When does a team that has lost 16 in a row offer good value?...

[No coincidences]

That is actually a great reason to be ON him here, he is still one of the best pitchers in baseball, Regression to the mean.

I've watched Felix pitch 6 or 7 times this year and haven't been that impressed.

He looked much better last year.

[LT Profits]

I never bet a team on a losing streak, I keep betting against them until they finally win. Have made some good money doing this.

You end up eating a lot if chalk this way though and you never get any value.

I am not saying teams on losing streaks have value either, you have to cap each game individually.

[pavyracer]

Common LT. There is no value. You either win the bet or lose it. If you win it was a good bet. If you lose it was a bad bet. How do you find value if the bet loses?

[No coincidences]

Common LT. There is no value. You either win the bet or lose it. If you win it was a good bet. If you lose it was a bad bet. How do you find value if the bet loses?

Like I said, I think the +135 is actually a bad number given the current state of the M's and the fact that Felix is typically +135 when he pitches at NYY anyway.

Combined with the Yankees' incredible day record here, and I agree, there is zero value in this particular play. I'm on the M's small though, so WTF do I know. Goes against my better judgment, obviously.

[LT Profits]

Common LT. There is no value. You either win the bet or lose it. If you win it was a good bet. If you lose it was a bad bet. How do you find value if the bet loses?

This is so far off it's comical. There are times you lose with value and there are times you win without value.

More to the point, VALUE IS EVERYTHING when it comes to sports betting! It is OK to lose with a play that has a 40% expectancy at +200, because making that same play over and over is +EV long term, which is all that matters.

[Cappinpicks]

Some things are hard to explain to rookie bettors Lt.

[No coincidences]

This is so far off it's comical. There are times you lose with value and there are times you win without value.

More to the point, VALUE IS EVERYTHING when it comes to sports betting! It is OK to lose with a play that has a 40% expectancy at +200, because making that same play over and over is +EV long term, which is all that matters.

While I agree there are definitely value bets and pavy's off by painting that with a broad stroke, I'm just not seeing it here. If the M's were +160, I'd agree. I'd say the line is about right, if not slightly tilted in favor of Seattle, which makes me think sharps and books are anticipating an end to the streak today.

[pavyracer]

This is so far off it's comical. There are times you lose with value and there are times you win without value.

More to the point, VALUE IS EVERYTHING when it comes to sports betting! It is OK to lose with a play that has a 40% expectancy at +200, because making that same play over and over is +EV long term, which is all that matters.

So you determined that +137 is value because Felix H. is pitching and his team is on a 16 game losing streak?

What if Seattle was on a 16 game winning streak and the line was +117 with Felix H. facing the Yankees?

Would you have find that a no value bet because they would have been due for a loss?

You are making everything complicated. Gambling is so much simpler. You either pick a winner or a loser before the game starts. Betting on "Value" lines that consistenly lose will lead you to the poor house.

[LT Profits]

While I agree there are definitely value bets and pavy's off by painting that with a broad stroke, I'm just not seeing it here. If the M's were +160, I'd agree. I'd say the line is about right, if not slightly tilted in favor of Seattle, which makes me think sharps and books are anticipating an end to the streak today.

My statement there wasn't regarding this game specifically but sports betting in general. And the most obvious barometer of how good a value capper you are is your long term record (in units).

[LT Profits]

So you determined that +137 is value because Felix H. is pitching and his team is on a 16 game losing streak?

What if Seattle was on a 16 game winning streak and the line was +117 with Felix H. facing the Yankees?

Would you have find that a no value bet because they would have been due for a loss?

You are making everything complicated. Gambling is so much simpler. You either pick a winner or a loser before the game starts. Betting on "Value" lines that consistenly lose will lead you to the poor house.

And the most obvious barometer of how good a value capper you are is your long term record (in units).

Write that on the blackboard 1000 times.

[letsgo]

If you Bet on Seattle you deserve to lose even if you win.

[No coincidences]

My statement there wasn't regarding this game specifically but sports betting in general. And the most obvious barometer of how good a value capper you are is your long term record (in units).

But your thread is about the M's having good value today, and I don't see it. They might be the right play, but there's no value in a line that is consistent with what it typically is when Felix pitches at NYY.

[pavyracer]

And the most obvious barometer of how good a value capper you are is your long term record (in units).

Write that on the blackboard 1000 times.

I always cash out from books with profits. But I don't cash out because I bet "Value" bets. I keep it simple.

PICK WINNERS.

If you go 5-3, 4-2, 3-1 runs daily you don't need to look for "Value" bets. The only people that need "Value" bets to survive are the ones hitting 50% or less.

[HoulihansTX]

Stand down Pavy. I am going to say that LT is the only poster here who "definitely" has nothing to prove to anyone. He keeps a record of W/L, and units whether positive of negative for the year.

[LT Profits]

And he is 3-1 in his last 4 starts at the Bronx, winning at +150, +144 and +136 (notice odds shrinking with each start). And although I don't see the opposing pitchers at this moment, I'd bet that all the Yankee pitchers he faced are better than Hughes is right now.

[No coincidences]

And he is 3-1 in his last 4 starts at the Bronx, winning at +150, +144 and +136 (notice odds shrinking with each start). And although I don't see the opposing pitchers at this point, I'd bet that all the Yankee pitchers he faced are better than Hughes is right now.

But again, that's offset by the fact that he's pitching for a team who's dropped 18 straight at the moment.

I just think this is an argument in semantics -- while I do personally think Seattle is the right side today, I wouldn't say there is value in the line. The line is true in my book if not tilted in the M's favor. To me, value is when the line is off from what it should be.

[LT Profits]

But again, that's offset by the fact that he's pitching for a team who's dropped 18 straight at the moment.

I just think this is an argument in semantics -- while I do personally think Seattle is the right side today, I wouldn't say there is value in the line. The line is true in my book if not tilted in the M's favor. To me, value is when the line is off from what it should be.

I hear ya but I think Felix would be closer to +120 given this pitching matchp if not for the losing streak. Remember, I never even consider streaks when I cap games, so market overreaction often creates value on the dog.

[LT Profits]

To put it another way, his shrinking odds vs. the Yankees while continuing to beat them is relevant, whereas an 18-game losing streak or any streak of any kind is irrelevant because it has noting to do with today's matchup.

[LT Profits]

So far so good, I have 4 plays on this game.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/baseball-handicapping/1179047-mlb-7-pack-wednesday-lets-go-mariners.html

[No coincidences]

To put it another way, his shrinking odds vs. the Yankees while continuing to beat them is relevant, whereas an 18-game losing streak or any streak of any kind is irrelevant because it has noting to do with today's matchup.

I don't know if I'd go that far.

Not a prevailing factor, but it is a factor -- especially mentally.

[LT Profits]

I don't know if I'd go that far.

Not a prevailing factor, but it is a factor -- especially mentally.

bleh, if a team is THAT bad, it will show up in the capping and if a team is underperforming and overvalued (although granted in this case it is 100% because of the pitchers), it will show up also. As far as capping individual games, streaks don't really exist.

[yisman]

Like I said, I think the +135 is actually a bad number given the current state of the M's and the fact that Felix is typically +135 when he pitches at NYY anyway.

Felix normally is facing a better pitcher than Phil Hughes.

If you Bet on Phil Hughes you deserve to lose even if you win.

Fixed that for you.

[yisman]

But again, that's offset by the fact that he's pitching for a team who's dropped 18 straight at the moment.

17

And I don't care about a streak. What's the difference whether they've lost 17 straight or are 2-8 in their last 10? You handicap on the quality of the teams.

[will2survive]

1-0 Seattle--good start for you LT---I have no play and am a Yankee fan but if you won, it would be a nice call after 17 Mariners losses

[pavyracer]

Stand down Pavy. I am going to say that LT is the only poster here who "definitely" has nothing to prove to anyone. He keeps a record of W/L, and units whether positive of negative for the year.

I post my picks all the time here all year long. But since I'm not a tout like LT I don't keep a record. Give me one reason why someone who is not a tout by a profession but a winning gambler should keep a record?

[Demonata]

Why the hell are the mariners winning? Come on yankees I bet on my team to lose and now they are winning? If the amriners win 1-0 I will go crazy.

[No coincidences]

17

And I don't care about a streak. What's the difference whether they've lost 17 straight or are 2-8 in their last 10? You handicap on the quality of the teams.

A) Mariners aren't good anyway.
B) Felix has been very pedestrian all year long, relative to his standards.

[yisman]

A) Mariners aren't good anyway.

I agree. So why bring up a streak (which doesn't need to be inflated to 18. 17 is plenty big enough)?

B) Felix has been very pedestrian all year long, relative to his standards.

By his standards. He's still one of the better pitchers in baseball. Of course he's not close to last year's standard.

And again, regarding the typical Felix@Yankees line, go back and look and find me how many times the Yankees were pitching someone doing as poorly as Phil Hughes.

[hezawizard]

hughes is lucky he is pitching against mariners today

[No coincidences]

I still think you have to take a 10-plus game losing streak into account when you're capping.

Teams that have lost as many as the M's have in a row find a way to, oh, I don't know, only score once in a bases-loaded, no-out situation and have just 2 runs on 9 hits in five innings.

[No coincidences]

And again, regarding the typical Felix@Yankees line, go back and look and find me how many times the Yankees were pitching someone doing as poorly as Phil Hughes.

But the fact that the M's have lost 17 in a row offsets this somewhat when oddsmakers are setting a line. You'd be crazy to ignore the fact that he's pitching for a team that hasn't won in almost three weeks today. Look at the top of the 5th -- they had the bases loaded and no one out and they score 1 run? Mariners are doing what bad teams on horrific losing streaks do -- they find ways to keep the opposition in it by shooting themselves in the foot over and over again.

[Demonata]

bases loaded yankees lets go.

[yisman]

But the fact that the M's have lost 17 in a row offsets this somewhat when oddsmakers are setting a line. You'd be crazy to ignore the fact that he's pitching for a team that hasn't won in almost three weeks today.

No, I'm handicapping based on the teams, not on losing streaks.

My only regret was I didn't put enough weight on the umpires.

Every blown call in the series has gone against Seattle. The first base umpire just blew another obvious call.

[hezawizard]

and this is it , after scoring only 1 with bases loaded and no out, they will allow atleast 3 in the same situation, I hope they wont but I just think they lose it in this inning

[yisman]

Now home plate umpire blows another call, screwing Seattle.