why heres why again yesterday two huge favs destroyed your bank roll Yankees when i bet them early - 205 Cleve - -200 highest and The cardinals again -200 a single 1 unit wager on all 3 teams cost you $605 dollars all in one day
Could have done a a 9 team ML parlay with all favorites today and you would have won like 10 grand Could have played all favorites for the day at $100 each and still win more than $605 of the games you lost yesterday but.....I don't play like that because that's playing reckless. 3 heavy favorites in one day? Play like that my MLB bankroll would be -$3000 by now
why heres why again yesterday two huge favs destroyed your bank roll Yankees when i bet them early - 205 Cleve - -200 highest and The cardinals again -200 a single 1 unit wager on all 3 teams cost you $605 dollars all in one day
Could have done a a 9 team ML parlay with all favorites today and you would have won like 10 grand Could have played all favorites for the day at $100 each and still win more than $605 of the games you lost yesterday but.....I don't play like that because that's playing reckless. 3 heavy favorites in one day? Play like that my MLB bankroll would be -$3000 by now
HERES why you should stay away from huge favs in basesNationals biiggest losses ever L -290 shout the fiug out 2-0 Max Scherzer L -190 strasburg 9-5 lossCARDS -200 Carlos Martinez 6/5 vs Miami 7-4 lossnext day Jack Flaherty -202 11 -3 loss Vs Miami NYY today Luis Severino -265 shutout 2-0 Redsox -312 chris sale 1-0 loss -220 today vs same team LOSER 5-2 CUBS today -185 LOSER 7-1 at home 6/5 - 203 LOSER 6-1 @ home
That is some bad luck!
Yes, that is some bad luck, and unusual that they seem to get together in groups; but odds and probability have to be figured on what will happen in 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 similar matchups. You can't take a small sample size from a given week and make a "never" rule. Favs over -200 actually will win, in the long run. The biggest problem is with the guys that feel they have to "add the juice" on favorites. So, the guy that normally likes to play a hundred says to himself "Geez, I have to lay $250.00 on that -250 favorite." Then when he loses he has done severe damage to his bankroll, not by playing a big favorite, but by taking an unusually large risk. That risk is out of his realm, and damages his view of big favorites. The whole problem arises from bettors feeling they want to play for a target profit, $100, and failing to control the only thing they can control, which is risk, not profit. If a "target profit" method were actually used by the same guy he would only wager $80 on a +125 dog, to make his "target profit" of $100. In either case letting the "target profit" be the control factor, as opposed to risk, is foolish. Profit can not be controlled, only risk can be controlled.
Totally in agreement with you , as you say controlling risk is the way to go. For a totally healthy and orderly bankroll, it's smarter to take the risk of 80 to win 100 if it's true as you say that the favorites in a big show will win more. A bad streak with a favorite system, the juice will arrest you to the mud, on the other hand you have the option to sit on a dog trend in the 120-150 range. You have two options to deal with this trend, betting you on flat bets, in the worst cases a 10 betting streak would leave you in -8 Units, but believe me if you have a tendency with a bit of study it's hard to lose 10 in a row, apart from you being in that range, you'll find many matches where there's a lot of money from the general public elsewhere, since there's no extra juice either and people are confident in getting their favorite winner. Those favorites tend to get complicated or that you could see my eyes become difficult to pay for, I'm not saying that the bookmaker is batting for the dog, but there's not as much difference in many cases as the odds indicate. The other way to treat the trend would be simple and the one that seems to be more logical, just wait until your trend is hitting below 45% the numbers are usually balanced if you were ordered and have a record of several seasons. Now if you think about it the other way around, the only way I see how to deal with the trend of big favorites is to go pay a lot of juice, and that juice is going to splash you someday or so I think.
HERES why you should stay away from huge favs in basesNationals biiggest losses ever L -290 shout the fiug out 2-0 Max Scherzer L -190 strasburg 9-5 lossCARDS -200 Carlos Martinez 6/5 vs Miami 7-4 lossnext day Jack Flaherty -202 11 -3 loss Vs Miami NYY today Luis Severino -265 shutout 2-0 Redsox -312 chris sale 1-0 loss -220 today vs same team LOSER 5-2 CUBS today -185 LOSER 7-1 at home 6/5 - 203 LOSER 6-1 @ home
That is some bad luck!
Yes, that is some bad luck, and unusual that they seem to get together in groups; but odds and probability have to be figured on what will happen in 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 similar matchups. You can't take a small sample size from a given week and make a "never" rule. Favs over -200 actually will win, in the long run. The biggest problem is with the guys that feel they have to "add the juice" on favorites. So, the guy that normally likes to play a hundred says to himself "Geez, I have to lay $250.00 on that -250 favorite." Then when he loses he has done severe damage to his bankroll, not by playing a big favorite, but by taking an unusually large risk. That risk is out of his realm, and damages his view of big favorites. The whole problem arises from bettors feeling they want to play for a target profit, $100, and failing to control the only thing they can control, which is risk, not profit. If a "target profit" method were actually used by the same guy he would only wager $80 on a +125 dog, to make his "target profit" of $100. In either case letting the "target profit" be the control factor, as opposed to risk, is foolish. Profit can not be controlled, only risk can be controlled.
Totally in agreement with you , as you say controlling risk is the way to go. For a totally healthy and orderly bankroll, it's smarter to take the risk of 80 to win 100 if it's true as you say that the favorites in a big show will win more. A bad streak with a favorite system, the juice will arrest you to the mud, on the other hand you have the option to sit on a dog trend in the 120-150 range. You have two options to deal with this trend, betting you on flat bets, in the worst cases a 10 betting streak would leave you in -8 Units, but believe me if you have a tendency with a bit of study it's hard to lose 10 in a row, apart from you being in that range, you'll find many matches where there's a lot of money from the general public elsewhere, since there's no extra juice either and people are confident in getting their favorite winner. Those favorites tend to get complicated or that you could see my eyes become difficult to pay for, I'm not saying that the bookmaker is batting for the dog, but there's not as much difference in many cases as the odds indicate. The other way to treat the trend would be simple and the one that seems to be more logical, just wait until your trend is hitting below 45% the numbers are usually balanced if you were ordered and have a record of several seasons. Now if you think about it the other way around, the only way I see how to deal with the trend of big favorites is to go pay a lot of juice, and that juice is going to splash you someday or so I think.
why heres why again yesterday two huge favs destroyed your bank roll Yankees when i bet them early - 205 Cleve - -200 highest and The cardinals again -200 a single 1 unit wager on all 3 teams cost you $605 dollars all in one day
If you are calling 100 a unit, then you bet 6.05 units, not 3. I surrender to the prevailing mentality in this thread and on this site. It is a shame bad money management has ruined more gamblers than bad picks ever did, but that is the long and the short of it. BOL
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
why heres why again yesterday two huge favs destroyed your bank roll Yankees when i bet them early - 205 Cleve - -200 highest and The cardinals again -200 a single 1 unit wager on all 3 teams cost you $605 dollars all in one day
If you are calling 100 a unit, then you bet 6.05 units, not 3. I surrender to the prevailing mentality in this thread and on this site. It is a shame bad money management has ruined more gamblers than bad picks ever did, but that is the long and the short of it. BOL
no reason to lay -300 on anyone. the dog is going to win that game 25% of the time. I just see no value in that personally especially in a division game. but on the flip side the baseball season is too long and has too much variance (stupid manager decisions, umpire inconsistency, bullpens blowing up) to be taking huge underdogs unless you are a high volume bettor. sure you can profit hitting 48% but that's not going to get you anywhere unless you are betting 5-7 games a day. If you are a more selective bettor like me for example I would suggest keying in on 2-4 games per day and betting a maximum of 3. Do not be afraid to lay the juice on the +1.5. I actually think baseball has some great value with the +1.5. I do not have data to support this but It certainly "feels" like baseball has alot more 1 run games compared to Hockey but for some reason the puckline in hockey for the underdog is always in the -200 and above range but gets blown up by the empty net time and time again.
no reason to lay -300 on anyone. the dog is going to win that game 25% of the time. I just see no value in that personally especially in a division game. but on the flip side the baseball season is too long and has too much variance (stupid manager decisions, umpire inconsistency, bullpens blowing up) to be taking huge underdogs unless you are a high volume bettor. sure you can profit hitting 48% but that's not going to get you anywhere unless you are betting 5-7 games a day. If you are a more selective bettor like me for example I would suggest keying in on 2-4 games per day and betting a maximum of 3. Do not be afraid to lay the juice on the +1.5. I actually think baseball has some great value with the +1.5. I do not have data to support this but It certainly "feels" like baseball has alot more 1 run games compared to Hockey but for some reason the puckline in hockey for the underdog is always in the -200 and above range but gets blown up by the empty net time and time again.
no reason to lay -300 on anyone. the dog is going to win that game 25% of the time. I just see no value in that personally especially in a division game. but on the flip side the baseball season is too long and has too much variance (stupid manager decisions, umpire inconsistency, bullpens blowing up) to be taking huge underdogs unless you are a high volume bettor. sure you can profit hitting 48% but that's not going to get you anywhere unless you are betting 5-7 games a day. If you are a more selective bettor like me for example I would suggest keying in on 2-4 games per day and betting a maximum of 3. Do not be afraid to lay the juice on the +1.5. I actually think baseball has some great value with the +1.5. I do not have data to support this but It certainly "feels" like baseball has alot more 1 run games compared to Hockey but for some reason the puckline in hockey for the underdog is always in the -200 and above range but gets blown up by the empty net time and time again.
I get what your saying but to wager on this sport from a variable point of view compared to other sports is pointless....
In a sport that is based off of one on one matchups between the pitcher and the batter there's so much variables and probabilities involved its impossible to predict even with stats. From the pitch to the swing of the bat and the trajectory of the ball after contact there's so much involved anything can happen. How many pitches are there in an average ball game? Think of all that has to happen in one single pitch over and over for 9 innings.
From the Book Psychology of Baseball.....
In his book, Stadler mentions an interview with pitcher Greg Maddux after a streak of no-hit innings, where Maddux said he just got lucky because some guys hit balls really hard, but hit them right at a fielder.
"I think the players can kind of see that distinction in ways that, you know, because they've been around the game so much, that fans … might not be able to see that as the players are," Stadler said.
Theres just way to much probabilities and luck in baseball not sure how people can wager on this sport. But, if you enjoy it by all means continue to question why this happened? How can that happen? How did this pitcher give up 5 runs in one inning? How did a team not score 9 innings of baseball? Think about how much is involved math and physics in ONE singe pitch and you're trying to predict an outcome of 9 innings of this sport? Best of luck
no reason to lay -300 on anyone. the dog is going to win that game 25% of the time. I just see no value in that personally especially in a division game. but on the flip side the baseball season is too long and has too much variance (stupid manager decisions, umpire inconsistency, bullpens blowing up) to be taking huge underdogs unless you are a high volume bettor. sure you can profit hitting 48% but that's not going to get you anywhere unless you are betting 5-7 games a day. If you are a more selective bettor like me for example I would suggest keying in on 2-4 games per day and betting a maximum of 3. Do not be afraid to lay the juice on the +1.5. I actually think baseball has some great value with the +1.5. I do not have data to support this but It certainly "feels" like baseball has alot more 1 run games compared to Hockey but for some reason the puckline in hockey for the underdog is always in the -200 and above range but gets blown up by the empty net time and time again.
I get what your saying but to wager on this sport from a variable point of view compared to other sports is pointless....
In a sport that is based off of one on one matchups between the pitcher and the batter there's so much variables and probabilities involved its impossible to predict even with stats. From the pitch to the swing of the bat and the trajectory of the ball after contact there's so much involved anything can happen. How many pitches are there in an average ball game? Think of all that has to happen in one single pitch over and over for 9 innings.
From the Book Psychology of Baseball.....
In his book, Stadler mentions an interview with pitcher Greg Maddux after a streak of no-hit innings, where Maddux said he just got lucky because some guys hit balls really hard, but hit them right at a fielder.
"I think the players can kind of see that distinction in ways that, you know, because they've been around the game so much, that fans … might not be able to see that as the players are," Stadler said.
Theres just way to much probabilities and luck in baseball not sure how people can wager on this sport. But, if you enjoy it by all means continue to question why this happened? How can that happen? How did this pitcher give up 5 runs in one inning? How did a team not score 9 innings of baseball? Think about how much is involved math and physics in ONE singe pitch and you're trying to predict an outcome of 9 innings of this sport? Best of luck
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.