Messages

been looking over trends and noticed that teams that were 'supposed' to be better in the 1st half tend to get 'better" early in the second half, while i will still be capping with a more fundamental analysis slant i'd like to see if this situational analysis sticks, perhaps if i were leaning toward that particular play i'd place the action ..towards that would like to see if some of you agree and if some of you would tend to add some more as well as well as strongly disagree and the REASONS why, not just the usual, "you're an idiot, because XXXs sucks"..underperforming (i.e. about to hit a hot streak) =TORONTO, FLA, Giants, Cubs  and Milw..overperforming teams= (cold streak)=Tampa Bay, LAof Anaheim Angels, San Diego and Pittsburgh, once again best of luck to all of you...

One interesting stat that may point out under-valued teams is their winning percentage compared to the expected payout.

For example, a team that has won 40 percent of their games over a given time period has a multiplier of 1/0.4 or 2.50, meaning you would need a payout of 2.50 to break even if you win only 40 percent of the time

If the dog is +130, the payout is 2.30 before deducting the 1.00 bet.

Since 2.30 is less than 2.50, that would rule out betting on the team if you hope to be profitable in the long term, juice notwithstanding.

You need to define your reasons for under performing and over performing.

Pitt over performing??????????