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

[cobra_king]

You are missing the point entirely.

You are betting on a line that you HAVE NO IDEA what it will be. Yes it will be in only 2% of the games, but when the margin of error between success and failure in sports betting is also so fine, why would you give any edge away at any time?

[coldhardfacts]

You are missing the point entirely.

You are betting on a line that you HAVE NO IDEA what it will be. Yes it will be in only 2% of the games, but when the margin of error between success and failure in sports betting is also so fine, why would you give any edge away at any time?

Again, my thinking is that a starting pitcher on one of the teams is only one variable in the making of the line and in my handicapping. Unless they're replacing Sandy Koufax with Joey Devine the effect on the line is going to be minimal, 5-15 percent TOPS. And, for the same reason, I feel that if I have a play with the listed starters, I am still usually (more than 50% of the time) going to have a play if only one of the starters changes, particularly if they throw from the same side (R or L) as the listed starter. So, IMO I still will have the edge more often than not.

And, again, what does any of this have to do with line shopping?

[MonkeyF0cker]

That's just not true. Why wouldn't you take listed and re-cap the game again with the pitching change to see if there is value in the lines? It just makes absolutely no sense. Line shopping was brought up because it has to do with getting max value out of your plays, something you certainly aren't doing when you bet action and there is a pitching change. Your value is unknown at that point.

[cobra_king]

First of all, if a play moves by 15%, that doesn't mean the line goes from +100 to -115 If a line moves by 15% and a team that did have a 50% chance to win now has a 65% chance of winning that true no vig line moves from +100 to -186.

Secondly, how can one possibly line shop if he is now locked in at the new price the book he originally made the bet with gives him? Would it not be wiser to now have the option of replaying the game at the best possible price even if that means making the new wager at a different book?

Thirdly....there is a saying that some have used here before and it bears repeating. "There is never a wrong side, only a wrong price". This is paramount to winning sports betting, yet an action play gives a play and a price that may not be worth playing upon reviewing what the new number is.

And finally and it's related to point 3. There will be times when the new line comes out after the pitching change and the proper play according to the new line will be to play the opposite side, or at the very least, turn what was a play into a no play, yet you are stuck with a play on a pitcher/team/line that you would ideally have no money on.

[coldhardfacts]

First of all, if a play moves by 15%, that doesn't mean the line goes from +100 to -115 If a line moves by 15% and a team that did have a 50% chance to win now has a 65% chance of winning that true no vig line moves from +100 to -186.

Secondly, how can one possibly line shop if he is now locked in at the new price the book he originally made the bet with gives him? Would it not be wiser to now have the option of replaying the game at the best possible price even if that means making the new wager at a different book?

Thirdly....there is a saying that some have used here before and it bears repeating. "There is never a wrong side, only a wrong price". This is paramount to winning sports betting, yet an action play gives a play and a price that may not be worth playing upon reviewing what the new number is.

And finally and it's related to point 3. There will be times when the new line comes out after the pitching change and the proper play according to the new line will be to play the opposite side, or at the very least, turn what was a play into a no play, yet you are stuck with a play on a pitcher/team/line that you would ideally have no money on.

OK, you convinced me. The problem is, once I place my bets, I don't have time to go back and re-check to see if there were pitching changes. So, I have to make a decision at the point of play whether I'm going to have a bet or not .

I plan to quit working in 1-2 years, though, to concentrate on sports betting and poker, and at that point I will DEFINITELY specify pitchers.

BTW, I absolutely DO NOT agree with that saying. IMO, in most games (baseball, football, hockey, and basketball, at least - the only sports I bet on) one side is usually superior in any given matchup, and I will not bet against that side under any circumstances. The question is, is there value in betting on them?

[Dazzez]

BTW, I absolutely DO NOT agree with that saying. IMO, in most games (baseball, football, hockey, and basketball, at least - the only sports I bet on) one side is usually superior in any given matchup, and I will not bet against that side under any circumstances. The question is, is there value in betting on them?

This does not bode well for your future career as a professional sports bettor.

[capperwizzard]

Listed only might not make the bets if pitchers changes.

[coldhardfacts]

This does not bode well for your future career as a professional sports bettor.

Sir, in 20+ years of sports betting I lost 6 of my first 8 years. I have had only 1 losing season since.

"Don't criticize what you can't understand".

Bob Dylan