LTA's MLB Plays

[Redscot]

Damn Braves bullpen...couldn't hold a 2 run lead in the bottom of the 8th against a shit lineup. Hopefully they at least don't blow the push in the bottom of the 9th. Just once, I would like to win a game in the late innings.

Seriously. Perhaps the greatest strength has been their BP and let us down last night as well. Now Reyes lead off hit pinch hitting

[Love The Action]

NFL thread is up and running....first play posted there and below. Good luck tonight!

http://forum.sbrforum.com/nfl-handicapping/1252335-ltas-nfl-plays.html

NFL 9/8/11 (Week 1)

Play #1

NO/GB under (48) 1x (Locked)

I think we have a great shot at cashing this for our first play of the season. First, the whole world is on the over with over 80% of all bets going that way. I have this one at 45, but the public has bet it all the way up past the key number of 47 which gives us some great value here. Everyone knows these are two of the best offenses in the league, but I don't think everyone realizes how great the defenses are in this game. Both defenses were top ten NFL in both points allowed and yards allowed last year. Generally, offenses struggle at the start of the season and it takes longer for them to work out the kinks. This gives the defense the advantage. We have a great league trend going back to 2006-07 season where the opening season Thur night game ended under the posted total each of those years. I expect that again tonight. If you look at the individual matchups on the field, NO's receiver corps are hurting with Moore out and Colston's knee. That gives Woodson and co. a bit of an advantage as they can play more physical. On the other side, Jermichael Finley did not practice this weak with a bum ankle and that could throw off the timing of Rogers against the quick blitzes of NO (one of the most frequent blitzing team in the league). I think everyone is expecting a ton of points tonight, but I expect both teams to try to establish the running game with Grant back for GB and NO trying to get their new Heisman winning rookie the ball as much as possible. I think we have a great public fade opportunity to start off the season and I'm rolling with the under for 1x. Good luck.

[BennyFang]

Rollin with ya on the under. Went with the Braves as well even though I got it last minute at -152! Let's get it!

[Krazymojo]

Packers babyyyyyy lets hit that under

[God1]

Has there been a change to sbrodds? Before I could click on the line and see every line move with a timestamp. Now there's nothing to click. Is this my computer or did this change?

[hawley]

Has there been a change to sbrodds? Before I could click on the line and see every line move with a timestamp. Now there's nothing to click. Is this my computer or did this change?

Its changed bro, down at the moment think they are trying to fix it.

[Love The Action]

Has there been a change to sbrodds? Before I could click on the line and see every line move with a timestamp. Now there's nothing to click. Is this my computer or did this change?

You can't get a line history off the new one...use the old SBR odds for now.

http://odds.sbrforum.com/#/odds/mlb/game/moneyline.html

[Redscot]

Has there been a change to sbrodds? Before I could click on the line and see every line move with a timestamp. Now there's nothing to click. Is this my computer or did this change?

Been feeling like an atheist around here lately. Seriously though, glad to see you around G1.

[God1]

thx. while i'm here I love the cubs tomorrow. cardinals too

[Love The Action]

Been feeling like an atheist around here lately. Seriously though, glad to see you around G1.

I'm guessing he got suspended for trolling Greek's thread

Odds -200

Any takers?

[Redscot]

thx. while i'm here I love the cubs tomorrow. cardinals too

I feel ya.

Pelf -145! Coming off of a dbl header against nemesis Braves. That's borderline ridiculous.

Braves high emotion series with Phils, than 2 in NY, only to travel to St. Louis the next day and not have one of their vet's pitching.

Gonna see what lines I get tonight and may jump'em both.

[Love The Action]

thx. while i'm here I love the cubs tomorrow. cardinals too

Capping NCAAF right now and haven't started on tomorrow's MLB card yet, but blind eye I would have to agree with both.

Coleman has been pitching well lately and, along with Wells, has made Cubs backers some money. I like Jackson better than Delgado, but I don't know if he's faced the Cardinals before. If they are familiar with Delgado, I would like the Cards a lot more. I am a bit surprised the Cards opened up -125 with that matchup, I would have thought -130's, but I haven't looked into it so can't say for sure.

[Redscot]

I'm guessing he got suspended for trolling Greek's thread

Odds -200

Any takers?

Gonna have to sweeten the pot for me to take that bet.

[Love The Action]

Looks like Narveson just shit his pants and fuked our under. Cruised for five innings no runs and just gave up 6 in the top of the 6th. Unreal. Between the late inning push in the Braves game, the NFL debacle and Narveson's break down, this has turned into a loser of a night. Better stop following the scores or I won't feel like capping tomorrow's card. I knew I should have stuck with Phils lean...just got scared away from by their "B" lineup

[God1]

I'm guessing he got suspended for trolling Greek's thread

Odds -200

Any takers?

Nope never got suspended just realized that nothing comes of trying to discuss betting with idiots

[No coincidences]

Looks like Narveson just shit his pants and fuked our under. Cruised for five innings no runs and just gave up 5 in the top of the 6th. Unreal. Between the late inning push in the Braves game, the NFL debacle and Narveson's break down, this has turned into a loser of a night. Better stop following the scores or I won't feel like capping tomorrow's card.

With 2 outs and no one on.

What a piece of shit.

[Love The Action]

Nope never got suspended just realized that nothing comes of trying to discuss betting with idiots

[God1]

Capping NCAAF right now and haven't started on tomorrow's MLB card yet, but blind eye I would have to agree with both.

Coleman has been pitching well lately and, along with Wells, has made Cubs backers some money. I like Jackson better than Delgado, but I don't know if he's faced the Cardinals before. If they are familiar with Delgado, I would like the Cards a lot more.

I know this is a myth that alot of bettors like to believe but I've never seen any evidence to back it up.

I am a bit surprised the Cards opened up -125 with that matchup, I would have thought -130's, but I haven't looked into it so can't say for sure.

Might just about be catching when they start pricing the cards as "out of it". They will get corrected upwards

[Redscot]

Seriously though, can't F with the Phil's right now. They are in the zone and the pressure has been taken off of their young hitters with the acquisition of Pence.

[God1]

I feel ya.

Pelf -145! Coming off of a dbl header against nemesis Braves. That's borderline ridiculous.

Braves high emotion series with Phils, than 2 in NY, only to travel to St. Louis the next day and not have one of their vet's pitching.

Gonna see what lines I get tonight and may jump'em both.

All that is nice but probably not relevant. Mets are just simply overpriced, I have the cubs with a better offense and at the least equal pitching....coleman having a sky high era helps skew it too

[God1]

Looks like Narveson just shit his pants and fuked our under. Cruised for five innings no runs and just gave up 6 in the top of the 6th. Unreal. Between the late inning push in the Braves game, the NFL debacle and Narveson's break down, this has turned into a loser of a night. Better stop following the scores or I won't feel like capping tomorrow's card. I knew I should have stuck with Phils lean...just got scared away from by their "B" lineup

I'd say its close to impossible to make money betting unders on stud pitchers. If you are consistenly beating true close unders in this spot

[No coincidences]

I'd say its close to impossible to make money betting unders on stud pitchers. If you are consistenly beating true close unders in this spot

Narveson's a "stud pitcher"?

LTA just made 4U on the Carp vs. Greinke under last night.

[Love The Action]

I know this is a myth that alot of bettors like to believe but I've never seen any evidence to back it up.

It's a tough one to quantify. However, it's something to consider on a case by case basis as long held belief among "baseball" peopel. In addition, I believe I have read some metrics which support that a pitcher's first time through the league is more successful than his second time after teams have had a chance to scout and adjust. I will see if I can find that article. However, think Michael Pineda this year...

[God1]

Narveson's a "stud pitcher"?

"cole hamels"

LTA just made 4U on the Carp vs. Greinke under last night.

wow it took all of 3 posts before I get hit with why I was gone in the first place. ONE GAME lol. I've never used an ignore list before but on I'll figure it out for you

[Redscot]

All that is nice but probably not relevant. Mets are just simply overpriced, I have the cubs with a better offense and at the least equal pitching....coleman having a sky high era helps skew it too

Thanks for being gentle and at least throwing in the probably.

I realize we come at things from different angles and appreciate that. To you the game is cold hard numbers. Me, I got a degree in psychology (may read too much into those angles) and have spent my life around the players of the game. End of the day, I have learned from you G1 and salute you .

[Love The Action]

I'd say its close to impossible to make money betting unders on stud pitchers. If you are consistenly beating true close unders in this spot

Yeah, I'm not sure about your definition of a "stud" pitcher. It sounds like you just don't like playing unders in the 7.5 range and under. I have done quite well all season with those numbers until a recent spate of bullpen collapses. For the most part, it hasn't been the starters blowing these games. I have designed my model to emphasize guys with superior advanced stats (finally incorporating SIERA around early June). For the most part, I am quite successful on unders from 8 and below. It's been tough lately with the bullpens though.

[God1]

It's a tough one to quantify. However, it's something to consider on a case by case basis as long held belief among "baseball" peopel.

Most "baseball" people still value how many wins a pitcher has or how may RBIs a guy has(think ryan howard's contract). Most of them are as dumb as anyone

In addition, I believe I have read some metrics which support that a pitcher's first time through the league is more successful than his second time after teams have had a chance to scout and adjust.

I will never even give it a hint of consideration until I see evidence. Regardless, I would then further have to backtest and see that evidence that 1st start advantage isn't already reflected in the line

I will see if I can find that article. However, think Michael Pineda this year...

So you cherry pick the one example thats fits your conclusion. What about the others? Luebke, Beachy?

[Love The Action]

ONE GAME

All you need to do to discount your theory is look at the amount of unders to overs that hit between the totals of 5.5 and 8. For the most part, you will find more unders than overs in that range over, say, the last 20,000 games. That, my friend, is a reliable sample.

[God1]

Thanks for being gentle and at least throwing in the probably.

I realize we come at things from different angles and appreciate that. To you the game is cold hard numbers. Me, I got a degree in psychology (may read too much into those angles) and have spent my life around the players of the game. End of the day, I have learned from you G1 and salute you .

Lol I didn't mean that those factors don't affect them, just that whatever affect it has is probably impossible to quantify and useless in trying to find a correct price

[No coincidences]

"cole hamels"



wow it took all of 3 posts before I get hit with why I was gone in the first place. ONE GAME lol. I've never used an ignore list before but on I'll figure it out for you

You said "stud pitchers" plural like it was a matchup argument.

So you're saying that a significant number of overs vs. unders hit when a "stud pitcher" is throwing? Would you like to prove that, or are you just talking out your ass again?

[God1]

All you need to do to discount your theory is look at the amount of unders to overs that hit between the totals of 5.5 and 8. For the most part, you will find more unders than overs in that range over, say, the last 20,000 games. That, my friend, is a reliable sample.

But unders in that sample of course are still unprofitable

[Love The Action]

Most "baseball" people still value how many wins a pitcher has or how may RBIs a guy has(think ryan howard's contract). Most of them are as dumb as anyone



I will never even give it a hint of consideration until I see evidence. Regardless, I would then further have to backtest and see that evidence that 1st start advantage isn't already reflected in the line



So you cherry pick the one example thats fits your conclusion. What about the others? Luebke, Beachy?

I can name more just as you can. I'm not going to sit here and give you a dissertation. Remember, either one of us can make stats fit any argument if you manipulate them the right way. You know that as well as I do. However, Luebke hasn't gone through the league as a starter twice yet. He is actually starting to regress a little as his tendencies are spotted. I'll be interested in seeing how he does tonight as leaned to SD and the under.

[Love The Action]

But unders in that sample of course are still unprofitable

If you bet every single one, it may be unprofitable because of the juice. However, they would burn less money than overs would. Are you trying to say betting overs on all low totals is profitable? That's ridiculous.

[God1]

You said "stud pitchers."

So you're saying that a significant number of overs vs. unders hit when a "stud pitcher" is throwing? Would you like to prove that, or are you just talking out your ass again?

Yes I have researched it and it's not profitable. Whether more unders than overs hit is irrelevant. You do understand the concept of juice right? at -105 style pricing(pinnacle) you have to be correct 51.25% of the time to break even. That means that over lets say a 10,000 game sample, if it was under 5100 times and over 4900, you would be down money betting the under everytime

[God1]

If you bet every single one, it may be unprofitable because of the juice. However, they would burn less money than overs would. Are you trying to say betting overs on all low totals is profitable? That's ridiculous.

LOL come on. Where did I say overs were profitable? Of course betting overs on all low totals is unprofitable just as betting unders on all low totals is unprofitable. This is in the context you are talking about of all totals between 5.5 and 8