SHIRLEY'S APRIL UNDERDOG STATS REVISITED

In an effort to provide the readers of this forum the most accurate information, I have further investigated the April underdog factor, and have combined the 2009 and 2010 April results in order to paint a truer picture.

In order to save time, I have enclosed only the results of my hypothesis which is as follows:

"Underdogs between +1.00 and +1.29  outperform their true odds during the month April"

Since his population has a high number of selections (304), it is perfect for statistical analysis.

Line            2009      2010       Total   % Return

+1.00-1.09    -.58     +10.18      +9.60    + 8.49%

+1.10-1.19   +15.57  -2.00       +13.57 + 13.84%

+1.20-1.29    +7.52     1.58      +5.94     + 6.38%

TOTALS                                   +29.11    +8.56%

I will perform a statistical analysis of my results. Additionally these results could have been improved further, by shopping multiple books for the best lines.

There were 304 wagers in April 2009 and April 2010 combined.

My expectation given normal results would be a loss of 3.3375% or in terms of units minus 10.26. I should have lost 10.26 bets.

My hypothesis returned a profit of 29.11 units. So the return is 39.37 units better than expectation (29.11+10.26).

The standard deviation using the normal distribution for this data is 8.72 bets. The results are  a staggering 4.51 standard deviations above the norm, literally off the chart. The standard normal chart does not usually go above 3 sigma (standard deviations).

What does this all mean?

It means that for years 2009 and 2010 all underdogs between +1.00 and +1.29 in April returned an amount of profit that is clearly statistically significant. The chance of a better result are less than 1 chance in 10,000, or approximately the same as predicting and then flipping a coin "heads" 14 or more times in a row.

Will this trend continue?

It's difficult to answer this question, since the linesmaker and the public are the ones that dictate what the final numbers will be. However, based on these not per chance results, I can state with a high level of confidence that the games within the stated population will do better than the norm in 2011, and have a high liklihood of breaking even or better.

LOOKING AT ALL DOGS OF +1.00 - +1.29 IS A GREAT PLACE TO START WHEN HANDICAPPING BASEBALL IN APRIL.

I hope this updated and more accurate information helps a few of you in your selection process during the month. It is only meant as a supplemental tool to add to your handicapping arsenal.

BOL TO ALL

Shirley

MicShea  

Thank you.   My initial research only used the stats from 2010. The combined data over a 2 year period makes me feel a bit more confident in the results, since the sample size is much larger than that of a single year.

Shirley

Nice observation Shirley.

Is there a way to extrapolate the data into home vs away using your +1.00 - +1.29 lines?  i wonder how the performance is affected when split.

Also, if the standard deviation gets even lower and more correlated for a totally home or away sample????

Nice observation Shirley.

Is there a way to extrapolate the data into home vs away using your +1.00 - +1.29 lines?  i wonder how the performance is affected when split.

Also, if the standard deviation gets even lower and more correlated for a totally home or away sample???

ARUKIDMME    GREAT, GREAT QUESTIONS!!!!

The sample obviously contains more road reams than home teams, since they are underdogs. My guess is that it's a 65-35 split or so.

I actually have the stats from the 2010 year, but not 2009. If I break it up into H/R, I will post the results in this thread. This will take a lot more time to research, and will not likely be as statistically significant, because each N (number of wagers), will be less for each subset of the larger population.

The standard deviation will be lower, because the square root of NPQ will be a smaller number, mostly because N is smaller. This in no way determines if the results will be significant or not.

I'm also not so sure if I like this, since I already know the results in their totality have a positive expectation. I guess for information purposes it's all right, but I'll have to think about it some more.

I probably don't have time and the energy needed to complete your request. I hope you understand.

Shirley

Thanks Shirley,

I was looking specifically for any significant positive variance in return for home dogs in that price range and visa versa.

I would image that road dogs are exagerated on the + side and home dog lines are lowered due to home field advantage. 

The variance may give us a clue as to what home field really means in this sample.

Once again, great work and I look forward to following the results as they progress this April.

Shirley Jester is the shit.  This has been 100% true as of all games played on 4-10-11 with Red Sox / Yankees game not included.  Based on the COVERS odds @ gametime....here is what that bracket has offered:

Dogs @ +100-109 have gone 26-11

Dogs @ +110-119 have gone 9-9

Dogs @ +120-129 have gone 9-9 also.

Other breakdowns to follow.  BET EVERY PLAY WITH A DOG OF +100 to +129 (but so far +100 to +109 is solid)

134 games played here is what I have tracked.

-200 or more 3-2

-190 to -199 (2-0)

-180 to -189 (1-3)

-170 to -179 (5-6)

-160 to -169 (5-4)

-150 to -159 (6-4)

-140 to -149 (7-4)

- 130 to -139 (10-9)

-120 to -129 (4-7)

-110 to -119 (11-14)

-100 to -109 (14-22) i didn't break down this further as this is generally multiple teams siding against one another.

+100 to +109 (26-11)

+110 to +119 (9-9)

+120 to +129 (9-9)

+130 to +139 (4-9)

+140 to +149 (4-5)

+150 to +159 (3-5)

+160 to +169 (6-5)

+170 to +179 (3-3)

+180 to +189 (1-1)

+190 to +199 (1-0)

+200 and up (0-2)

Shriley any numbers for the other months???

RutgerRot214     Nice analysis and breakdown of wagers so far in each category. Further improvement upon the basic premise can be achieved if you selectively wager on dogs that fit certain parameters. This further selectivity almost doubles your expectation, albeit with a smaller population. 

Yungstar, Micshea  When May 1 arrives, my suggestion is to use more conventional handicapping methods to arrive at a line, and only wager on underdogs when there is a discrepency of X. We use 15% as our lowest value for X. 85% of my baseball wagers are on underdogs.

Sabia, Bigzz, LasVegasLord  Thanks for your support, and remember this is a supplemental tool to add to your handicapping arsenal.

Shirley

So far my theory has returned+24.68 units TO DATE ON ALL APRIL UNDERDOGS OF:

+1.00 TO +1.29

If you could afford to wager $1000 per game, you would be winning close to $25,000 for the month.

This is the MINIMUM return, because almost all wagers could have been made at more favorable odds than the listed closing line.

Further improvement to the +34.50 area is attained, by being more selective in the plays. Without mentioning detailed specifics, an analysis of past plays in previous years will point you in the right direction.

It is my belief that the results in 2011 have outperformed the true odds, and my optimistic expectations for the month to date.

Simply stated: We have been very lucky to have this fantastic winning pct. producing a tremendous rate of return on all wagers to date.

Continued success to those who use this selection method to supplement their own plays. So far,,,,,,,,so good.

Best of luck to all,

Shirley

Shirley here is the breakdown of all the dogs I've bet so far this season, I only bet dogs. They are somewhat within your percentages. No bets over +150 ever.

Are you going to be posting your plays?

Thanks!