MLB - Tuesday, 8/7/12 (BUSY Day!)

[LT Profits]

7 MLB Plays Tuesday


Diamondbacks / Pirates UNDER 8 -118 (5 Dimes)
Twins / Indians UNDER 9.5 -110 (5 Dimes)
Blue Jays / Rays UNDER 7.5 -115 (5 Dimes)
Rangers +104 (Heritage)
Rangers / Red Sox UNDER 9.5 -105 (Bookmaker)
Astros +171 (5 Dimes)
Royals / White Sox UNDER 9 +101 (5 Dimes)


YTD: 229-190-16, +49.27

[Big_Slim]

7 MLB Plays Tuesday


Diamondbacks / Pirates UNDER 8 -118 (5 Dimes)
Twins / Indians UNDER 9.5 -110 (5 Dimes)
Blue Jays / Rays UNDER 7.5 -115 (5 Dimes)
Rangers +104 (Heritage)
Rangers / Red Sox UNDER 9.5 -105 (Bookmaker)
Astros +171 (5 Dimes)
Royals / White Sox UNDER 9 +101 (5 Dimes)


YTD: 228-187-16, +51.40

LT...what do you think about Braves/Philly and Yanks/Tigers???

[No coincidences]

Hell of a season LT.

[LT Profits]

Thanks NC. Slim, Philly game doesn't look playable to me, I have a slight lead to Detroit, but Porcello is scary.

[Big Bear]

LT why no play on the Twins I know you like underdogs...

Can this guy Kluber pitch?


Also LT what do you think about the Brewers today? Do you think Fiers gets it done?

[Vinnie Paz]

Are we expecting more or is this card complete?

[LT Profits]

LT why no play on the Twins I know you like underdogs...

Can this guy Kluber pitch?


Also LT what do you think about the Brewers today? Do you think Fiers gets it done?

I like both Deduno and Fiers, but I simply don't think their prices are big enough to take them today. Kluber had a 3.59 ERA in 21 starts at AAA and he was actually pretty good after the first inning in his first start for Cleveland last week.

[LT Profits]

Are we expecting more or is this card complete?

Too early to say, possibility of more is always possible without those 2 golden words.

[Blackroc78]

what's you updated record?

[LT Profits]

what's you updated record?

Oh crap thanks for the heads up.

[musky123]

YTD on ur first post is that just baseball for this year or does it include other sports?

[scottsins]

YTD on ur first post is that just baseball for this year or does it include other sports?

That is only his baseball record.

[LT Profits]

YTD on ur first post is that just baseball for this year or does it include other sports?

Just MLB YTD. I had right record in my files but I forgot to edit the text, record is now correct.

[LT Profits]

MLB 8-Pack

7 MLB Plays Tuesday


Diamondbacks / Pirates UNDER 8 -118 (5 Dimes)
Twins / Indians UNDER 9.5 -110 (5 Dimes)
Blue Jays / Rays UNDER 7.5 -115 (5 Dimes)
Rangers +104 (Heritage)
Rangers / Red Sox UNDER 9.5 -105 (Bookmaker)
Astros +171 (5 Dimes)
Royals / White Sox UNDER 9 +101 (5 Dimes)


YTD: 229-190-16, +49.27

Adding:

Marlins / Mets UNDER 8 -125 (Rebate Wager)


MLB Card complete

[CHR1S]

Evan Longoria is back for the Rays tonight. I hope you factored that into your play for the U

[Blackroc78]

Oh crap thanks for the heads up.

No worries, Nice record by the way! Keep it up!

[Vinnie Paz]

Lt do you reccomend that marlins play at 7.5?

[LT Profits]

Lt do you reccomend that marlins play at 7.5?

Depends on the odds, I wouldn't lay more than -105 at 7.5.

[scottsins]

Evan Longoria is back for the Rays tonight. I hope you factored that into your play for the U

Lol.

[MM Discipline]

Huge Card for you today LT usually you're a 1 or 2 pick kind of capper, you must love the oppurtunties today. Question for you though....What specifically do you like today about the Astros matchup that makes you want to bank them today? Is it because the Astros played such a horrible game yesterday with the defense committing 3 errors and that they still only lost by one run? I know you were able to see value the other day in the Blue Jays at +150 so I am wondering what you see today in the Stro's

[LT Profits]

Huge Card for you today LT usually you're a 1 or 2 pick kind of capper, you must love the oppurtunties today. Question for you though....What specifically do you like today about the Astros matchup that makes you want to bank them today? Is it because the Astros played such a horrible game yesterday with the defense committing 3 errors and that they still only lost by one run? I know you were able to see value the other day in the Blue Jays at +150 so I am wondering what you see today in the Stro's

Detwiler hasn't done enough to be favored by this much on the road, his xFIP of 4.14 is not THAT much better than Lyles's 4.41.

[dmiles1021]

LT why do you like Rangers? Lester can shut them down.

[LT Profits]

LT why do you like Rangers? Lester can shut them down.

He can. But I am completely tossing Dempster's last start when he was traded between starts and he pitched great vs. the Red Sox while with the Cubs this year, allowed five hits in seven scoreless innings.

[dmiles1021]

fair enough LT. I'm on the Sox but good reasoning for your Texas play. GL on your games tonight

[FernandoSLDVR]

Good luck

[fitguy67]

LT, great record...$management question...if I were to earmark one account to play only your picks, with each play evenly weighted at the same % of roll (which i'd redefine after each new equity peak...and hold firm at that level until a new peak were achieved)...what flat-% of roll would you recommend...i'm guessing 2% would do a nice job...giving a very small prob of crashing due to a slump but allowing a nice net profit over the haul.

I'm basically conservative and crash-resistance is on-balance more important to me than rapid growth. With your current very-high 10%-ish yield, 2% plays represent 1/5 kelly bets...but part of me is thinking 1% would be safer, obviously...allowing a good margin for error by maintaining 1/5 kelly level should your yield ever drop into the more human but still great 5%-region...but it would of course halve the profits on the upside.

Maybe a good way to ask this is simple...what is your bet-size (as % of bankroll)? (Cuz i'm sure you're not fond of the idea of crashing either...and your rep is that of a winner over the very long haul...your % would be a most useful guide.)

[LT Profits]

LT, great record...$management question...if I were to earmark one account to play only your picks, with each play evenly weighted at the same % of roll (which i'd redefine after each new equity peak...and hold firm at that level until a new peak were achieved)...what flat-% of roll would you recommend...i'm guessing 2% would do a nice job...giving a very small prob of crashing due to a slump but allowing a nice net profit over the haul.

I'm basically conservative and crash-resistance is on-balance more important to me than rapid growth. With your current very-high 10%-ish yield, 2% plays represent 1/5 kelly bets...but part of me is thinking 1% would be safer, obviously...allowing a good margin for error by maintaining 1/5 kelly level should your yield ever drop into the more human but still great 5%-region...but it would of course halve the profits on the upside.

Maybe a good way to ask this is simple...what is your bet-size (as % of bankroll)? (Cuz i'm sure you're not fond of the idea of crashing either...and your rep is that of a winner over the very long haul...your % would be a most useful guide.)

2% works, I use 2.5% for like 99% of my plays.

[SBRMAN23]

Nice work Lt

[underal]

LT, great record...$management question...if I were to earmark one account to play only your picks, with each play evenly weighted at the same % of roll (which i'd redefine after each new equity peak...and hold firm at that level until a new peak were achieved)...what flat-% of roll would you recommend...i'm guessing 2% would do a nice job...giving a very small prob of crashing due to a slump but allowing a nice net profit over the haul.

I'm basically conservative and crash-resistance is on-balance more important to me than rapid growth. With your current very-high 10%-ish yield, 2% plays represent 1/5 kelly bets...but part of me is thinking 1% would be safer, obviously...allowing a good margin for error by maintaining 1/5 kelly level should your yield ever drop into the more human but still great 5%-region...but it would of course halve the profits on the upside.

Maybe a good way to ask this is simple...what is your bet-size (as % of bankroll)? (Cuz i'm sure you're not fond of the idea of crashing either...and your rep is that of a winner over the very long haul...your % would be a most useful guide.)

really nice work Lt
If you don't mind I would like to ask a follow up question here on your money management. The other day you played the padres at +180 because you had them capped at + 170. Using a 1/5 kelly bet as the poster here mentions the bet size here should be less than 0.5% of the bankroll. did you still play this at 2 or 2.5%?

[darrell74]

5-3 winning day. Winner
Winning day
good job L.T. Profits.

L.T., been watchin you a little bit lately.
one thing,
I got a problem with you pickin the Stros as much as you do.
You call it value, I call it bait and you keep getting hooked.


You've hit some huge dogs in the past, but the Astros?
So that's why I want to ask you the difference between bait and value for the rest of us?

[fitguy67]

good q underal...and it points to what i'm discovering is a major source of unnecessary volatility (hence risk of ruin)...strictly-speadking a proper Kelly bet (at whatever fraction you choose to consistently apply) is a "to win" bet (for faves AND for dogs)...NOT the Standard American hybrid style (to win for faves/to risk for dogs)...

thus on a 5,000 ac, assuming a brilliant 10% yield as LT is delivering here, running 1/5 kelly calls for 2%...most agree up to here...and place their bets correctly on faves...to win 100 bucks

but for a DOG, the correct Kelly bet is also to win 100...so for a +180 fave, the bet should be just 55.56 to win 100 (not the 100 to win 180 that almost everyone uses)...

Since dogs (compared to equal-in-yield-value faves...and we're assuming here that ALL of LT's picks have that same 10%-yield expected value) have a lower prob of winning, then betting everything to win 2% (ie. 1/5 of that expected value )...means we automatically compensate for the reduced likelihood of winning (and the increased likelihood of going on a $-sucking cold-streak) with our dogs...and for faves, properly-applied Kelly tells us it's "worth it" to risk that much more to get our expected gain as these bets are proportionally more likely to hit

If you don't believe what i say, go to any Kelly-bet calculator on the net...and run up bets with 2% expected value and a 5,000 bank, with odds of +180...and they'll clearly output 55.56 to win 100 on the dog bet (and not what most people would do which is 100 to win 180)...
______________

So if you're interested in the account-safety aspects of Kelly like I am (but want to avoid the volatility-increasing mis-applications of it that arise when cappers try to "cap themselves" and throw in an unrealistic "confidence multiplier" FOR INDIVIDUAL BETS into the picture...this is why I'm attracted to flat-unit cappers like LT)...best bet is to pick a safety-based fraction (such as 1/5) of the yield exhibited over a large sample of all plays and take that as your full-Kelly% that you apply to ALL BETS
***NOTE: you must resist the temptation to micro-manage the process for individual bets...as you were attempting to do in your question, as it unnecessarily adds volatility without increasing ev***
and play everything at the same flat %
...but all TO WIN...doing so automatically down-justs your risk on dogs to account for their lower hit rate...and correspondingly up-justs your risk on the faves
____________

Summary: "all flat% plays...with all bets TO WIN that flat%, with that flat% based on the long-term yield of all plays".
__________
Sorry for hi-jacking your thread with this, LT...but it's something I've put a lot of thought and work into over the last few years...and underal's question got me thinking...sorry for the resulting "essay".

[jbart28]

Nice consistent work you are doing in here LT. BOL the rest of the way

[underal]

good q underal...and it points to what i'm discovering is a major source of unnecessary volatility (hence risk of ruin)...strictly-speadking a proper Kelly bet (at whatever fraction you choose to consistently apply) is a "to win" bet (for faves AND for dogs)...NOT the Standard American hybrid style (to win for faves/to risk for dogs)...

thus on a 5,000 ac, assuming a brilliant 10% yield as LT is delivering here, running 1/5 kelly calls for 2%...most agree up to here...and place their bets correctly on faves...to win 100 bucks

but for a DOG, the correct Kelly bet is also to win 100...so for a +180 fave, the bet should be just 55.56 to win 100 (not the 100 to win +180 that almost everyone uses)...

Since dogs (compared to equal-in-yield-value faves...and we're assuming here that ALL of LT's picks have that same 10%-yield expected value) have a lower prob of winning, then betting everything to win 2% (ie. 1/5 of that expected value )...means we automatically compensate for the reduced likelihood of winning (and the increased likelihood of going on a $-sucking cold-streak) with our dogs...and for faves, properly-applied Kelly tells us it's "worth it" to risk that much more to get our expected gain as these bets are proportionally more likely to hit

If you don't believe what i say, go to any Kelly-bet calculator on the net...and run up bets with 2% expected value and a 5,000 bank, with odds of +180...and they'll clearly output 55.56 to win 100 on the dog bet (and not what most people would do which is 100 to win 180)...
______________

So if you're interested in the account-safety aspects of Kelly like I am (but want to avoid the volatility-increasing mis-applications of it that arise when cappers try to "cap themselves" and throw in an unrealistic "confidence multiplier" FOR INDIVIDUAL BETS into the picture...this is why I'm attracted to flat-unit cappers like LT)...best bet is to pick a safety-based fraction (such as 1/5) of the yield exhibited over a large sample of all plays and take that as your full-Kelly% that you apply to ALL BETS [[resisting the temptation to micro-manage the process for individual bets...as you were attempting to do in your question]]...and play everything at the same flat %
...but all TO WIN...doing so automatically down-justs your risk on dogs to account for their lower hit rate...and correspondingly up-justs your risk on the faves
____________

Summary: best approach i've yet found is "all flat% plays...with all bets TO WIN that flat%, with that flat% based on the long-term yield of all plays".

good stuff fitguy
If I am not mistaken, mathematically, kelly tells you how much to risk. personally i agree with you that playing all bets "to win" is the way to go.

[LT Profits]

really nice work Lt
If you don't mind I would like to ask a follow up question here on your money management. The other day you played the padres at +180 because you had them capped at + 170. Using a 1/5 kelly bet as the poster here mentions the bet size here should be less than 0.5% of the bankroll. did you still play this at 2 or 2.5%?

It is TO WIN 2.5%, so at +180, risk would be 1.39%. Are you sure about that +170? Maybe you can point me to the specific game?

[LT Profits]

5-3 winning day. Winner
Winning day
good job L.T. Profits.

L.T., been watchin you a little bit lately.
one thing,
I got a problem with you pickin the Stros as much as you do.
You call it value, I call it bait and you keep getting hooked.


You've hit some huge dogs in the past, but the Astros?
So that's why I want to ask you the difference between bait and value for the rest of us?

I have taken the Astros what, like 3 times in the last 3 weeks? I had them in back-to-back games vs. the Reds and then last night. I don't remember taking them in between, but if I did, feel free to show me. And what did they do in those three games? They had the lead in the 9th inning and blew it the first two times and then lost in extra innings last night. So the point is that the value was there at the prices I got.