Do You Bet "Action" or "Listed" Pitchers?

[jjgold]

I always bet action, if your going to win your going to win and plus I do not bet pitchers.

[zootiehead]

I always bet listed.

[element1286]

Listed always

[rake922]

listed

[InTheHole]

As listed...

[Brock Landers]

almost always listed pitchers

[WonTooManyBets]

almost always listed pitchers

JJ responding to his own question, pretty cool.

[pokernut9999]

If I am on favorite listed , on dog action.

[robmpink]

Listed, unless I'm on a big fav.

[Dazzez]

Given that after a pitching change you have no control over the final price, I can't think of a single good reason to ever bet Action.

[onlooker]

I bet listed. I use to bet action, but I put a little more of my capping into the starter. So if there is a change, I want to see what the new match up is going to be.

[louisvillekid]

listed, except with my local, if there is a change it's on me to call and cancel or say if i still want it.

online i only do action if the other probable is still a solid option.

[Dazzez]

online i only do action if the other probable is still a solid option.

But you don't know what odds you're going to get if there's a pitching change.

How can that possibly be smart betting?

[SBR Lou]

Listed

[Doug]

listed

[louisvillekid]

But you don't know what odds you're going to get if there's a pitching change.

How can that possibly be smart betting?

if i like the team's offense enough and their BP, and the starter might be changed but i know who would be replacing him and can gauge that the line will be not more than a 10 cent swing, i go ahead and take action. it doesn't happen very often, but i can feel it out.

[hackattack]

Why bother handicapping if you bet 'action'?

[Dazzez]

if i like the team's offense enough and their BP, and the starter might be changed but i know who would be replacing him and can gauge that the line will be not more than a 10 cent swing, i go ahead and take action. it doesn't happen very often, but i can feel it out.

Right, what's the difference between a line of -110 and -120 anyway?

Serious question -- do you actually like money?

[coldhardfacts]

Action, if I can. There are 7 variables that I factor into any baseball bet I make, and the starting pitchers for the respective teams are only two of them - albeit the most important two. Generally, a change in starters isn't going to alter whether a particular side is a play or not for me.

The problem is, about 60-70% of my bets go in with Matchbook, which requires listed pitchers for action. But since listed pitchers start 95% of the time or more, it's not really that big a deal.

BTW - I've never figured out why you can't specify starting goaltenders in hockey.

[Wheell]

Listed. Action is for compulsive degenerate suckers who want to have something riding on the game at whatever number we choose if either pitcher doesn't start. Seriously, if you bet action why do you even bother line shopping (the key to long term success)?

[Dazzez]

Action, if I can. There are 7 variables that I factor into any baseball bet I make, and the starting pitchers for the respective teams are only two of them - albeit the most important two.

But I take it that the odds you ultimately receive on the bet doesn't represent one of the remaining 5 variables?

[pokernut9999]

Lot of talk about something that happens I would guess less than 2% of the time.

[coldhardfacts]

But I take it that the odds you ultimately receive on the bet isn't one of the remaining 5 variables?

It definitely is. But usually (not always) a change in starting pitchers isn't going to affect the odds so drastically (vis a vis the overall value of the play) to negate the play.

[coldhardfacts]

Listed. Action is for compulsive degenerate suckers who want to have something riding on the game at whatever number we choose if either pitcher doesn't start. Seriously, if you bet action why do you even bother line shopping (the key to long term success)?

Actually, the people who base their baseball bets ENTIRELY on the starting pitchers are the degenerate losers.

[pimike]

Listed, especially on large bets.

Just want action will request Action, but that is for small plays only.

[EaglesPhan36]

Depends from game to game for me. If there are some stats that really back something due to a pitcher, I will bet the pitcher.

[accuscoresucks]

listed otherwise your a fool

[Dazzez]

Actually, the people who base their baseball bets ENTIRELY on the starting pitchers are the degenerate losers.

You're completely missing the point.

It has nothing to do with basing your decisions entirely on a starting pitcher.

It has everything to do with not taking whatever line a book decides to give you in the event of a pitching change.

Wheell asks a typically pertinent question: If you're going to bet ACTION, why even bother line shopping?

[pokernut9999]

Guys , there over a 100 games each week. I highly doubt they average more than 2 or 3 pitching changes a week.

So what are the odds your game will be affected ? A lot less than any factor that you can handicap.

[coldhardfacts]

You're completely missing the point.

It has nothing to do with basing your decisions entirely on a starting pitcher.

It has everything to do with not taking whatever line a book decides to give you in the event of a pitching change.

Wheell asks a typically pertinent question: If you're going to bet ACTION, why even bother line shopping?

It has happened to me exactly ONCE this year, and the line stayed exactly the same. The books I deal with, including the locals, are reputable and honest. In all my years of betting baseball, there have been pitching changes on games I've bet less than 10 times. And every time, the line that was given to me was reasonable.

I really don't understand the question - since I know exactly what the line is when I place the bet 99% of the time (or more), why shouldn't I line shop???

[MonkeyF0cker]

Guys , there over a 100 games each week. I highly doubt they average more than 2 or 3 pitching changes a week.

So what are the odds your game will be affected ? A lot less than any factor that you can handicap.

Why not eliminate the odds by just betting listed? This thread is kind of silly. There's absolutely no reason not to bet listed pitchers if its available to you unless you want to roll the dice...

[pokernut9999]

Why not eliminate the odds by just betting listed? This thread is kind of silly. There's absolutely no reason not to bet listed pitchers if its available to you unless you want to roll the dice...

There are times it does not matter.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I'm not aware of a way to sufficiently cap a game without capping starting pitcher splits, especially finding value in certain lines. Unless you're a system bettor (but I assumed we were talking about handicapping individual games) I see no reason to not bet listed.

[cobra_king]

Baseball betting and sports betting for that matter is all about finding value in the lines. How can you possibly find value in a line when you don't even know what that line will be by betting action?

[coldhardfacts]

Baseball betting and sports betting for that matter is all about finding value in the lines. How can you possibly find value in a line when you don't even know what that line will be by betting action?

As many, including I, have pointed out, this is basically a moot argument. Listed pitchers go 98+% of the time.

But, in answer to your question, most of the value in baseball betting is NOT based on the pitchers, even though they are a major component in handicapping each game. The pitching matchups are the primary factor that goes into determining the line, since the linemakers know that's what 95% of the public uses ENTIRELY in basing their plays.