37% baseball betting method

[TheMoneyShot]

I haven't taken it serious or put time into it in 4-5 years.

I don't know 70% of the players on the rosters.

spent a few hours on fangraphs last weekend and started to get the itch back, maybe i'll start capping again for real and do a thread this season. seems daunting to re learn all that i've missed in terms of players on non AL/NL central teams over the past half decade though.

Totally understand. It takes a lot of dedication and research... that's for sure. I wouldn't know where to start. If you do wager this year... wish you luck.

[bettingman6]

I dont see any data to support any streak being indicative of any edge by previous wins and or losses. this is a fallacy lots of bettors fall into. Each game is independent of each other and the lines are still efficient after 10 straight wins or 10 straight losses.

111-99 (0.52, 52.9%) avg line: -141.6 / 126.7 on / against: -$1,338 / +$218 ROI: -4.2% / +0.9% 85-77 (0.22, 52.5%) avg line: -111.9 / -103.1 on / against: +$226 / -$1,075 ROI: +1.1% / -5.4% 91-114-4 (0.05, 44.4%) avg total: 8.6 over / under: -$3,445 / +$1,460 ROI: -14.9% / +6.4%

10 game winning or losing streaks are rare, and I don’t think there’s going to be enough data to be statistically significant.

What about if a team’s on a 4 or 5 game winning or losing streak? I’d suspect it might become profitable long term
to bet against the team on the winning streak and for the team on the losing streak.

This is especially true if the team had a mediocre record before the win or lose streak. I’d suspect lines might become inefficient if a team’s improved from 22-22 to 27-22, although the lines are probably more likely to be efficient if a team’s improved from 39-13 to 44-13. (Since the team’s actually shown a long term ability to succeed and extend their win streak.) Similarily, lines will probably remain fairly efficient if a team’s fallen from 13-39 to 13-44, but might become inefficient if a team’s fallen from 22-22 to 22-27.

The best bets would probably be for previously good teams that are going through a losing streak (ie falling from 39-13 to 39-18), or against a previously bad team that’s going through a winning streak. (Ie improving from 13-39 to 18-39.) The last 5 games- which a lot of squares look at disproportionately- are especially unindicative of those team’s long term performance.

Also, although I don’t know if this is possible, can you adjust the model to only include results where a team doesn’t either have injuries, or have players coming back from injuries? If the star player on a previously 22-22 team gets injured, and they’ve gone 0-5 since the injury, there’s legitimate reason to think they’re not a long term .500 team.

[danshan11]

that would be very difficult to backtest you would need to know injuries and their value at that time. believe me there is no significance.
teams can win 4 and teams can lose 4 and it has no value as far as against the line and their win % accordingly.

[danshan11]

best way to look is to look at series games in baseball or hockey, same teams same rest usually same rosters
you can see blowouts wins losses and or changes does not change anything in the line and if it does it is very slight

[bettingman6]

I dont see any data to support any streak being indicative of any edge by previous wins and or losses. this is a fallacy lots of bettors fall into. Each game is independent of each other and the lines are still efficient after 10 straight wins or 10 straight losses.

111-99 (0.52, 52.9%) avg line: -141.6 / 126.7 on / against: -$1,338 / +$218 ROI: -4.2% / +0.9% 85-77 (0.22, 52.5%) avg line: -111.9 / -103.1 on / against: +$226 / -$1,075 ROI: +1.1% / -5.4% 91-114-4 (0.05, 44.4%) avg total: 8.6 over / under: -$3,445 / +$1,460 ROI: -14.9% / +6.4%

This seems to indicate that betting against teams on 10 game winning streaks in baseball has carried a 0.9% ROI. At least if I’m reading the chart correctly.

Not a huge sample size, and not a huge edge, but it is something.

[danshan11]

that is purely noise from a small sample size, it is not indicative of anything

[danshan11]

sports are just like roulette or craps, the last roll is not indicative of the next!

[gojetsgomoxies]

i did some backtesting...

in a juice-free world, it looks like betting on losing teams (bad winning percentage, and not in april as that could be 0-1 team) was good and resonable consistent winner up till last year....... and with juice, fading these teams was a horrible investment.

then in 2018, backing losing teams was a horrible strategy. much bigger loser (juice free) than any other year was a winner.

on losing/winning streaks....... again juice-free, 2W, 3W are good, 1W, 2L and 3L are bad. greater than 3W = bad, greater than 3L = good........ with juice, 2W is a still a big winner. 3W a small winner........ last 4 years for backtest.

[danshan11]

I really believe that is just noise, it is just not that simple. the line is efficient

[danshan11]

i did some backtesting...

in a juice-free world, it looks like betting on losing teams (bad winning percentage, and not in april as that could be 0-1 team) was good and resonable consistent winner up till last year....... and with juice, fading these teams was a horrible investment.

then in 2018, backing losing teams was a horrible strategy. much bigger loser (juice free) than any other year was a winner.

on losing/winning streaks....... again juice-free, 2W, 3W are good, 1W, 2L and 3L are bad. greater than 3W = bad, greater than 3L = good........ with juice, 2W is a still a big winner. 3W a small winner........ last 4 years for backtest.

share the backtest results, I would be interested to see it

[danshan11]

here is a really big winner now dont tell me you think this means anything

549-537 (-0.08, 50.6%) avg line: 103.4 / -116.1 on / against: +$3,058 / -$8,398 ROI: +2.4% / -6.0% 455-410 (0.09, 52.6%) avg line: -111.6 / -102.4 on / against: +$1,358 / -$6,455 ROI: +1.2% / -6.0% 507-530-47 (0.28, 48.9%) avg total: 8.6 over / under: -$7,344 / -$2,859 ROI: -6.2% / -2.4%

and this has 1000 results in it

[danshan11]

gets even better here

279-264 (-0.05, 51.4%) avg line: 101.9 / -114.7 on / against: +$2,113 / -$4,810 ROI: +3.3% / -6.9% 220-213 (0.09, 50.8%) avg line: -113.9 / -100.4 on / against: -$1,670 / -$857 ROI: -2.9% / -1.6% 263-256-23 (0.46, 50.7%) avg total: 8.6 over / under: -$1,869 / -$3,230 ROI: -3.1% / -5.4%

this means nothing its just random stuff that has positive results just like if you put all W or all L

[gojetsgomoxies]

basically the orioles killed 2018 low WP strategy..... i think their win rate was 28% in those games (and there were alot of them)

[danshan11]

look at this monster it is awesome never lost for the last 10 years

1326-630 (1.53, 67.8%) avg line: -186.8 / 169.8 on / against: +$17,111 / -$27,054 ROI: +4.7% / -13.8% 781-820 (0.08, 48.8%) avg line: 110.4 / -122.6 on / against: +$3,864 / -$13,337 ROI: +2.3% / -6.7% 896-943-117 (0.39, 48.7%) avg total: 8.2 over / under: -$13,073 / -$4,460 ROI: -6.1% / -2.1%

[lakerboy]

I haven't taken it serious or put time into it in 4-5 years.

I don't know 70% of the players on the rosters.

spent a few hours on fangraphs last weekend and started to get the itch back, maybe i'll start capping again for real and do a thread this season. seems daunting to re learn all that i've missed in terms of players on non AL/NL central teams over the past half decade though.

This is how I feel. I'm going to do bases this year.

[gojetsgomoxies]

I really believe that is just noise, it is just not that simple. the line is efficient

i was more or less saying only one was a winner after juice. and that could be statistical randomness...... i do think there is a basis for tailing/fading losing/winning streaks. the streaks affect players/coaches and bettors. seems like basic behavioural psychology on both fronts.

i will post the results in a second

[danshan11]

basically the orioles killed 2018 low WP strategy..... i think their win rate was 28% in those games (and there were alot of them)

if it matters its in the line and the Orioles had a bad year and fading them all year would be a winner! that is what happens when you have 30 teams, some cover ,some breakeven some lose

[gojetsgomoxies]

https://killersports.com/mlb/query?su=1&ou=1&invested=1&sdql=+streak+%3E-5+and+streak+%3C5+and+streak+and+season+%3E2014&submit=++S+D+Q+L+%21++

[danshan11]

but I am sure you see my point of how random stuff can show good results and streaks are random stuff, I know that seems kind of hard to believe but streaks are just random stuff

[gojetsgomoxies]

if it matters its in the line and the Orioles had a bad year and fading them all year would be a winner! that is what happens when you have 30 teams, some cover ,some breakeven some lose

yes, they were expected to bounce with some outstanding players and the pattern that almost every team before them had bounced and then they didn't bounce.

my point was more that it had been a borderline winning (nice winner pre-juice) strategy for a number of years before 2018. THEN one season and one team in particular killed the backtested win rate.

i post alot of these things as descriptive, not to suggest they are winning or losing strategy..... and i am always interested in which way the historical betting has skewed without juice. if something is a small loser with juice, then it is a HUGE LOSER to take the opposite side.

i think behavioural psychology is the way to go in handicapping major sports. it has certainly gained a huge foothold in investments which is much more liquid and arguably more effiicent than sports betting. actually it might not be more efficient - with at least one caveat.

[gojetsgomoxies]

but I am sure you see my point of how random stuff can show good results and streaks are random stuff, I know that seems kind of hard to believe but streaks are just random stuff

much of my stuff was meant to be descriptive. people asked for backtests. i didn't present anything as a winning system. and i didn't cherry pick like others. i posted all the streaks.

how can streaks not matter? i agree that the hot hand fallacy in basketball is not real. but bettors and teams getting excited/demoralized by multiple wins/losses is real....... i don't agree with the "everything is in the line" argument, but it is a reasonable argument. i certainly don't think betting the betting markets is remotely easy.

i think if you were the only person on earth that ever had and has access to the sports database that you would make a killing

[danshan11]

I dont know whether streaks mean anything or if they are even in the line to be honest, I cant hypothesize they mean anything, I can surely hypothesize they do not. even if I knew they meant anything I would not be able to properly model or adjust my model for them and therefore I would not use them to model. I have no back data to support my lines being off or on from streaks because I do not track them. I think the emotional issue of a big losing or winning streak has a toll on a team but I do not think it is enough to overcome the line. I think if its a snowy day in Minnesota and heavy traffic it might take players longer to get to work and cause them stress driving in winter road conditions now does this change the line efficiency or give me a "number" I can use to adjust with, I say no and I think this goes the same as streaks. if I cant put a price on it by looking at data, I cant consider it.

now lets say a team is rated 84
and they win now tyey are an 85
win again 86
win big now jump to 87
it does not happen this fast but for argument sake

you can see how the same team with the same players is technically adjusting for the streak therefore it would be in the line in a sense

[danshan11]

check this out

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[Mr.Capone]

Another system that I would like to see data on , some swear by it. And that is the 3 game trend. Where as soon as a team wins 3 games in a row then start betting them and some say it more than not goes to 6-7 games or more. And also the other way where as soon as a team losers 3 in a row bet against them as well. The thinking is they will keep the losing streak going.

I have using that 3 game trend for a long time it has been $, also use it at roulette table too!

[pimike]

stay away from the NBA and just bet MLB youl be set for life

100% agree

[danshan11]

5347-3612 (3.02, 59.7%) 4324-4473-162 (-0.32, 49.2%) avg line: -3.3 4395-4390-174 (0.45, 50.0%) avg total: 197.5

ATS NBA 49.2% after winning 3 in a row

[danshan11]

3320-5471 (-3.55, 37.8%) 4345-4263-183 (0.33, 50.5%) avg line: 3.9 4334-4290-167 (0.34, 50.3%) avg total: 197.2

[Bostongambler]

Solid discussion here guys. Great stat input.

[Bluehorseshoe]

check this out

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Anything for baseball?? lol

[danshan11]

lol

[johnnygooble]

599-1510 (-2.02, 28.4%) avg line: 195.9 / -217.4 on / against: -$36,465 / +$24,448 ROI: -17.3% / +5.3% 960-1145 (-0.52, 45.6%) avg line: -105.6 / -109.3 on / against: -$25,920 / +$11,770 ROI: -11.0% / +4.9% 1010-994-102 (0.63, 50.4%) avg total: 8.3 over / under: -$7,261 / -$10,825 ROI: -3.1% / -4.7%

Appreciate the research....can you do another search with september and october regular season games omitted???

[danshan11]

444-1133 (-2.05, 28.2%) avg line: 194.7 / -215.9 on / against: -$28,504 / +$19,641 ROI: -18.1% / +5.8% 712-863 (-0.56, 45.2%) avg line: -106.3 / -108.7 on / against: -$21,414 / +$10,481 ROI: -12.1% / +5.8% 760-742-73 (0.64, 50.6%) avg total: 8.3 over / under: -$5,011 / -$8,590

[gojetsgomoxies]

Dan, that's an amazing baseball system you posted....

were you posting to suggest there are better systems than OP's or my suggestion of streaks? to suggest that you were just data mining a system that looks good.

what is the sigificance of D? bad teams more motivated and very familiar with better team? note travelling far or at home?

i thought you think most things are "in the line". this suggest "D and line >160" isn't fully discounted in the line.

i do think everything is thought of and incorporated in the line.......... doesn't mean it's properly priced though

it's like historically in the stock market before the quant revolution. everything was known about big stocks but there were still huge inefficiencies you could play consistently..... now with so many quant shops AND everyone being a partial quant those inefficiencies are probably "over-grazed".....

[gojetsgomoxies]

i almost exclusively do NBA, NFL and NCAAF, and maybe some NCAABK

i'm thinking i need to look into MLB and NHL...... espeicially considering there are games every day so if i go to vegas i can invest alot each day.

[gojetsgomoxies]

btw, i assumed D is divisional in baseball.............. or is it Day time?. i can check

EDIT: ok, D is NOT divisional......