is there really that much value laying big chalk ?

[bigboydan]

how does one justify laying big chalk on a nightly basis in baseball.

lets use the royals for example here. i know they are just that bad of a team, but they can't lose every night can they? ..you have to assume they will put togather a few 3 to 5 games winning streaks this year.

is the juice worth the squeeze ?

thoughts ?

[The Great One]

I have a hard time betting underdogs in baseball. maybe it's just me, but everyday, I pick the favorites I think have the best chance at winning.

But basketball and football, I'm even when it comes to the spread; actually I probably go with the dog more on the spread, but ML baseball is hard for me to justify. I'm talking +160 or more, not a toss-up game like -104; +106.

[Illusion]

In most cases I would say no, but when there are teams like the Royals...why not.

[onlooker]

In most cases I would say no, but when there are teams like the Royals...why not.

Even with that, I cant lay that much. Just more value in passing then risking so much for such a little return. Just not smart in my mind. It just takes a mini run by that crappy team to lose you a sheit load of money.

[pags11]

never a good idea to lay a lot of chalk in any sport, especially baseball...any team can win on any given day...have learned this the hard way myself...

[RickySteve]

Hilarious thread.

[DrSlamm]

If it is NEVER right to lay -400 then it is ALWAYS right to take the +360....

pretty sure we can agree that this is not the case so....

figure out the rest

[tacomax]

Well, the royals are 3-0 up tonight after their second innings against the Wankees.

[BuddyBear]

betting favorites, especially big favorites in baseball, is a perfect way to go broke. You may be able to get away with it in college football or college ball but not in baseball....

IMO...you either bet the Royals or pass on their game....I dont' care how bad they are they still have major league players. They have beat CWS 3 times already....

Nobody in their right mind lays -160, -170, -180, -190, -200 etc...in a baseball game regularly and lives to tell about it.

[daystrom]

Youre nuts to lay that kind of chalk in baseball. I can see it somewhat in soccer but even then half the battle is line shopping.

[bigboydan]

looks like the big chalk games tonight lost. (both NY teams)

oh sure you might find a ton of value laying the big wood, but to me it's not worth it, because flukes do happen.

[DrSlamm]

sounds like you should bet the underdog everytime then.. because "flukes happen"

None of the arguments presented in this thread have any statistical meaning.

[bigboydan]

i bet alot of dogs yes. but, all i'm saying is how does one lay 2 to 1 or higher in a baseball game. personally i can't see it myself, due to the fluke factor.

i just can't justify laying that kind of wood is all.(-200 or higher) i mean you bet say 3 games, and go 1-2 you lose big for the day.

[isetcap]

Hilarious thread.

You said it. It's like watching the Dr. Phil Show where you can listen to an assclown state the obvious for an hour straight.

[BuddyBear]

sounds like you should bet the underdog everytime then.. because "flukes happen"

None of the arguments presented in this thread have any statistical meaning.

Bet big favorites in baseball games everytime and see how you do....

[DrSlamm]

Bet random games everyday and tell me how you do?

Value can exist no matter what the price

[tacomax]

Value can exist no matter what the price

We have a winner. :0000006:

[BuddyBear]

I think you have a very poor understanding what random means.....little if any value exist in backing teams that are -250 or -300 or some outrageous number like that. Any professional will tell you that.

[Mudcat]

I did some detailed research in the 90's on mindlessly betting underdogs on MLB moneylines. It speaks exactly to this topic .

Without getting into all the nitty-gritty detail, the results were that you would make money by betting all MLB underdogs beyond a certain level. In the American League it was all dogs over +180. In the National League it was all dogs over +140.

If you did this mindlessly every time you saw a line beyond those levels, you would grind out a profit.

So obviously laying chalk was a horrifically bad idea as a general rule.

This research is somewhat dated - oddsmaking has changed - but, from my observations, the principle still holds true. Due to bettor psychology of being attracted to shiny objects (like the Yankees), the value ends up on the dog end of the moneylines, particularly really lop-sided moneylines.

There are always exceptions. I made money for years laying big chalk on Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson. I have made money in recent years on Roy Halladay.

But as a rule, my belief is that laying big chalk is a disastrous idea.

[DrSlamm]

Your rule is fine BUT it is not the big chalk that is disastrous.. it is the fact that there is little to no value IN the chalk because of the reasons you laid out.

[BuddyBear]

Your rule is fine BUT it is not the big chalk that is disastrous.. it is the fact that there is little to no value IN the chalk because of the reasons you laid out.

laying big chalk is disasterous anyway you look at...no need to try to rationalize it bro. laying big chalk is for squares.

[TLD]

It’s ridiculous to rule out a bet because it’s “big chalk.” Sometimes the favorite’s likelihood of winning is greater than the odds available to bet it and sometimes it isn’t. Same with underdogs, same with anything.

This is as silly as “parlays are for suckers” or “teasers are for suckers” or any other such generalization that gets passed around as common wisdom amongst people who know just enough about sportsbetting to get themselves in trouble.

[DrSlamm]

if i offered you -800 that i wouldnt roll a 10 on a 10 sided die you would be an idiot not to take it

etc

[Brick Tamland]

laying big chalk is disasterous anyway you look at...no need to try to rationalize it bro. laying big chalk is for squares.

not true. its usully bad because books put value on the dog becasue less players bet dogs. sia is a extreme example.....if you see a fav at -500 and other books have it at -650 you shold bet it. you can have a -3000 soft line

[BuddyBear]

alright then do what you guys please....feel free to lay -500,
-600, -700....in fact, pinny has a ML on every game so feel free to lay -4000 on games. Hell, if you let the books know in advance that those are the type of lines you plan on playing....they'll probably give you an extra bonus....

Seriously though...have you ever heard of anyone routinely laying big chalk and coming out ahead??? It doesn't take but a few string of losses and bad breaks to go broke with such a method.

[DrSlamm]

I cant read anything buddybear writes without laughing aloud

[BuddyBear]

ummm...you may want to reference Mudcat's previous post...

Let me put it to you in English: Laying big chalk regularly is a bad idea. Never in my life have I heard of anyone laying big chalk routinely and living to tell about it. Sure you can bet here and there a big ML for fun but if you want to do it regularly....good luck. Any of the mods and anyone with half a brain will tell you that...you act like it's a novel idea. Nobody in their right mind bets lines like -800 or -2000.

Why is it so hard for you to understand....

[BuddyBear]

I cant read anything buddybear writes without laughing aloud

Anyway...why are you isolating me here? Just take a look at every post in this thread and see how many agree with you. Pretty much nobody...

[Mudcat]

I need to correct myself on this:

I did some detailed research in the 90's on mindlessly betting underdogs on MLB moneylines.

. . . the results were that you would make money by betting all MLB underdogs beyond a certain level. In the American League it was all dogs over +180. In the National League it was all dogs over +140.

That's backwards. It should dogs over +180 in the NL, dogs over +140 in the AL.

It’s ridiculous to rule out a bet because it’s “big chalk.”

I don't agree. I do that as a matter of routine and am happy with the results.

Knowing that, as my research (and general experience/observation) has shown, that betting all big chalk games will result in steadier loss than anything else, I don't find it wise time management to even look at them.

For me, looking at big chalk games would be like looking for fruit in the desert. Sure, there is probably some success to be had if you really know where to look - but I'd rather just go to an orchard.

I understand the theoretical nature of the discussion going on. I get that. If I had unlimited time, I'm sure I would eventually get around to considering more big chalk games. But in my current reality, I almost always immediately rule out the big chalk just because it's big chalk.

[BuddyBear]

I cant read anything buddybear writes without laughing aloud

apparently a professional gambler like Mudcat can read what I have to say and not only not laugh but agree with the general premise of my claims and implicitly tell you that you are dead wrong in your thinking....but since he is polite he does not say that.

General rule of thumb DrSlamm....you don't mess with guys who have over 1500+ posts especially if you have less than 500 posts let alone a 100.

[DrSlamm]

OOohhh you have more posts than me.. i tremble in your presence... seriously..

I do not disagree with anything that mudcat just said. It is totally reasonable to assert that it is harder to find value in "big chalk" however it is totally UNREASONABLE to assert that there is none and impossible which is what you want to assert.

You claiming that regularly betting big chalk is a losing way.. so is regularly betting ANY lines without finding value in them.

Take your post count and move along.

[BuddyBear]

OOohhh you have more posts than me.. i tremble in your presence... seriously..

I do not disagree with anything that mudcat just said. It is totally reasonable to assert that it is harder to find value in "big chalk" however it is totally UNREASONABLE to assert that there is none and impossible which is what you want to assert.

You claiming that regularly betting big chalk is a losing way.. so is regularly betting ANY lines without finding value in them.

Take your post count and move along.

apology accepted DrSlamm.....

[DrSlamm]

Do you watch colbert buddybear?

[xxx]

it's hard to lay big chalk on a nightly basis, just look at the VIP contest; only two guys with over 10u. am not affraid to lay big money but i will pick my spot. up untill -300. after that forget about it. many times i will go with the RL also, if a big favorite can't win by more than two runs they usualy loss the game straight out.

[freebie]

I cant read anything buddybear writes without laughing aloud

:+textinbu No kidding