LTA's MLB Plays

**bballs84** · 09-17-11, 05:37 PM

On the Under at actually 9 too.. BOL bud

**italianbandit** · 09-17-11, 05:38 PM

Where are you guys looking at these % ?
Going to put a small play on the Phillies.

**Love The Action** · 09-17-11, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by God1

There isn't a strasburg effect present at least in this game. 40% of the bets are on the marlins, which has not happened even once with this season on a -200 favorite that I can remember, not even close. I've been debating the marlins all day still am undecided

Every rookie pitcher is going to have had great advanced stats in minor league ball. I like the fact that surkamp and pomeranz both have ERAs that make them look better than they are

I disagree. There is a "Strasburg effect" in this game. Why would a 5 inning performance from any pitcher warrant a +200 price on the dog, where the teams are otherwise pretty evenly matched. Volstad isn't rubbish, although he has pitched very poorly against the Nats in the past. This game is way overpriced at +200 because Vegas knows they will get a ton of money on the Nats because of Strasburg and therefore needs to overprice the Nats to build up some Fish money. It's all about public perception...

Agreed...if you make it to the majors, you should have great advanced stats.

**No coincidences** · 09-17-11, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by 815Sox

Stewart has been up and down. My buddy who is really good at projecting players (doesn't gamble, its just his hobby) thinks that Stewart is never going to be an established starter. I think his only hope is to become a Don Cooper project. Ozzie usually doesn't put out the best lineup in the third game and there is a faction of Sox fans that think he is playing the high contract low production (though Rios is starting to hit) players to make a point about Kenny.

Interesting. Thanks.

**815Sox** · 09-17-11, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by italianbandit

Good luck with your season. I just do baseball and poker.

I am a very cautious and very recreational player. I bet very tiny amounts, not expecting to make money. I kinda stink at football so I play it conservatively. I like baseball and hockey the best. Poker.... forget it, I cannot hide a lie to save my life.

**Love The Action** · 09-17-11, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by God1

and of course pinnacle opens the orioles under every other book. still a bargain at +184

edit: very quickly up to 189. there's alot looking good tomorrow

I don't get access to tomorrow's lines until about 11 pm EST. I will start looking at tomorrow's MLB and NFL later tonight. There are some decent looking options out there....

**Love The Action** · 09-17-11, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by bballs84

On the Under at actually 9 too.. BOL bud

**Love The Action** · 09-17-11, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by 815Sox

Stewart has been up and down. My buddy who is really good at projecting players (doesn't gamble, its just his hobby) thinks that Stewart is never going to be an established starter. I think his only hope is to become a Don Cooper project. Ozzie usually doesn't put out the best lineup in the third game and there is a faction of Sox fans that think he is playing the high contract low production (though Rios is starting to hit) players to make a point about Kenny.

Agreed...back of the rotation guy at best.

**God1** · 09-17-11, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Love The Action

I disagree. There is a "Strasburg effect" in this game. Why would a 5 inning performance from any pitcher warrant a +200 price on the dog, where the teams are otherwise pretty evenly matched. Volstad isn't rubbish, although he has pitched very poorly against the Nats in the past. This game is way overpriced at +200 because Vegas knows they will get a ton of money on the Nats because of Strasburg and therefore needs to overprice the Nats to build up some Fish money. It's all about public perception...

But they didn't get a ton of money on the nats and the public perception isn't that strasburg should be this expensive, 40% of the public on a +200 dog has literally never happened this season. If your theory was correct it would be closer to 20%

This is actually the most lopsided game today in terms of what the puiblic % is vs what it "normally" is at a certain price

**Love The Action** · 09-17-11, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by God1

But they didn't get a ton of money on the nats and the public perception isn't that strasburg should be this expensive, 40% of the public on a +200 dog has literally never happened this season. If your theory was correct it would be closer to 20%

This is actually the most lopsided game today in terms of what the puiblic % is vs what it "normally" is at a certain price

I view the Strasburg effect being built into the opening number not thereafter. My point was that the books opened up with a ridiculously overpriced Nats in order to get money on both sides right from the start. They don't want any exposure on this game with no clear edge. Therefore, they overprice the Nats at the open to ensure that they get enough money on the Fish from people searching for value or from strict dog players. The betting percentages show anywhere from 40% to 49% of all bets on the Fish. That's exactly what they wanted and achieved their goal via overpricing Strasburg at the open.

**God1** · 09-17-11, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Love The Action

I view the Strasburg effect being built into the opening number not thereafter. My point was that the books opened up with a ridiculously overpriced Nats in order to get money on both sides right from the start. They don't want any exposure on this game with no clear edge. Therefore, they overprice the Nats at the open to ensure that they get enough money on the Fish from people searching for value or from strict dog players. The betting percentages show anywhere from 40% to 49% of all bets on the Fish. That's exactly what they wanted and achieved their goal via overpricing Strasburg at the open.

This is pretty ridiculous but you're free to believe what you want. They wanted 40% of the bets on a +200 dog? So only on this game and never another all season? On every other game they are happy to have the 20% it normally is

None of us know how the money is weighted, all we can see is the number of bets going on each side and the 40% proves that there is no public god perception of strasburg at -220. The dumb public has rejected that price by putting 40% on a +200 dog which hasn't happened all season

If your theory of the public's perception of strasburg was correct we would see half as many bets on the marlins.

And I'm not so sure the books opened all that high even considering where the line is now, 40% on a +200 dog implies an inefficiency favoring the other side. I can't stress enough how unprecedented that betting split is, and its even more ridiculous that its on a pitcher with a 5+ ERA

**No coincidences** · 09-17-11, 06:12 PM

Colorado over to +110. You adding to it God?

**Love The Action** · 09-17-11, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by God1

This is pretty ridiculous but you're free to believe what you want. They wanted 40% of the bets on a +200 dog? So only on this game and never another all season? On every other game they are happy to have the 20% it normally is

None of us know how the money is weighted, all we can see is the number of bets going on each side and the 40% proves that there is no public god perception of strasburg at -220. The dumb public has rejected that price by putting 40% on a +200 dog which hasn't happened all season

If your theory of the public's perception of strasburg was correct we would see half as many bets on the marlins.

And I'm not so sure the books opened all that high even considering where the line is now, 40% on a +200 dog implies an inefficiency favoring the other side. I can't stress enough how unprecedented that betting split is, and its even more ridiculous that its on a pitcher with a 5+ ERA

They wanted even action and they got it. Perhaps they got a bit too much action on the Marlins than anticipated, but they are covered either way.

**Love The Action** · 09-17-11, 06:40 PM

Farging Santana doesn't have it tonight. HR by Hardy..multiple hits in bottom of the first...he's laboring. Damn...

EDIT...over is a

**No coincidences** · 09-17-11, 06:41 PM

SF/COL now 9.

**God1** · 09-17-11, 06:46 PM

that twins under already got slammed. under 8.5 -108

**God1** · 09-17-11, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

SF/COL now 9.

Only a 2 cent move from the 9.5 +110 price

**No coincidences** · 09-17-11, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by God1

that twins under already got slammed. under 8.5 -108

What do you think about your SF/COL over now?

**Allure** · 09-17-11, 06:54 PM

Baltimore opened at +145 and closed at +135. 1st inning 5 runs Baltimore.

MLB, where the fix happens. Shit couldn't be more rigged.

**God1** · 09-17-11, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

What do you think about your SF/COL over now?

like it just as much as I did a few hours ago

**Redscot** · 09-17-11, 06:57 PM

I am late to the party here, but the first thing I thought when looking at todays lines was the ridiculous price on Stras. Volstad has been holding his own, advanced stats are very respectable and you know Stras is on a pitch count and can vulnerable health wise. Regardless of the outcome this line was "hype" heavy imo.

P.S. Stras IS special, it's the circumstances that I am commenting on.

**God1** · 09-17-11, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Redscot

I am late to the party here, but the first thing I thought when looking at todays lines was the ridiculous price on Stras. Volstad has been holding his own, advanced stats are very respectable and you know Stras is on a pitch count and can vulnerable health wise. Regardless of the outcome this line was "hype" heavy imo.

P.S. Stras IS special, it's the circumstances that I am commenting on.

volstad's advanced numbers are misleading, his ERA has been higher than his xFIP for 3 full seasons now. He appears to pitch worse out of the stretch and consistently give up a high % of HRs

**Redscot** · 09-17-11, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by God1

volstad's advanced numbers are misleading, his ERA has been higher than his xFIP for 3 full seasons now. He appears to pitch worse out of the stretch and consistently give up a high % of HRs

Fair enough, but you'd be the first one to warn another of over pricing 5 inning's of a starter. What % do you attribute Stras/Vols 5 innings? After that Washington may gain a slight % gain in Bp's. 200 range was excessive IMO for the game.

**God1** · 09-17-11, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Redscot

Fair enough, but you'd be the first one to warn another of over pricing 5 inning's of a starter. What % do you attribute Stras/Vols 5 innings? After that Washington may gain a slight % gain in Bp's. 200 range was excessive IMO for the game.

5 innings of the probably best pitcher in baseball? Volstad doesn't usually go more than 6. Washington's bullpen has a big edge with storen and clippard. To be honest, I don't know what the right price for this game is but I don't believe there was much if any value on the marlins

**Redscot** · 09-17-11, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by God1

5 innings of the probably best pitcher in baseball? Volstad doesn't usually go more than 6. Washington's bullpen has a big edge with storen and clippard. To be honest, I don't know what the right price for this game is but I don't believe there was much if any value on the marlins

The game has turned this way but regardless of the outcomes. You have to remember that Stras carries at least a % of risk, he came back rapidly (I don't know how to quantify that). What would be the odds of a game with Washington up 1 after 5 complete (assuming starters are out)? (again, not my department). Would it be 200 +? If so, I may come around to the argument.

**Love The Action** · 09-17-11, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by God1

5 innings of the probably best pitcher in baseball? Volstad doesn't usually go more than 6. Washington's bullpen has a big edge with storen and clippard. To be honest, I don't know what the right price for this game is but I don't believe there was much if any value on the marlins

What!?! Come on...based on 10 or whatever starts and after coming off of TJ surgery he's the best pitcher in baseball? Geez...and you talk down to people on this site for making ridiculous comments just like that based on what you know is an irrelevant sample size. Most potential in baseball perhaps...nowhere near the best pitcher. That's just silly

**Love The Action** · 09-17-11, 07:32 PM

Lean under in both late games. Will probably play the Dodgers under.

**italianbandit** · 09-17-11, 07:44 PM

The Giants and Rockies are pretty weak in their lineups, tonight.

**No coincidences** · 09-17-11, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Love The Action

What!?! Come on...based on 10 or whatever starts and after coming off of TJ surgery he's the best pitcher in baseball? Geez...and you talk down to people on this site for making ridiculous comments just like that based on what you know is an irrelevant sample size. Most potential in baseball perhaps...nowhere near the best pitcher. That's just silly

Yep -- Stras is better than Verlander or Kershaw.

**Redscot** · 09-17-11, 07:51 PM

My K.C. 1st 5 under 5

.

Damn.

**God1** · 09-17-11, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Love The Action

What!?! Come on...based on 10 or whatever starts and after coming off of TJ surgery he's the best pitcher in baseball? Geez...and you talk down to people on this site for making ridiculous comments just like that based on what you know is an irrelevant sample size. Most potential in baseball perhaps...nowhere near the best pitcher. That's just silly

75 innings is not irrelevant at all, especially in the beginning of a career its a pretty significant sample size actually. It is not possible to luck your way into 12 Ks/9. It's not possible to luck your way into a 2.10 xFIP. It's not possible to luck your way into throwing 100 mph. The books agree as he's already being priced as the best pitcher in baseball, yes above verlander/price/halladay. That is assuming he would be pitching the same number of innings

coming off TJ surgery is not a negative, he has said himself his command is better now than after the surgery. other pitchers have had similar responses.

**God1** · 09-17-11, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Yep -- Stras is better than Verlander or Kershaw.

He sure is

It's hilarious that those are the two you pick to represent baseball's best pitching. Of course those two are up there but Verlander isn't even the best in his own league(shields and price both superior)

**Love The Action** · 09-17-11, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by God1

75 innings is not irrelevant at all, especially in the beginning of a career its a pretty significant sample size actually. It is not possible to luck your way into 12 Ks/9. It's not possible to luck your way into a 2.10 xFIP. It's not possible to luck your way into throwing 100 mph. The books agree as he's already being priced as the best pitcher in baseball, yes above verlander/price/halladay. That is assuming he would be pitching the same number of innings

coming off TJ surgery is not a negative, he has said himself his command is better now than after the surgery. other pitchers have had similar responses.

I smell a Strasburg fan. Lay off the koolaid. A guy that can't pitch out of the fifth inning is not the best pitcher in baseball. 75 innings is incredibly insignificant when comparing "best pitcher in baseball"...it's not even half a season's worth of innings. Plus, I'm only interested in what he's done since TJ surgery and he's only had a few starts in that time span.

He's only being priced that high because of public perception. Everyone loves the hot young prospect and the books know they will get uneven action unless they price him that high.

Get off Strasberg's jock...he's good, but unproven.

**God1** · 09-17-11, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Love The Action

I smell a Strasburg fan. Lay off the koolaid. A guy that can't pitch out of the fifth inning is not the best pitcher in baseball. 75 innings is incredibly insignificant when comparing "best pitcher in baseball"...it's not even half a season's worth of innings. Plus, I'm only interested in what he's done since TJ surgery and he's only had a few starts in that time span.

He's only being priced that high because of public perception. Everyone loves the hot young prospect and the books know they will get uneven action unless they price him that high.

Get off Strasberg's jock...he's good, but unproven.

This public perception argument you have is just flat out wrong. The public thinks he's overrated. The betting numbers prove it. 40% against him as a big favorite, a completely unprecedented distribution for that price

unproven wow. that's so ridiculous i'm not even going to bother

**Redscot** · 09-17-11, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by God1

He sure is

It's hilarious that those are the two you pick to represent baseball's best pitching. Of course those two are up there but Verlander isn't even the best in his own league(shields and price both superior)

Oh G1! Hilarious?! As the ESPN football analysts say "come'on man!" Find me the 5 of the Managers in this league that would pick Shields over Verlander in game 7

. Price has a better argument because he has been through the fire. Don't discredit yourself bro. Neither choice would be in the "hilarious" category, if anything your choice of Shields over Verlander would be hysterical.