Gambling tip #7.3a...............

MrMonkey · 07-30-09, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Nicky Santoro

Games played at Fenway are very underpriced (totals).. your avg total there is always 9 to 9.5 and if you notice, games are all 16-11, 12-7, 9-6.. i tell you boys, i don't talk for nothing. i know what i'm saying here. i have followed this trend very carefully and i see much more overs than unders, and this is not a small sample size either. over the last many years, there have been way more overs than unders at Fenway, and why not? The ball always carries there. the very short right field fence. In left,where every line drive is off the monster. a fly ball to left to the track at any park is an out, there it's a double.. the short 302 ft right field fence at the pesky pole.. even i can hit out one of right field..

boys, i can tell you that i am up quite a bit lifetime betting overs at Fenway.. just look at this OAK series..8-3, 9-8, 8-6.. all were over by the 4th inning..

trust me when i tell you, this is not any coincidence.. these totals in fenway are very underpriced. it's not a fluke.. they are up a ton in the last 4 yrs.. yes, you can start betting them today and they might go 2-9 in the first 11 games.. but if you hang on, get the best # available... you will take him the money..

when this system is up pretty well over the last 350 games, you just know i'm not talking for nothing here.

bottom line.....fenway park is a hitters ballpark..

Boys, this is news! Thanks Nicky, never realized that! Rule 6.26 in the Gambling for Dummies book precedes this in stating all you need to do is beat the closing number! TY Nicky and hope it's nice enough to take a walk today in Montreal!

pavyracer · 07-30-09, 11:11 AM

After this revelation I'm dumbfounded as ever. It was my understanding that the score of the game is irrelevant to the outcome of the bet as long as you beat the closing number. I feel like a lost puppy know.

jjgold · 07-30-09, 11:56 AM

It was a gamlbing tip

no one wants to win I guess

Nicky solid advice

Nicky Santoro · 07-30-09, 11:59 AM

check out some of these scores so far this year at Fenway. there are much more too, but i only took a few..

where else you gonna find games like this with totals of only 9 every game?

9-8
8-6
8-3
15-9
8-6
8-4
7-6
8-6
10-5
14-5
13-3
12-5
16-11
10-8

diogee · 07-30-09, 12:01 PM

Good advice but Boston is 56.5% to the under at home on the year...

pavyracer · 07-30-09, 12:04 PM

I found these home games this year for Redsox:

5-3
2-7
3-4
2-1
5-4
3-1
4-3
2-1
5-1
1-5
8-1
3-6
7-0
4-3
6-1
1-2
3-0
2-3
0-6
5-2
5-4
1-0
6-0
3-1
7-2
2-6

Nicky Santoro · 07-30-09, 12:12 PM

the last 5 yrs are up big on the overs at boston.. we're going over a larger sample size.

fenway overs have been money since 2004.

diogee · 07-30-09, 12:18 PM

2009 O/U 20-26-5
2008 O/U 39-43-4
2007 O/U 47-35-7
2006 O/u 42-34-5
2005 O/U 37-39-6
2004 O/U 52-31-4

237-208-31

Looks a bit better.

mathdotcom · 07-30-09, 12:23 PM

Some support for Nicky:

Over the 1999-2008 seasons, only 41.9% of games have gone under.

pavyracer · 07-30-09, 12:25 PM

The problem with going back 10 years is the players playing today were not the same as 10 years back and the steroid era is inflating these numbers. This is why looking at this year's stats is more relevant if you want to make any money the rest of this season.

Nicky Santoro · 07-30-09, 12:28 PM

thanks guys, but i am not kidding, these overs in bos have made me some good cash... these totals are underpriced..

and you know what, it's even higher than that when you shop around.. those stats would even be higher than that if you shopped

for example

total is 9 ov -110... but matchy has it ov 8.5 -117.. what do you do. you take ov 8.5 -117 of course and if game lands on 9, it goes down as a push on the stats, but a win for you.

that is why this system is up way more than it says.. it's a great system boys..

fenway overs... trust me..

Mudcat · 07-30-09, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by pavyracer

The problem with going back 10 years is the players playing today were not the same as 10 years back and the steroid area is inflating these numbers. This is why looking at this year's stats is more relevant if you want to make any money the rest of this season.

Not just that but oddsmakers adjust. A year like 2004 is not going to repeat every year forever with or without steroids. Oddsmakers are more aware of that stuff than anyone.

Basically what we have here is a pretty horrid tip.

Richkas · 07-30-09, 12:30 PM

I havent bet a under at fenway in over 10 years fwiw

Nicky Santoro · 07-30-09, 12:34 PM

taht is the stupidest thing in the world to say go by this years stats.. it's such a small sample size, it's not funny.. if 2 of those games go over instead of under, it's now 50% lol..

over the last 1,000 games, this over system is up a ton.. you can't get better than taht.. steroid shmeroids.. lol... the ball flies in that park and the fences are so close that i can hit one out.. a fly ball is a double and a hr.

wake up boys. you wont find a better tip than this.. you're welcome..

Patrick McIrish · 07-30-09, 12:37 PM

A roided up Manny had Ortiz and others seeing better pitches, not to mention the damage Ramirez did himself. He has to be considered as one of the best righthanded RBI guys the game has ever seen. Overs these days at Fenway? Jason Bay is not Manny Ramirez.

mathdotcom · 07-30-09, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by pavyracer

The problem with going back 10 years is the players playing today were not the same as 10 years back and the steroid era is inflating these numbers. This is why looking at this year's stats is more relevant if you want to make any money the rest of this season.

pavy you are looking dumber by the day

rake922 · 07-30-09, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by diogee

2009 O/U 20-26-5
2008 O/U 39-43-4
2007 O/U 47-35-7
2006 O/u 42-34-5
2005 O/U 37-39-6
2004 O/U 52-31-4

237-208-31

Looks a bit better.

Ok so 2005 to 2009 season
185-177-31

At Fenway park, the over has come through 51.1% (05-09 seasons)

rake922 · 07-30-09, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Nicky Santoro

these totals in fenway are very underpriced. it's not a fluke.. they are up a ton in the last 4 yrs.. .

Makingassumptionswithoutfactualdata.com

mathdotcom · 07-30-09, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by rake922

Makingassumptionswithoutfactualdata.com

As opposed to that god awful non-factual data?

Patrick McIrish · 07-30-09, 12:51 PM

No hitter going into the 2nd but there's been some wicked hard foul balls.

blittydeuce · 07-30-09, 12:52 PM

Take your winning gambling advise elsewhere Nicky. We are all very satisfied in being mediocre and losing the majority of our bets.

Nicky Santoro · 07-30-09, 12:53 PM

boys, don't argue with me or you will lose this battle..

PLUS,,

i have mathy on my side now, which clinches it for me.. when mathy takes my side, i never lose.. i am lifetime 13-0 with mathy on my side.. mathy, don't go anywhere, i might need you here.. these guys have hard heads.. they don't want to listen to good ol nicky santoro..

this bos over at fenway system is a big moneymaker.. just ask mathy..

Nicky Santoro · 07-30-09, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Patrick McIrish

No hitter going into the 2nd but there's been some wicked hard foul balls.

patty boy, is that really you? it can't be.. it's gotta be an imposter. i know this because the patty i know is alwys on my side.. the patty i know always put me up on a pedestal and says i am smart.. this patty here is an imposter.. willie, get this imposter out of here..

rake922 · 07-30-09, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by mathdotcom

As opposed to that god awful non-factual data?

Some data can be phony... but not Diogee's

Patrick McIrish · 07-30-09, 01:01 PM

Nick - just having some fun buddy.

Nicky Santoro · 07-30-09, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Patrick McIrish

Nick - just having some fun buddy.

ok willie, no need to ban him, he's not an imposter.. patty, i was thinking of you 3 days ago i swear.. i was saying, what ever happened to patty, he stopped posting.. welcome back patty..

raker,

you make me laugh.. he gives stats from 04 to 09 and they are cleaning up, and then you take out 04 and then say it's only 51.1%? gimme a break man.. you cant do that..

hey, why not take out the 1994 nhl season where the NYR won the cup while you're at it and say they haven't won a cup now since 1940??

you can't do that.. it's stupid what you did..

rake922 · 07-30-09, 01:12 PM

You said, "they are up a ton over the last 4 years"

So if I was using your tip for the last 4 years I should be up big..... But that's not the case

dwaechte · 07-30-09, 01:14 PM

I dont even know why you guys bother calling Nicky out on his bullshit. I think we all know its not intended to be taken seriously no matter how strongly he argues it.

Nicky Santoro · 07-30-09, 01:16 PM

if you're playing these totals at matchy, you are up close to 30 units including this bad year of 09..
and you'd be up more than that if you shopped.. like over 8.5 -117 instead of ov 9-110, etc...

so 30 units at 1k a unit is up 30,000 clear.. not bad, huh.. and if you did shop with 5 good books incl matchy, you'd be up 54,000..

but shopping is very key here. you need to do both.

Nicky Santoro · 07-30-09, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by dwaechte

I dont even know why you guys bother calling Nicky out on his bullshit. I think we all know its not intended to be taken seriously no matter how strongly he argues it.

buddy, i don't come in here to hear myself talk.. did you not read post #30 just now? tell me where that is not accurate.. up 30,000 the last 5 yrs just betting bos over at fenway...

i think you owe me an apology..

MrMonkey · 07-30-09, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Nicky Santoro

Games played at Fenway are very underpriced (totals).. your avg total there is always 9 to 9.5 and if you notice, games are all 16-11, 12-7, 9-6.. i tell you boys, i don't talk for nothing. i know what i'm saying here. i have followed this trend very carefully and i see much more overs than unders, and this is not a small sample size either. over the last many years, there have been way more overs than unders at Fenway, and why not? The ball always carries there. the very short right field fence. In left,where every line drive is off the monster. a fly ball to left to the track at any park is an out, there it's a double.. the short 302 ft right field fence at the pesky pole.. even i can hit out one of right field..

boys, i can tell you that i am up quite a bit lifetime betting overs at Fenway.. just look at this OAK series..8-3, 9-8, 8-6.. all were over by the 4th inning..

trust me when i tell you, this is not any coincidence.. these totals in fenway are very underpriced. it's not a fluke.. they are up a ton in the last 4 yrs.. yes, you can start betting them today and they might go 2-9 in the first 11 games.. but if you hang on, get the best # available... you will take him the money..

when this system is up pretty well over the last 350 games, you just know i'm not talking for nothing here.

bottom line.....fenway park is a hitters ballpark..

Originally posted by diogee

2009 O/U 20-26-5
2008 O/U 39-43-4
2007 O/U 47-35-7
2006 O/u 42-34-5
2005 O/U 37-39-6
2004 O/U 52-31-4

237-208-31

Looks a bit better.

Yes Dio, numbers don't lie! Just did 2003-2000 and not including playoffs record is 141-165! Total last 9 nine years, 378-373! Don't know much about lines, but if you figure -110 over than no profit from what I see?

mathdotcom · 07-30-09, 01:26 PM

Nicky is claiming the bookies set the totals too low for games at Fenway. You should not just be looking back to 2005. Suppose the Sox couldn't hit in 1999 but were hot in 2004. Pavy argues that they set the same totals in both years, so that's why there were all these overs in 2004. And that's why he's a moron. You think the total does not account for the quality of the batters? Or whether Manny is hitting a HR every game because he is on roids? The only way you can reject old years is that you think the market did not have enough volume or something like that (which is not the case in baseball).

pavyracer · 07-30-09, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by mathdotcom

Nicky is claiming the bookies set the totals too low for games at Fenway. You should not just be looking back to 2005. Suppose the Sox couldn't hit in 1999 but were hot in 2004. Pavy argues that they set the same totals in both years, so that's why there were all these overs in 2004. And that's why he's a moron. You think the total does not account for the quality of the batters? Or whether Manny is hitting a HR every game because he is on roids? The only way you can reject old years is that you think the market did not have enough volume or something like that (which is not the case in baseball).

You may want to reread Nicky's opening statement: "Games played at Fenway are very underpriced (totals).. your avg total there is always 9 to 9.5 and if you notice.."

mathdotcom · 07-30-09, 01:48 PM

Yes he is obviously speaking factually there, pavy.

By the way, the average total of home boston games during 99-08 is 9.72. You got him there.