Playing all dogs doesn't necessarily get you killed. In the first full month of the season, if you blindly bet the underdog in every game, you came out way ahead. I'm not sure if that held up over the rest of the season up to this point, but I'm just trying to make the point that the books love when they can throw -180 or more behind a big name and the public still pounds it with $. I'll bet they capped this game at about -145, but know they can sell it for -180 because of the name "Verlander"...and over the test of time they profit and the public loses.
Playing all dogs doesn't necessarily get you killed. In the first full month of the season, if you blindly bet the underdog in every game, you came out way ahead. I'm not sure if that held up over the rest of the season up to this point, but I'm just trying to make the point that the books love when they can throw -180 or more behind a big name and the public still pounds it with $. I'll bet they capped this game at about -145, but know they can sell it for -180 because of the name "Verlander"...and over the test of time they profit and the public loses.
There is so much flawed thinking in this thread that it boggles my mind.....
This debate goes on in here about three or four times a year.......if you aren't considering long-term profitablity when you make wagers then I believe you are making a mistake. If you are unwilling to bet on a team that you think should probably lose a game but would win enough to be profitable over the long haul, then you are making a mistake........period, there really is no arguing that.
Good luck to all using whatever method of wagering works best for you all.
There is so much flawed thinking in this thread that it boggles my mind.....
This debate goes on in here about three or four times a year.......if you aren't considering long-term profitablity when you make wagers then I believe you are making a mistake. If you are unwilling to bet on a team that you think should probably lose a game but would win enough to be profitable over the long haul, then you are making a mistake........period, there really is no arguing that.
Good luck to all using whatever method of wagering works best for you all.
And to clarify value......there is value both ways.
I bet the White Sox in this game.......but I would also bet Detroit. It depends on the line.
"Value" players will play either team in any game.......a value play is predicated by the line and the value it offers in terms of true probability of their chosen side "winning" the game. It has nothing to do with playing underdogs or favorites......or even who the bettor "thinks" should win the game.
And to clarify value......there is value both ways.
I bet the White Sox in this game.......but I would also bet Detroit. It depends on the line.
"Value" players will play either team in any game.......a value play is predicated by the line and the value it offers in terms of true probability of their chosen side "winning" the game. It has nothing to do with playing underdogs or favorites......or even who the bettor "thinks" should win the game.
And to clarify value......there is value both ways.
I bet the White Sox in this game.......but I would also bet Detroit. It depends on the line.
"Value" players will play either team in any game.......a value play is predicated by the line and the value it offers in terms of true probability of their chosen side "winning" the game. It has nothing to do with playing underdogs or favorites......or even who the bettor "thinks" should win the game.
And to clarify value......there is value both ways.
I bet the White Sox in this game.......but I would also bet Detroit. It depends on the line.
"Value" players will play either team in any game.......a value play is predicated by the line and the value it offers in terms of true probability of their chosen side "winning" the game. It has nothing to do with playing underdogs or favorites......or even who the bettor "thinks" should win the game.
Peavy took the loss against the Royals on Saturday when he gave up six earned runs on 12 hits and one walk and struck out five over seven-plus innings.
120 PITCHES!!!
AGAINST THE ROYALS!!!
Peavy took the loss against the Royals on Saturday when he gave up six earned runs on 12 hits and one walk and struck out five over seven-plus innings.
120 PITCHES!!!
AGAINST THE ROYALS!!!
Tiger.......I respect what you are saying and understand why people don't like to bet on games that they "think" will lose.
What if the White Sox were +300 tonight? Would you play them then........what if they were +900? I think in betting, particularly baseball that you have to be willing to make some plays that will lose more than they win in order to achieve long-term success. I'm not having a great year, but I am up a fairly respectable amount, yet I'm only winning 46% of my games......I do play mostly dogs and I never hit 50% for the year.....I think what we are trying to say is that if you expand your horizons you could have more success.
The problem people like totalguy, Key and myself have is most people don't understand what they are talking about and don't listen to fairly reasoned responses.....betting value isn't really a point to be argued......it's a necessity to win at this over the long haul.
Tiger.......I respect what you are saying and understand why people don't like to bet on games that they "think" will lose.
What if the White Sox were +300 tonight? Would you play them then........what if they were +900? I think in betting, particularly baseball that you have to be willing to make some plays that will lose more than they win in order to achieve long-term success. I'm not having a great year, but I am up a fairly respectable amount, yet I'm only winning 46% of my games......I do play mostly dogs and I never hit 50% for the year.....I think what we are trying to say is that if you expand your horizons you could have more success.
The problem people like totalguy, Key and myself have is most people don't understand what they are talking about and don't listen to fairly reasoned responses.....betting value isn't really a point to be argued......it's a necessity to win at this over the long haul.
I love all of the intelligent comments in response to the question. However, none of you have answered his question.
Why are 80% of the Covers' experts on Chicago? Since when does someone making a pick on Covers care about value betting? Isn't it all about picking a winner?
I love all of the intelligent comments in response to the question. However, none of you have answered his question.
Why are 80% of the Covers' experts on Chicago? Since when does someone making a pick on Covers care about value betting? Isn't it all about picking a winner?
Tiger.......I respect what you are saying and understand why people don't like to bet on games that they "think" will lose.
What if the White Sox were +300 tonight? Would you play them then........what if they were +900? I think in betting, particularly baseball that you have to be willing to make some plays that will lose more than they win in order to achieve long-term success. I'm not having a great year, but I am up a fairly respectable amount, yet I'm only winning 46% of my games......I do play mostly dogs and I never hit 50% for the year.....I think what we are trying to say is that if you expand your horizons you could have more success.
The problem people like totalguy, Key and myself have is most people don't understand what they are talking about and don't listen to fairly reasoned responses.....betting value isn't really a point to be argued......it's a necessity to win at this over the long haul.
Tiger.......I respect what you are saying and understand why people don't like to bet on games that they "think" will lose.
What if the White Sox were +300 tonight? Would you play them then........what if they were +900? I think in betting, particularly baseball that you have to be willing to make some plays that will lose more than they win in order to achieve long-term success. I'm not having a great year, but I am up a fairly respectable amount, yet I'm only winning 46% of my games......I do play mostly dogs and I never hit 50% for the year.....I think what we are trying to say is that if you expand your horizons you could have more success.
The problem people like totalguy, Key and myself have is most people don't understand what they are talking about and don't listen to fairly reasoned responses.....betting value isn't really a point to be argued......it's a necessity to win at this over the long haul.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.