no set length on those runs. it could last a month or a whole season. it would eventually be corrected down to the long-term level, but that could take thousands upon thousands of games.

point is none of us knows what is going to happen next, or we wouldn't be spending our time in pissing contests in online forums, we'd be rich. so why shouldn't continue on with faves?

What about math discusses arbitrary trends aside from random walk? So because there is already a trend, it must continue? LOL. You really need to change your name.

[lakerboy]

Dogs will come around. I stink at baseball and i have only played 3-4 faves so far and im only down pocket change.

[statnerds]

What about math discusses arbitrary trends aside from random walk? So because there is already a trend, it must continue? LOL. You really need to change your name.

read closely, bottom line on this one: you cannot accurately predict what is going to happen next. you have zero mathematical evidence that proves dogs will win next, nor do you have any statistical evidence that the current trend will reverse itself. so you can bring insults while dodging the question if you prefer. and so i am clear, it is your position that every mathematical theory will hold sway over reality?

so your name and its relations to bestiality are accurate? yikes, i hope not.

[lakerboy]

The underdogs in Baseball win more than any other sport. Even the worst teams in baseball won 36% of their games last year. Thats higher than any other Norht American sport. Couple that with the high + odds you get there is money to be made. This trend of faves winning wont continue for the whole season.

[teecee]

Should you blindly hammer faves? No. Should you selectively choose underdogs? Yes.

[Stealinhome]

If you had to ask that question then yea go for it! What could go wrong…

[Facepunch]

this trend is tricky when the best teams in baseball lose 50+ games a year, and you always have to realize that the lines will adjust. If anything focus on the short favs and go from there. -180 and above is poison in my eyes, and if I cant justify a run line play I will go the other way.

[MonkeyF0cker]

read closely, bottom line on this one: you cannot accurately predict what is going to happen next. you have zero mathematical evidence that proves dogs will win next, nor do you have any statistical evidence that the current trend will reverse itself. so you can bring insults while dodging the question if you prefer. and so i am clear, it is your position that every mathematical theory will hold sway over reality?

so your name and its relations to bestiality are accurate? yikes, i hope not.

And you have zero evidence that proves that favorites will win next. Yawn. I'm not the one with the onus to prove it here. LOL. You are. You have no idea what you're doing. Real handicapping has nothing to do with predicting who will win. I really hope you enjoy losing. At least, you'll get used to it.

And yes, I fuk monkeys.

[HedBustah1]

Good luck

[statnerds]

The underdogs in Baseball win more than any other sport. Even the worst teams in baseball won 36% of their games last year. Thats higher than any other Norht American sport. Couple that with the high + odds you get there is money to be made. This trend of faves winning wont continue for the whole season.

LB - agreed completely. but no harm in attempting to generate a discussion that neither one is a certainty. there is no way we can definitively state that either dogs or faves are going to perform better 'short-term'. it would be a horrible idea to blindly bet faves or dogs. long term you would lose money doing both (taking us back to my original post about the house edge). this thread was intended to get people thinking along the lines of just because short term something is happening, don't expect an immediate correction.

perhaps instead of using the word 'trend' i should have went with distributions and the system in which those distributions occur and conclusions we could possibly draw based on those results compared to the expected results. but short term results could be anywhere under our little umbrella.

let's take the thought to its completion and see if i can accomplish my original mission:

35-15 L50 games is 70%
77-46 this season is 63%

so if you start blindly betting dogs expecting a correction, you might get it, but it also might take a long time. let's use 300 games and say faves go 159-141 over that time. that would take our 70% down to 55% and the 63% down to 55% as well. so we achieved our expected result, but faves still hit 53% over those games.

to summarize cause i tend to ramble and write slower than i think, sometimes leaving things out

short-term faves are killing it, however, we should never over-react to short-term results.

it is extremely difficult to get points across when some reactions are so strong. sometimes my posts should be taken at face value, other times, not so much.

GL all

[chaseman]

No.

[MonkeyF0cker]

LB - agreed completely. but no harm in attempting to generate a discussion that neither one is a certainty. there is no way we can definitively state that either dogs or faves are going to perform better 'short-term'. it would be a horrible idea to blindly bet faves or dogs. long term you would lose money doing both (taking us back to my original post about the house edge). this thread was intended to get people thinking along the lines of just because short term something is happening, don't expect an immediate correction.

perhaps instead of using the word 'trend' i should have went with distributions and the system in which those distributions occur and conclusions we could possibly draw based on those results compared to the expected results. but short term results could be anywhere under our little umbrella.

let's take the thought to its completion and see if i can accomplish my original mission:

35-15 L50 games is 70%
77-46 this season is 63%

so if you start blindly betting dogs expecting a correction, you might get it, but it also might take a long time. let's use 300 games and say faves go 159-141 over that time. that would take our 70% down to 55% and the 63% down to 55% as well. so we achieved our expected result, but faves still hit 53% over those games.

to summarize cause i tend to ramble and write slower than i think, sometimes leaving things out

short-term faves are killing it, however, we should never over-react to short-term results.

it is extremely difficult to get points across when some reactions are so strong. sometimes my posts should be taken at face value, other times, not so much.

GL all

When someone is so concerned about win percentages in a ML sport, it's fairly indicative that they have no idea what they're talking about. I hope you realize that favorites could be 56% and have a negative ROI.

[statnerds]

And you have zero evidence that proves that favorites will win next. Real handicapping has nothing to do with predicting who will win. I really hope you enjoy losing. At least, you'll get used to it.

exactly. it was almost as if i paid you to present the other side of the argument that proves how incredibly dangerous my original question would be if put into practice. we don't know what is going to happen next in the short term. blindly betting dogs is every bit as misguided as blindly betting faves.

you also helped prove the point that sometimes emotions get in the way of any discussions of substance taking place.

one thing i have learned for certain in math and life: something never happens all the time nor does it never happen. when framing an argument be sure to avoid using 'every time' or 'never'. life, and math, doesn't work that way.

And yes, I fuk monkeys.

and again i say....yikes!!

[statnerds]

When someone is so concerned about win percentages in a ML sport, it's fairly indicative that they have no idea what they're talking about. I hope you realize that favorites could be 56% and have a negative ROI.

the gift that just keeps on giving. not only do emotions destroy constructive discussions, but egos as well. keep up the good work.

[MonkeyF0cker]

exactly. it was almost as if i paid you to present the other side of the argument that proves how incredibly dangerous my original question would be if put into practice. we don't know what is going to happen next in the short term. blindly betting dogs is every bit as misguided as blindly betting faves.

you also helped prove the point that sometimes emotions get in the way of any discussions of substance taking place.

one thing i have learned for certain in math and life: something never happens all the time nor does it never happen. when framing an argument be sure to avoid using 'every time' or 'never'. life, and math, doesn't work that way.




and again i say....yikes!!

I was paraphrasing you, idiot.

[MonkeyF0cker]

you have zero mathematical evidence that proves dogs will win next

And you have zero evidence that proves that favorites will win next.

Get it yet, genius?