Can someone explain these numbers to me?

**Rich Boy** · 05-27-09, 10:26 PM

In all of the games they played on the road and were underdogs (ranging from +150 to +200)

Also all of my probabilities are according to the No-Juice Pinny closers.

**Rio DiNero** · 05-27-09, 11:30 PM

My advice to you= DO NOT BET WASHINGTON

**Justin7** · 05-28-09, 12:42 AM

Washington is frighteningly bad. They lead the league in errors with 45 - this is a management issue (the league median is 26). They have a rare combination of mediocre batting with a weak bullpen - this means they'll sometimes play a competitive first 5 innings, and get crushed later.

As significant, your sample size is small. Additionally, how good are Pinny's closing numbers? I'd suggest making the matchbook closer the new standard.

**xyz** · 05-28-09, 01:24 AM

What was your reasoning behind those bets? Why did you think those are +ev bets? Those are more important questions to have an answer for than any short term fluctuations.

**PAPSMEAR** · 05-28-09, 04:33 AM

I can honestly say that I have no idea what your talking about ... but I do know that the Nationals are not an investment proposition EVER! I wouldn't even bet them with Shanty's money

**floridagolfer** · 05-28-09, 06:10 AM

Why do you believe the average win percentage is 55 when the team involved is only going to win about 33 percent of its games?

That team's pitching is horrendous.

**MonkeyF0cker** · 05-28-09, 07:26 AM

This is far too small of a sample size. Your variance in your distribution is 3.1668, yielding a standard deviation of 1.779550505. You would need a sample size of at least 29 (28.5012) to have 95% confidence within (±) 1 game.

**Rich Boy** · 05-28-09, 11:20 AM

I know that the sample is quite small. Im just concerned that the books numbers are not accurate.

Justin, are you suggesting that Matchbook closers are now sharper than Pinny closers? Which book do you feel is the sharpest for Alternate runlines (-1.5/+1.5)?

**MonkeyF0cker** · 05-28-09, 12:48 PM

The zero-vig closers are generally very close between Pinny and Matchbook actually. The pricing may have been off on the Nats but with a sample of that size, you cannot come up with any definitive answer.

**Justin7** · 05-28-09, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Rich Boy

I know that the sample is quite small. Im just concerned that the books numbers are not accurate.

Justin, are you suggesting that Matchbook closers are now sharper than Pinny closers? Which book do you feel is the sharpest for Alternate runlines (-1.5/+1.5)?

Yes. No idea on alternate runlines.

**veto** · 05-29-09, 06:55 AM

the logical explanation for this is that the nats need to learn how to catch the f*ckin ball.

**Rich Boy** · 08-12-09, 08:38 PM

Update

Nationals continue to screw me, yet I dont learn... Maybe I deserve to lose?

Also to make things worse, I didnt bet on them a single time during their 8 game win streak...

**Joe Dogs** · 08-13-09, 04:56 AM

Washington nats

**smitch124** · 08-13-09, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Rich Boy

Also to make things worse, I didnt bet on them a single time during their 8 game win streak...

You missed the whole return to the mean...

**roasthawg** · 08-13-09, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

Additionally, how good are Pinny's closing numbers? I'd suggest making the matchbook closer the new standard.

Good call... matchbook lines are the sharpest out there. I tried to pick off weak lines at mb using other books lines and got hammered.

**aca** · 08-13-09, 06:41 PM

a small sample size!

**GELATINOUS CUBE** · 08-14-09, 03:22 AM

Yeah the nationals suck.

55% is your natural, hypothetical odds of the nats winning a given game +1.5.

But the nats hypothetical odds of winning a game is 50%. Cuz there are two teams.
But what is the nats win percentage?? The sports page is over there, but i know its way lower than 50%.

So the nats suck, (cuz they're not owned by a huge corporation or 3 or 4, i think they're owned by one guy, these teams always suck).