[EGrecu]

If you would have bet a 1,000 on each mets game this year - you'd be up somewhere around 24K


So why does Vegas continue to have no respect for the mets? They were reasonable favorites in these games vs the braves, even as they had the superior pitching matchup in every game (none of the games featured a braves ace vs the mets #4 guy). The mets are a little better than the braves, hit a little better, are at home and have the superior pitcher...they should have been around -180 favorites in each game but were only around -120. This has been happening all year

[KiDBaZkiT]

A lot of time the price or line is made based off of public perception. To say they should of been -180 not even close. You think the Drew Rasmussen vs Jake Odorizzi they should of been -180?

[EGrecu]

A lot of time the price or line is made based off of public perception. To say they should of been -180 not even close. You think the Drew Rasmussen vs Jake Odorizzi they should of been -180?

That was drew peterson vs odirizzi

And yes Peterson is much better. Look at their advanced stats. Jake is a contact pitcher who gets killed by good offenses. Peterson has a high K rate


Not saying peterson is an ace. I'd rate him a 6/10 and odorizzi a 4/10. With that being said, you got a small SP advantage, small offensive advantage and they're at home. That typically means mets should have been around 160 yet the game was nearly even. Mets have been massively undervalued all year

[KiDBaZkiT]

That was drew peterson vs odirizzi

And yes Peterson is much better. Look at their advanced stats. Jake is a contact pitcher who gets killed by good offenses. Peterson has a high K rate


Not saying peterson is an ace. I'd rate him a 6/10 and odorizzi a 4/10. With that being said, you got a small SP advantage, small offensive advantage and they're at home. That typically means mets should have been around 160 yet the game was nearly even. Mets have been massively undervalued all year

I agree with everything you said except the 160. The Braves are still within striking distance, or at least before the series were a lot closer. Mets are playing much better but the Braves are still a good team and defending WS champs. I think the prices for that series were where they should of been. Mets maybe a little bit cheaper than I would of made them but not by much.

[KiDBaZkiT]

Also they were -385 today. All be it against the shitty Reds but I think you are going to see them priced much higher over the next 7-8 weeks.

[louisvillekid]

I didn't get a chance to check these odds before the game started.

but a twitter tout posted his picks right at game time, and one was a Mets play.

He had Bassitt will get the W at -150 - I'm like huh?

The majority of a full games line is based on the starting pitchers.

Met's were like -375 - i find it hard to believe a book was offering Bassitt gets W as low as -150

[EGrecu]

Also they were -385 today. All be it against the shitty Reds but I think you are going to see them priced much higher over the next 7-8 weeks.

Mets were 290 ish

Which is too low also

[pologq]

the mets are who we thought they were - Dennis Green

the braves had Fried against Scherzer and then Strider against DeGrom. that accounted for some of the close odds and DeGrom is still coming back from injury and the Mets usually don't score for him. plus the braves are the previous champs so there is some bias as kid said.

[stevenash]

If you would have bet a 1,000 on each mets game this year - you'd be up somewhere around 24K


So why does Vegas continue to have no respect for the mets? They were reasonable favorites in these games vs the braves, even as they had the superior pitching matchup in every game (none of the games featured a braves ace vs the mets #4 guy). The mets are a little better than the braves, hit a little better, are at home and have the superior pitcher...they should have been around -180 favorites in each game but were only around -120. This has been happening all year

My database is showing (these are based on 100 flat bets) the Mets are indeed cash cows in MLB, but I have +1700, or 17K on a thousand flat wager, regardless, they have been money.

The biggest winner so far?
Mets are second, the Orioles are your biggest money line winners to date.
If you bet a grand a game on Balty, you're up over 23K.
I just gave the O's season recap so far the once over,, 57 wins, looks like four of their losses were around pick 'em, all 57 wins they were dogs, some of those wins O's were +200 or better bow-wows.

LA Dodgers were the opposite last year.
Last year LA went 106-56, and you actually lost money if you bet them on the money line a grand a game, every game.
How can you win 50 more games than lose and actually lose money?
If you remember that thread I wrote last year, the average line for all 162 games (excluding playoffs) you had to lay -216.
You collected 10,600 dollars on the 106 games (they never won a game as a dog last year, they were only +115 or less six times) and at -216 on the average, 50 losses meant you had to give the book back that 10.600 and 200 dollars and change more.

Not for nothing, the Nats are your biggest money line losers this season, and besides the O's and Mets, the Cards and the aforementioned LA Dodgers, did your bankroll well?

Yankees so far?
You're a little bit above even, less that 1/2 unit
345 dollars you're up betting a grand a game, even with 71 wins so far.
Laying chalk almost always on a consistent basis will kill your roll.

[EGrecu]

the mets are who we thought they were - Dennis Green

the braves had Fried against Scherzer and then Strider against DeGrom. that accounted for some of the close odds and DeGrom is still coming back from injury and the Mets usually don't score for him. plus the braves are the previous champs so there is some bias as kid said.

Scherzer is better than fried though both in traditional stats and advanced stats

Mets offense is slightly better than braves offense + mets are at home

No way should that have been less than 160 and I think it was around 120. This has been happening all year though. Mets have been massively undervalued all year

[jjgold]

The Mets will be favored against any team in baseball in the playoffs as long as they’re healthy

I already saw some lines -130- 140 if they play the Dodgers

[EGrecu]

The Mets will be favored against any team in baseball in the playoffs as long as they’re healthy

I already saw some lines -130- 140 if they play the Dodgers

You're smoking crack.. they'll be underdogs against dodgers and braves

[EGrecu]

My database is showing (these are based on 100 flat bets) the Mets are indeed cash cows in MLB, but I have +1700, or 17K on a thousand flat wager, regardless, they have been money.

The biggest winner so far?
Mets are second, the Orioles are your biggest money line winners to date.
If you bet a grand a game on Balty, you're up over 23K.
I just gave the O's season recap so far the once over,, 57 wins, looks like four of their losses were around pick 'em, all 57 wins they were dogs, some of those wins O's were +200 or better bow-wows.

LA Dodgers were the opposite last year.
Last year LA went 106-56, and you actually lost money if you bet them on the money line a grand a game, every game.
How can you win 50 more games than lose and actually lose money?
If you remember that thread I wrote last year, the average line for all 162 games (excluding playoffs) you had to lay -216.
You collected 10,600 dollars on the 106 games (they never won a game as a dog last year, they were only +115 or less six times) and at -216 on the average, 50 losses meant you had to give the book back that 10.600 and 200 dollars and change more.

Not for nothing, the Nats are your biggest money line losers this season, and besides the O's and Mets, the Cards and the aforementioned LA Dodgers, did your bankroll well?

Yankees so far?
You're a little bit above even, less that 1/2 unit
345 dollars you're up betting a grand a game, even with 71 wins so far.
Laying chalk almost always on a consistent basis will kill your roll.

You can't bet a team like dodgers on ML. You have to bet the runline- the key is timing

I was betting yankees early on in the year on RL but I haven't touched them since break. They've really cooled off

[stevenash]

*edit*
I meant to say 56 losses for La last year, not 50, and you lost a little bit over a grand.
My bad.

[stevenash]

You can't bet a team like dodgers on ML. You have to bet the runline- the key is timing

I was betting yankees early on in the year on RL but I haven't touched them since break. They've really cooled off

What I do from time to time, if I really like two chalks at home, I'll hook them up in a two team money line parlay.
By doing so you actually cut into the juice than betting the two as individual stand alone games.

I'm not going to prove out the math again, I need to walk my dogs.

[pologq]

Scherzer is better than fried though both in traditional stats and advanced stats

Mets offense is slightly better than braves offense + mets are at home

No way should that have been less than 160 and I think it was around 120. This has been happening all year though. Mets have been massively undervalued all year

i never said fried was better than scherzer. scherzer has been tremendous for them. i am just saying why you had closer odds than you would think. fried is still the ace and the braves get attention as WS Champs.

[EGrecu]

i never said fried was better than scherzer. scherzer has been tremendous for them. i am just saying why you had closer odds than you would think. fried is still the ace and the braves get attention as WS Champs.

correct - that's why I'm saying braves are overvalued and mets are undervalued in that series

[EGrecu]

What I do from time to time, if I really like two chalks at home, I'll hook them up in a two team money line parlay.
By doing so you actually cut into the juice than betting the two as individual stand alone games.

I'm not going to prove out the math again, I need to walk my dogs.

I think it's tough to make money long term in MLB betting 250+ chalk. There's just very few scenarios where one team will beat another team straight up better than a 3-1 ratio. The runline gives you a chance where it's close to even

[stevenash]

You guys missed the boat at the All Star break.
Later I'll dig up that thread.

The money was in the Cards at the break, two games back of the Brews, to win the division at +150.
The super models I lean on pretty much had the cards, even at two games back winning the NL Central going away.
They've already made up four games, all in the loss column and have gone from two back to games up.

The other prop I laid out was Boston NOT to make the playoffs at even money.
Sox were already DOA at the AS break ,and their dead last now in the AL East.

There's certain benefits to being an advanced numbers and stat geek.

[stevenash]

I think it's tough to make money long term in MLB betting 250+ chalk. There's just very few scenarios where one team will beat another team straight up better than a 3-1 ratio. The runline gives you a chance where it's close to even

Rarely do I bet run lines on chalk at home.
I will bet run line with chalk on the road.
Main reason being, on the road, my team is guaranteed that ninth inning at bat.
At home, if I'm up 3-2 after 8 1/2 innings, game over, my team wins, my run line is in the toilet.
You don't know how many times that ninth inning road at bat has rescued my run line bet.

[pologq]

You guys missed the boat at the All Star break.
Later I'll dig up that thread.

The money was in the Cards at the break, two games back of the Brews, to win the division at +150.
The super models I lean on pretty much had the cards, even at two games back winning the NL Central going away.
They've already made up four games, all in the loss column and have gone from two back to games up.

The other prop I laid out was Boston NOT to make the playoffs at even money.
Sox were already DOA at the AS break ,and their dead last now in the AL East.

There's certain benefits to being an advanced numbers and stat geek.

it seems every year the cards always show up and are close if not in the playoffs. very respectable franchise.

[Fishhead]

About a week ago, got them 10-1 at WESTGATE

[jjgold]

Nope Vegas Bookmakers are on yesterday one of the networks and said at least -130

You're smoking crack.. they'll be underdogs against dodgers and braves

[stevenash]

About a week ago, got them 10-1 at WESTGATE

To win the WS?
24 days ago you were looking at 30:1, I thought I saw a 40:1 out there to win the WS.
That ship has sailed.
(I'll find that thread in a little bit from last month)

[KiDBaZkiT]

Mets were 290 ish

Which is too low also

I saw -330 earlier in the day and closed around -385

If you think they are valued too low and they are winning why are you complaining? Just hammer them and show up at the window to collect

[Fishhead]

To win the WS?
24 days ago you were looking at 30-1

Don't know,.......... I do know 10-1 was decent value the day got them at 10-1

They are -690 right now NOT to win with the NO futures..........think they were about -840 NOT to win when got +1000