Summary Record: 72-67-2 (52%) Beginning Bankroll: $10,000 Avg. Wager Size: $97.34 (Unit = 1% of Bankroll); +102 avg line Profit: +$341.93 (+3.42 Units), +2.49% Return on Risk
Splits ML: 41-36 (53%), +7.16% Return on Risk RL: 5-13-0 (28%), -40.55% Return on Risk O/U: 25-18-2 (58%), +11.72% Return on Risk
----------------------------------------------------------- Performance History -----------------------------------------------------------
Overall 2017: 72-67-2 (52%), +2.49% Return on Risk 2016: 259-224-20 (54%), +3.80% Return on Risk 2015: 298-267-32 (53%), +6.46% Return on Risk 2014: 826-685-112 (55%), +4.13% Return on Risk
Picks of the Day 2017: 31-19-0 (62%), +19.29% Return on Risk 2016: 81-65-7 (55%), +6.90% Return on Risk 2015: 108-87-12 (55%), +14.17% Return on Risk 2014: 121-72-16 (63%), +16.60% Return on Risk
Will look at Tigers F5 tomorrow... don't trust the bullpen. Still doing work on run totals, but nothing jumping out right now on first pass. Good luck everyone!
Side note: hope everyone enjoys time with their favorite women (moms/wives/daughters) tomorrow.
Summary Record: 72-67-2 (52%) Beginning Bankroll: $10,000 Avg. Wager Size: $97.34 (Unit = 1% of Bankroll); +102 avg line Profit: +$341.93 (+3.42 Units), +2.49% Return on Risk
Splits ML: 41-36 (53%), +7.16% Return on Risk RL: 5-13-0 (28%), -40.55% Return on Risk O/U: 25-18-2 (58%), +11.72% Return on Risk
----------------------------------------------------------- Performance History -----------------------------------------------------------
Overall 2017: 72-67-2 (52%), +2.49% Return on Risk 2016: 259-224-20 (54%), +3.80% Return on Risk 2015: 298-267-32 (53%), +6.46% Return on Risk 2014: 826-685-112 (55%), +4.13% Return on Risk
Picks of the Day 2017: 31-19-0 (62%), +19.29% Return on Risk 2016: 81-65-7 (55%), +6.90% Return on Risk 2015: 108-87-12 (55%), +14.17% Return on Risk 2014: 121-72-16 (63%), +16.60% Return on Risk
Will look at Tigers F5 tomorrow... don't trust the bullpen. Still doing work on run totals, but nothing jumping out right now on first pass. Good luck everyone!
Side note: hope everyone enjoys time with their favorite women (moms/wives/daughters) tomorrow.
Just was curious what made you specifically say that, I know that their middle relievers are not pitching very well but as I said, I would expect Verlander to go 6.
Granted the three closers I mentioned threw today but was just looking for a counter view if you cared to give one.
If you have three guys good for an inning or two who season ERAs are hovering around 1.5 I would not consider that a dumpster fire?
Just was curious what made you specifically say that, I know that their middle relievers are not pitching very well but as I said, I would expect Verlander to go 6.
Granted the three closers I mentioned threw today but was just looking for a counter view if you cared to give one.
If you have three guys good for an inning or two who season ERAs are hovering around 1.5 I would not consider that a dumpster fire?
I have to disagree with this. I does mean something in that Weaver is gonna go out and pitch the same junkball kind of stuff that has beaten the Sox three times in the last coupla years, giving up just 2 runs in 20 innings. If Quintana is a little off today, the young Pads are gonna hit him and you'll struggle to cover a 1.5 number.
I have to disagree with this. I does mean something in that Weaver is gonna go out and pitch the same junkball kind of stuff that has beaten the Sox three times in the last coupla years, giving up just 2 runs in 20 innings. If Quintana is a little off today, the young Pads are gonna hit him and you'll struggle to cover a 1.5 number.
I have to disagree with this. I does mean something in that Weaver is gonna go out and pitch the same junkball kind of stuff that has beaten the Sox three times in the last coupla years, giving up just 2 runs in 20 innings. If Quintana is a little off today, the young Pads are gonna hit him and you'll struggle to cover a 1.5 number.
BOL, RT2
Pitchers can change dramatically from year to year especially once they're on the wrong side of 30. This is the case with Weaver and precisely why he has given up over 50 HRs in his last 35 starts or so, despite pitching in pitcher friendly parks in a majority of his starts. I couldn't care less what happened in a few instances... we wager on risk/reward profile and we accept new information (e.g., Weaver is a shell of his former self and I'd be surprised to see him pitching deep into the second half of the season).
I can give you several scenarios where the White Sox fail to cover 1.5 runs, but I cap them doing it just over 50% of the time so +110 presents a favorable risk/return profile. I don't spend a ton of time coming up with rusty angles, but I do consider them just as I looked at Weaver's splits vs Chicago.
I have to disagree with this. I does mean something in that Weaver is gonna go out and pitch the same junkball kind of stuff that has beaten the Sox three times in the last coupla years, giving up just 2 runs in 20 innings. If Quintana is a little off today, the young Pads are gonna hit him and you'll struggle to cover a 1.5 number.
BOL, RT2
Pitchers can change dramatically from year to year especially once they're on the wrong side of 30. This is the case with Weaver and precisely why he has given up over 50 HRs in his last 35 starts or so, despite pitching in pitcher friendly parks in a majority of his starts. I couldn't care less what happened in a few instances... we wager on risk/reward profile and we accept new information (e.g., Weaver is a shell of his former self and I'd be surprised to see him pitching deep into the second half of the season).
I can give you several scenarios where the White Sox fail to cover 1.5 runs, but I cap them doing it just over 50% of the time so +110 presents a favorable risk/return profile. I don't spend a ton of time coming up with rusty angles, but I do consider them just as I looked at Weaver's splits vs Chicago.
Well. everyone seems to love the Sox today on the RL because Weaver has gotten crushed his last coupla starts. Here's a few reasons not to:
--Missing leadoff guy and shortstop. Don't like betting on a team that is without its regular No.1 hitter.
--Quintana on the weekend. I have followed this guy for years; don't know if it's a partying problem but he doesn't pitch as well on the weekend, and he's at home.
--Missing set up man.
--You're betting on a 3-7 team (granted, SD is 2-8.)
--You're betting with the herd...they're looking at the same statistics on Weaver you are and this looks like an easy pick on the surface.
Final note: I've watched the Pads all year. They are young with a green manager, but they play really hard for him. They lose the games they're supposed to win and win those they are supposed to lose. I like your other picks but have to question this one.
Well. everyone seems to love the Sox today on the RL because Weaver has gotten crushed his last coupla starts. Here's a few reasons not to:
--Missing leadoff guy and shortstop. Don't like betting on a team that is without its regular No.1 hitter.
--Quintana on the weekend. I have followed this guy for years; don't know if it's a partying problem but he doesn't pitch as well on the weekend, and he's at home.
--Missing set up man.
--You're betting on a 3-7 team (granted, SD is 2-8.)
--You're betting with the herd...they're looking at the same statistics on Weaver you are and this looks like an easy pick on the surface.
Final note: I've watched the Pads all year. They are young with a green manager, but they play really hard for him. They lose the games they're supposed to win and win those they are supposed to lose. I like your other picks but have to question this one.
--You're betting with the herd...they're looking at the same statistics on Weaver you are and this looks like an easy pick on the surface.
Not sure what this means. I don't follow anyone's picks, and posted that pick at before midnight last night. I don't believe in "easy" picks, but I do believe in relative value in the implied vs. actual probability of winning (i.e., the line vs. my calculated lines). The Padres - according to my estimate - have a 34% chance to win the game outright, so it wouldn't be much of an anomaly for them to actually beat the White Sox today... but if I am correct in how I capped this game, I would turn a profit over the long run betting the RL at +110 and it hits more than 47.6% of the time. Not that it means anything for today's match-up, but Weaver has made 7 starts and the RL would have hit in 5 of those games.
I can come up with counter arguments for any wager I place and - in fact - it's actually important to do exactly that. At the end of the day, losing - or winning for that matter - one wager demonstrates very little in justifying a risk that one took. You can only go to the tape in a meaningful/measurable way once you have gathered enough data points to prove statistically significant.
Lastly, I used to include write-ups with all of my wagers the first two seasons I posted on here... but I am now 3 kids deep under the age of 5 - with another one on the way - and no longer have that luxury (i.e., time). I can assure you that I have looked at almost anything you can come up with (if it's relevant to today's game and worth taking into account). I'm structured in my approach and don't deviate from strategy.
--You're betting with the herd...they're looking at the same statistics on Weaver you are and this looks like an easy pick on the surface.
Not sure what this means. I don't follow anyone's picks, and posted that pick at before midnight last night. I don't believe in "easy" picks, but I do believe in relative value in the implied vs. actual probability of winning (i.e., the line vs. my calculated lines). The Padres - according to my estimate - have a 34% chance to win the game outright, so it wouldn't be much of an anomaly for them to actually beat the White Sox today... but if I am correct in how I capped this game, I would turn a profit over the long run betting the RL at +110 and it hits more than 47.6% of the time. Not that it means anything for today's match-up, but Weaver has made 7 starts and the RL would have hit in 5 of those games.
I can come up with counter arguments for any wager I place and - in fact - it's actually important to do exactly that. At the end of the day, losing - or winning for that matter - one wager demonstrates very little in justifying a risk that one took. You can only go to the tape in a meaningful/measurable way once you have gathered enough data points to prove statistically significant.
Lastly, I used to include write-ups with all of my wagers the first two seasons I posted on here... but I am now 3 kids deep under the age of 5 - with another one on the way - and no longer have that luxury (i.e., time). I can assure you that I have looked at almost anything you can come up with (if it's relevant to today's game and worth taking into account). I'm structured in my approach and don't deviate from strategy.
BoB, looks like the more success you have the more devil's advocate and advice people give you.
I think your card is solid, keep doing what you're doing.
Best of Luck
undermysac has a good point here. It is true rocket science or Da Vinci quality art to get a ton of advice regardless of whether you are winning, losing, or anywhere in between. What goes unsaid is that you have your own methodology, style and perception that have served you well in the past and are not likely to get revised by an occasional visitor to your thread. I don't necessarily agree with all you say, but will not attempt to dissuade you from it. Only the truly ignorant or stupid are entitled to that. BOL
BTW: If you spent 8 hours on yesterday's picks your wages have grown from 3.63 cents per hour Friday to 3.83 dollars per hour Saturday, significantly better than making cotton shirts in a fire trap Bangladesh factory. Small things must be appreciated.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
BoB, looks like the more success you have the more devil's advocate and advice people give you.
I think your card is solid, keep doing what you're doing.
Best of Luck
undermysac has a good point here. It is true rocket science or Da Vinci quality art to get a ton of advice regardless of whether you are winning, losing, or anywhere in between. What goes unsaid is that you have your own methodology, style and perception that have served you well in the past and are not likely to get revised by an occasional visitor to your thread. I don't necessarily agree with all you say, but will not attempt to dissuade you from it. Only the truly ignorant or stupid are entitled to that. BOL
BTW: If you spent 8 hours on yesterday's picks your wages have grown from 3.63 cents per hour Friday to 3.83 dollars per hour Saturday, significantly better than making cotton shirts in a fire trap Bangladesh factory. Small things must be appreciated.
Good luck, Birds. No disrespect whatsoever. You have got the 'pot odds' figured correctly to play the Sox, and Weaver is way past his prime. I was merely offering some counterpoints as to why this bet doesn't look good to me. After all, it is a forum, right?.
Good luck, Birds. No disrespect whatsoever. You have got the 'pot odds' figured correctly to play the Sox, and Weaver is way past his prime. I was merely offering some counterpoints as to why this bet doesn't look good to me. After all, it is a forum, right?.
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.