3, 5, or 7 day stats

[Wrecktangle]

Well, a streak is a streak. The point was made that Tango said there are no streaks, and these two are based on player's (or coaches) (non-)performance. The sports stat world is rarely black or white, but shades of gray.

And Monkey, nothing other folks say ever seems to fit your view of the world anyway.

juan: OP? who, what is this? Monkey code?

[MonkeyF0cker]

OP = Original Poster or Original Post. It's used quite frequently on message boards.

You're talking about personnel decisions which are widely discussed at that point in the season. There is historical precedent for teams who have clinched playoff berths/seeding to rest players. And, in fact, as your example relates to the OP, it creates an even greater argument AGAINST utilizing or weighing short term results - especially in a macro-employed methodology. However, as I stated previously, using individual player statistics avoids that dilemma.

[Peep]

Back to streaks.

Let's say all the information you have is listed below and you have to make a bet. Which way do you go?

A team that has covered four games in a row is playing a team that has not covered in four games.

Who do you like? And why?

(I take the no cover, because I figure I get an inflated price caused by "streak players" lol).

[Pancho sanza]

Back to streaks.

Let's say all the information you have is listed below and you have to make a bet. Which way do you go?

A team that has covered four games in a row is playing a team that has not covered in four games.

Who do you like? And why?

(I take the no cover, because I figure I get an inflated price caused by "streak players" lol).

Possibly, or maybe they haven't covered 4 in a row becuase they are bad and the market hasn't caught up and the team with 4 straight covers is good and the market doesnt know it yet.

I would guess that backing or fading a team that has covered/failed to cover X games in a row won't yield anything.

But I'd take the dog if you forced me to make a bet.

[Peep]

It actually is an interesting question Pancho.

It comes from a question in a gambling book by Lyle Stewart I once read.

He was a publisher who made money eight out of 11 trips to Vegas playing baccarat.

He says there are two kinds of gamblers in the world, and you can tell which you are by your answer to the following statement.

"The roulette wheel has come up red four times in a row. You now must make a bet on either red or black. Which do you choose?"

1) Do you chose black because it is due?
2) Do you chose red because it is on a streak?

I would chose red in this case. Mostly because of the possibility that something is happening, even if I don't know what it is.

(Good point about the oddsmakers maybe not catching up to the winning team BTW, hadn't thought of that lol).

[wantitall4moi]

Back to streaks.

Let's say all the information you have is listed below and you have to make a bet. Which way do you go?

A team that has covered four games in a row is playing a team that has not covered in four games.

Who do you like? And why?

(I take the no cover, because I figure I get an inflated price caused by "streak players" lol).

Thats why i said awhile ago betting streaks with ATS type sports is bad business. In baseball it is safer, although you might have to pay more for it. But there are usually enough people betting against teams on hot streaks to make up for anything books might add. Since about 1997 or so it has been profitable to bet against the Bengals ATS every year but maybe 2. On the blind. Simply betting against the Bengals would have made you money every year. Since 1997 they are 88-116-6 ATS. And trust me there have been streaks in that stretch of 208 games, most of them L's. So do books ever catch up with how bad the bengals are? Doesnt look like it thats for sure.

I call betting against streaks the roulette phenomenon. Nothing made roulette more of a sucker play for people than that little board that shows what numbers and colors have hit recently. if I had a buck for everytime i heard some drunk halfwit say "its hit black 7 times in a row it will be red this time' I would have been able to stop gambling long before I did.

But obviously in sportsbetting going with streaks isnt fool proof either. TB and White sox yesterday is a perfect exampl. Sox were on a long losing streak and TB was on a long win streak, both snapped yesterday with a single game.

But I am much more apt to bet teams on or against teams on a win or losing streak. especially if the odds arent horrible looking.

Edit, just saw you made a post after and mentioned roulette. But like I said the odds of that next number ebing whatever never ever change, because it is based on actual math. In sports the math isnt that absolute.

[Thremp]

You can't even articulate why you would bet on anything other than whims. This is probably the wrong forum to post in. If you can't quantify something, how can you wager based on probability? (All lines are implied probabilities, whether you realize it or not. All sportsbetting is simply forecasting what will happen in events in the future. It is just stat class.)

[LarryF]

It really depends on the teams records year to date as well the the pitchers pitching in the upcoming game. I would suggest you use the 3 game approach and factor in these filters.

[wantitall4moi]

You can't even articulate why you would bet on anything other than whims. This is probably the wrong forum to post in. If you can't quantify something, how can you wager based on probability? (All lines are implied probabilities, whether you realize it or not. All sportsbetting is simply forecasting what will happen in events in the future. It is just stat class.)

I could qualify it fine. I could throw out 25 years worth of past results, give the odds for every game and them try and sound smart and say "this team based on that is a good bet at -124 but NOT -132" but it would still be bullshit.

If it is about numbers and databases, trust me no one has a more in depth one than me because I have 5 for the MLB alone. It is so big and goes back so far some of it probably isnt even relevant. Which again proves my point. When does the math change? Because it does. The NFL is the 2 pt conversion. So with such a small sample size to go on do you need to include the game prior to the reintroduction of the 2pt conversion to make your calculations valid?

NFL doesnt have nearly enough games for anyone that claims to be good at math to draw any reasonable conclusions from past results. How many games do you need to form a reliable conclusion, and if that game fails to conform then that can change the numbers a lot. A scenario that is 22-12 might look good, but if the game loses and it goes to 22-13 then what? Still valid? Even if 4 of the last 6 were against the original 20-9 angle? Or do you then go with a 'regression" theory and go against it? Does math support that as well?

Look I can debate this all you want, and you can call it a whim or a gut feel or whatever. But that is what taking a stance on a side is all about.

Math will come in handy if you want to arbitrage or bet both sides of a game and try to make money regardless. But in terms of predicting a winner or giving you an inside tract on picking a winner, no.

Like I said in the other thread, if you have a team that is clearly better than the other team, and has been 15-1 against them SU and that team is now on the road and a +160 dog, what does your math tell you to do there?

[donjuan]

I could qualify it fine. I could throw out 25 years worth of past results, give the odds for every game and them try and sound smart and say "this team based on that is a good bet at -124 but NOT -132" but it would still be bullshit.

If it is about numbers and databases, trust me no one has a more in depth one than me because I have 5 for the MLB alone. It is so big and goes back so far some of it probably isnt even relevant. Which again proves my point. When does the math change? Because it does. The NFL is the 2 pt conversion. So with such a small sample size to go on do you need to include the game prior to the reintroduction of the 2pt conversion to make your calculations valid?

NFL doesnt have nearly enough games for anyone that claims to be good at math to draw any reasonable conclusions from past results. How many games do you need to form a reliable conclusion, and if that game fails to conform then that can change the numbers a lot. A scenario that is 22-12 might look good, but if the game loses and it goes to 22-13 then what? Still valid? Even if 4 of the last 6 were against the original 20-9 angle? Or do you then go with a 'regression" theory and go against it? Does math support that as well?

Look I can debate this all you want, and you can call it a whim or a gut feel or whatever. But that is what taking a stance on a side is all about.

Math will come in handy if you want to arbitrage or bet both sides of a game and try to make money regardless. But in terms of predicting a winner or giving you an inside tract on picking a winner, no.

Like I said in the other thread, if you have a team that is clearly better than the other team, and has been 15-1 against them SU and that team is now on the road and a +160 dog, what does your math tell you to do there?

A massive LOL at your interpretation of what math based sports betting is.

[Dark Horse]

Wantit, if you strike a wet match, would you expect it to light? Your personal experience is not the same as universal truth. Surely you can see that, even if you couldn't make math work for you, there may be others who can. It would be delightfully arrogant to assume otherwise.

[Wrecktangle]

OP = Original Poster or Original Post. It's used quite frequently on message boards.

You're talking about personnel decisions which are widely discussed at that point in the season. There is historical precedent for teams who have clinched playoff berths/seeding to rest players. And, in fact, as your example relates to the OP, it creates an even greater argument AGAINST utilizing or weighing short term results - especially in a macro-employed methodology. However, as I stated previously, using individual player statistics avoids that dilemma.

OP: well, I've been posting in forums sine 1994 and I've not seen it. I guess I'm like Maverick and don't know what I've been doing all these years.

Oh, and how about the Padres and their Spring win "streaks"? We're in one now, again, or maybe not.

[skrtelfan]

OP: well, I've been posting in forums sine 1994 and I've not seen it. I guess I'm like Maverick and don't know what I've been doing all these years.

Are you talking about Maverick "the Chico Mosquito" or the fictional character Maverick?

[Wrecktangle]

Are you talking about Maverick "the Chico Mosquito" or the fictional character Maverick?

Maverick22: Monkey's friend.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Oh, and how about the Padres and their Spring win "streaks"? We're in one now, again, or maybe not.

I would label it variance like any other statistician would.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Maverick22: Monkey's friend.

How many SQL databases have you built in your lifetime? Obviously, as a guy who is stuck on CSV's and as someone who didn't even know what he was asking in the first place, you could almost be a good judge of our conversation. Anyone in data warehousing should be able to build a suitable MLB database table structure in their sleep without asking for help on a gambling forum. End of story.

[Wrecktangle]

How many SQL databases have you built in your lifetime? Obviously, as a guy who is stuck on CSV's and as someone who didn't even know what he was asking in the first place, you could almost be a good judge of our conversation. Anyone in data warehousing should be able to build a suitable MLB database table structure in their sleep without asking for help on a gambling forum. End of story.

None Monkey, I'm not as smart as you. We CSV input guys living in our ant world have trouble thinking about you eagles and your dbs.

[Wrecktangle]

I would label it variance like any other statistician would.

So, you're a statistician now?

News flash, variance is a gambler's term used by you guys whenever things "change" in some manner you don't understand.

[MonkeyF0cker]

None Monkey, I'm not as smart as you. We CSV input guys living in our ant world have trouble thinking about you eagles and your dbs.

Now there's something where we can find agreement.

[MonkeyF0cker]

So, you're a statistician now?

News flash, variance is a gambler's term used by you guys whenever things "change" in some manner you don't understand.

Right. Variance has nothing to do with statistics... Excuse me while I puke.

I suppose flipping of a fair coin will come up heads every other flip. Right? LOL.

[Wrecktangle]

Now there's something where we can find agreement.

Time for another snort, Monkey.

Have a nice flight.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Time for another snort, Monkey.

Have a nice flight.

Isn't it sad that you're getting destroyed so badly in a debate with a cokehead that you have to resort to personal attacks without ever addressing the actual content of the thread? I'm embarrassed for you.

[Raleigh77]

This debate is fantastic, two huge dorks going at it. love it gents, keep it going.

[siabdo23]

i am learning a lot just following your replies guys

[LarryF]

Wow, the technical jargon is really interesting. I am taking SQL on the O/U and CSV on the ML.
I will post the results tomorrow. Anyone with me on these wagers?

[TheLock]

My question is, how does MonkeyFOcker have any time for building SQL databases when he spends so much time getting into "My Dick Is Bigger Than Your Dick" pissing contests on the internet?

Serious question.

[MonkeyF0cker]

My question is, how does MonkeyFOcker have any time for building SQL databases when he spends so much time getting into "My Dick Is Bigger Than Your Dick" pissing contests on the internet?

Serious question.

They have this thing called multitasking. Apparently, you would like to get into said contest yourself.

P.S - This message took 10 seconds to write. Shit. A whole day wasted.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Any other cheese dicks wanna take a shot at me and not discuss the merits of what I posted here or otherwise stray from the topic of the thread?

[TheLock]

Cheese dick. I'm flattered.


Monkey, get some rest kid. It's been a long night of crushing and you must rest up for yet another day/night marathon of telling people how incredibly smart you are.

Intelligent social misfits. It's not an easy job but someone has to do it.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Your contributions to this thread are greatly appreciated as always, Lock. So many handicappers will benefit from your efforts.

[Maverick22]

Why not use BOTH rolling 30 days and 7 days?

[Thremp]

Why not use BOTH rolling 30 days and 7 days?

What do either of these things tell you? Is Melky Cabrera somehow now Tim Lincecum at the plate? Young league average-ish player has a bad streak. Clearly we should regress him to a .400 OPS?

[Maverick22]

Capturing 3-7 days of statistics...doesnt fully capture the big picture...

Looking at how a team has performed over the last month, compared to how they have performed over the last week. Could potentially tell you if and how much they are playing from the norm.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Why should you expect them to continue playing in differential "from the norm?"

[Maverick22]

But what if they do?

It is a measure of consistency.

Or dare i say...variance...