Royals/Tigers postponed

[yisman]

Raining all day in Detroit

[Big Bear]

fukkk!

[Marigold HD]

Dumb ball park planning. Get used to it this year league wide

[Big Bear]

thats fukkin bullshit man! shit pisses me off

now i'm on full tilt

[ap1ftw]

i wanted to bet the tigers on this one. any other games we should be expecting to postpone? (i know, weather is unpredictable)

[Smoke]

Sucks cause i was able to get royals at the incredible price of +159 overnight at heritage

[crustyme]

everyone who bet tigers should be glad it was ppd.

[Big Bear]

everyone who bet tigers should be glad it was ppd.

i had Royals and im pissed.

No way were they going to get swept with Ventura on the hill.

[farmhouse1]

I was loving the under 3.5 first 5 innings in this game!!!!!!! Son of a b!tch!

[BeatingBaseball]

Royals Rainout and The Value Paradox

I probably would have lost $1000. Yet - as strange as it may seem - I think missing the play cost me money.

$83.60 to be exact.

What?

It's the paradox that is baseball betting. And a classic example of the value concept in baseball.

Was going to play the Royals. They were a +158 dog starting the young, unproven kid who throws 100mph vs Anabel Sanchez coming off a great year where he had a better ERA than Scherzer or Verlander. Anyone with even a remedial knowledge of baseball who needed to pick a winner today in that game would undoubtedly have to go with Detroit.

For an every day baseball bettor, however, it's completely different. The KC play would be one you'd have to expect to lose - but you'd nonetheless have to make - because it's all about the price. It would be a pure value play. Value plays are not unique to baseball - but they're certainly a bigger part of betting on baseball than any other sport. One reason is that in any given MLB matchup the weaker side has a better chance of winning a single contest than in any other sport. The other is the sheer number of games and wagers in the long daily grind of a baseball season in comparison to other sports.

If a guy offers you a single chance to pick a specific card from a deck, do you think you're actually going to pull that card? No.

Would you bet real money that you could successfully do it? Maybe. It would depend on two things -
1. the price?
2. how many tries?

If the guy says he'll give you 50-1 and it's a one time shot - No.

If the guy says he'll give you 60-1 and you can try it several times a day for the next 6 mos - Absolutely.

That 60 to 1 price implies a success expectation of 1.639% (1/61) - but you know you have a true win expectation of 1.923% (1/52).

At 60 to 1 you have the best of it. You'll likely lose any given shot - but at $100 a try you should pick up $900 every 52 tries.

The way Vegas calculates house edge - you'd have a 17.30% edge in that game - the theoretical hold being $17.30 on every $100 try.


The +158 price on the Royals today implied a win expectation just under 38.8%., .388 in baseball vernacular.

I think they play to at least .420 in that spot. If I'm right they should be paying at +138 (58/42 = 1.38 to 1). At +158 I have the best of it.

Play the game 100 times at $1000 and if I'm right I collect $1580 42 times = 66,360 and lose 1000 58 times = 58,000. Profit = 8,360.

That's an edge of 8.36%. $8,360 per 100K bet. $83.60 per $1000 bet.

The way the Vegas professionals would look at a casino game in which they have an 8.36% edge: every time a guy makes a $1000 bet in that game they make $83.60 - no matter if they win or lose the play. They call it their theoretical hold. And they know at the end of the year that theoretical hold will pencil out almost exactly, to virtually the decimal points.

So even though the rainout more likely saved me $1000 than cost me $1580....
The way I see it - it really cost me $83.60.

Of course this is all predicated on the Royals being .420 in that spot rather than .388. That's the key. Unlike in casino games and slots where the house knows the exact mathematical win expectation and from that can calculate their house edge - when it comes to sports no one knows the exact win expectation - you just have to have a better idea than what is being implied on the board.

Ironically - if some guy in the casino asked me for my best play today and I gave him the Royals - I'm giving him a game I'm probably going to lose. It's my best play but not his. He probably loses and walks away thinking I'm a complete idiot.

[No coincidences]

I probably would have lost $1000. Yet - as strange as it may seem - I think missing the play cost me money.

$83.60 to be exact.

What?

It's the paradox that is baseball betting. And a classic example of the value concept in baseball.

Was going to play the Royals. They were a +158 dog starting the young, unproven kid who throws 100mph vs Anabel Sanchez coming off a great year where he had a better ERA than Scherzer or Verlander. Anyone with even a remedial knowledge of baseball who needed to pick a winner today in that game would undoubtedly have to go with Detroit.

For an every day baseball bettor, however, it's completely different. The KC play would be one you'd have to expect to lose - but you'd nonetheless have to make - because it's all about the price. It would be a pure value play. Value plays are not unique to baseball - but they're certainly a bigger part of betting on baseball than any other sport. One reason is that in any given MLB matchup the weaker side has a better chance of winning a single contest than in any other sport. The other is the sheer number of games and wagers in the long daily grind of a baseball season in comparison to other sports.

If a guy offers you a single chance to pick a specific card from a deck, do you think you're actually going to pull that card? No.

Would you bet real money that you could successfully do it? Maybe. It would depend on two things -
1. the price?
2. how many tries?

If the guy says he'll give you 50-1 and it's a one time shot - No.

If the guy says he'll give you 60-1 and you can try it several times a day for the next 6 mos - Absolutely.

That 60 to 1 price implies a success expectation of 1.639% (1/61) - but you know you have a true win expectation of 1.923% (1/52).

At 60 to 1 you have the best of it. You'll likely lose any given shot - but at $100 a try you should pick up $900 every 52 tries.

The way Vegas calculates house edge - you'd have a 17.30% edge in that game - the theoretical hold being $17.30 on every $100 try.


The +158 price on the Royals today implied a win expectation just under 38.8%., .388 in baseball vernacular.

I think they play to at least .420 in that spot. If I'm right they should be paying at +138 (58/42 = 1.38 to 1). At +158 I have the best of it.

Play the game 100 times at $1000 and if I'm right I collect $1580 42 times = 66,360 and lose 1000 58 times = 58,000. Profit = 8,360.

That's an edge of 8.36%. $8,360 per 100K bet. $83.60 per $1000 bet.

The way the Vegas professionals would look at a casino game in which they have an 8.36% edge: every time a guy makes a $1000 bet in that game they make $83.60 - no matter if they win or lose the play. They call it their theoretical hold. And they know at the end of the year that theoretical hold will pencil out almost exactly, to virtually the decimal points.

So even though the rainout more likely saved me $1000 than cost me $1580....
The way I see it - it really cost me $83.60.

Of course this is all predicated on the Royals being .420 in that spot rather than .388. That's the key. Unlike in casino games and slots where the house knows the exact mathematical win expectation and from that can calculate their house edge - when it comes to sports no one knows the exact win expectation - you just have to have a better idea than what is being implied on the board.

Ironically - if some guy in the casino asked me for my best play today and I gave him the Royals - I'm giving him a game I'm probably going to lose. It's my best play but not his. He probably loses and walks away thinking I'm a complete idiot.

Good to see you posting, BB! Outstanding take. Don't be a stranger.

[Cappinpicks]

No value in a loser, tigers woulda rolled

[BeatingBaseball]

No value in a loser, tigers woulda rolled

That's the problem with most guys' thinking. They say the price doesn't matter as long as you win. Couldn't be more wrong. It's a suicdal approch. Value is independent of any individual outcome. A play being a loser does not negate its value.

[Itsamazing777]

What's so great about the tigers is anibal the animal Sanchez is their 3rd starter. Era title!

[Dirty Sanchez]

thats fukkin bullshit man! shit pisses me off

now i'm on full tilt

You lead a pretty pathetic life if that's all it takes