All Forums | MLB Betting Forum

Bodio's MLB Wed 08/17

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 21286
Posts: 124
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 15506
Posted: #101
And like I said earlier you clearly know far more about bases than myself and 99 out of 100 times I will defer to you. This time though I'll have to just say I respectfully disagree on this one topic...........and I'll never let it happen again.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2007
Posts: 8156
Posted: #102
i had tb today too
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 7370
Posted: #103
Quote Originally Posted by DDH420:

"For the most part, batters have the same approach at the plate, no matter who is pitching for their team."

How do you prove that and how can you quantify what someones approach is ??  It can change from pitch to pitch (sometimes not even if a base is stolen or a man picked) and would be impossible to truly track statistically so I could just say the same thing to you and reply with..."without prove I'd have to assume that too is irrelevant." lolol

Thats why I said IMHO because thats just what it is and what I believe I have seen over the years and heard from analysis from commentators. And it's nothing I think is even provable one way or the other. Just like when you said "for the most part" because I/we don't think either is something that can be made into a true hard fact and is just a matter of opinion........at least IMHO




oh no, it's been proven.  There are plenty of analysis and research into that.  A batter has inherent skill when it comes to hitting a baseball, and in the long run he'll always perform at his true ability-level.  Each batter's approach at the plate is the same.  That's why sacrifices don't count for purposes of your batting-average, since that's the only time when a batter is doing something differently. How can I prove that batters have the same approach at the plate no matter who is pitching, because that's what the game of baseball is all about.  It's the same as golf.  Sure, there are times when you take a few risks because you're behind, etc, but for the most part your approach to hitting a golf ball and your approach at the plate is the same every single time.  (I'm using golf to compare since I've never played baseball in my life.  But I know that my approach at golf is to try to have the same consistent swing and form every time).  Sure each batter studies pitching matchups and tries to learn pitchers' tendencies, location etc, but at the same time their skill and their approach at the plate is the same.  You can't tell me that Cody Ross completely changes how he approaches a pitcher at the plate just because he has Cain on the mound today, and then his swing/approach/skill is different tomorrow when Vogelsong is on the mound.  He'll use his inherent and practiced 'skill' the same way today, tomorrow, and every other at-bat for the rest of his career (unless he does something radical and completely changes his swing/stance/etc...) Like I've said, I've never played baseball but I've read a number of books on it.  All of them teach that at the major-league level each batter will have the same probability of getting on base based on his long-term skill level, which we measure by batting-average, OBP, or my favorite wOBA.  You can't tell me that a hitter is able to improve his wOBA on days when Vogelsong is pitching, and decrease it when Cain is on the mound.  Logically, that can't make sense. 

I'm not sure if I'm even making sense right now , but if anyone has any thoughts on this would be interested in hearing them.  

Good stuff DDH! 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 7370
Posted: #104
Quote Originally Posted by nbafan88:

whoops wrong post, sorry

here's the formula

If you want to bet the RL-1 but the bookie doesn't offer it this is what you do .

example:
ML= 150 to win 100

RL = 100 to win 125

Amount Won on ML= Amount risked on RL

So for this Yankees game tonight, basically, if someone's standard 1 Unit bet = $100, what you would do is:

i) Bet $85 to win $50 on the ML (half of your bet)
ii) Bet $55 to win $50 on the -1.5 RL (the other half of your bet)

So you'd be risking $140 to win $100 on a pretty much a -1 RL bet, which comes out to -140 odds (same as 5Dimes has listed on the -1 RL wager). 

Let me know if someone has questions on this still.  
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 8177
Posted: #105
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 7370
Posted: #106
Quote Originally Posted by Wood:

I have a question for you Bodio...

 

I have a strong lean on Tex/LAA under 7.5 tonight as well, but the only thing holding me back is Ervin's career #'s vrs texas..He's been the best pitcher in baseball since the all star break, but he has terrible career #'s vrs texas. Do I value his dominant last 10+ game stretch more then I do his career numbers? IMO, his recent starts matter more to me and CJ has great numbers vrs LA , but wanted your opinion.


Good question. Santana is definitely in the zone right now,  but Rangers are the type of an offense that could take him out of this zone very quickly.  His career numbers are interesting, but you have to remember that the sample size is very small, even though he did make 22 starts against the Rangers in his career.  What I mean by sample-size being small, is the sample size against current batters.  The fact that Michael Young is 24 for 68 off Santana for .353 BA doesn't mean that he'll go 2 for 5 against him today.  Would you be shocked if he went 0-5 against Santana today?  Of course not.  The sample size is so tiny that it's statistically insignificant and we can't assume that Michael Young is expected to bat .353 every time he faces Santana.  Same could be said for all the other Rangers batters.  With that being said, I feel you should focus more on Santana's performance this year, or last 10 games like you mentioned, with a sample size of 650 AB's against him (much more statistically relevant...Michael Young can never get 650 AB's against one pitcher in his career!).  Of course you have to account for the fact that Rangers are an above-average offense, but even with that, Santana's year-to-date performance indicates that he will have a solid outing tonight under 'normal' circumstances.  Unless something unusual happens, thus you must look at other factors to determine the probability of him imploding tonight.  If your'e comfortable with that risk factor, then it should be a play.

That's a long answer.  Short answer:  Yes, I put a lot more weight into a player performance this year as opposed to how he fared against a particular team in the past, since the circumstances are very different.  
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 7370
Posted: #107
Quote Originally Posted by DDH420:

And like I said earlier you clearly know far more about bases than myself and 99 out of 100 times I will defer to you. This time though I'll have to just say I respectfully disagree on this one topic...........and I'll never let it happen again.

haha...I'm sure I know just as much as you. If you feel you don't know enough, just read a couple of books on baseball.  There are a couple of great ones out there.  I'd start with MoneyBall.  

Either way, good discussion and I really enjoy those as it helps me learn new things and look at sports from different perspectives.  Keep 'em coming! 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 7370
Posted: #108
Alright fellas... Game time!

Good luck all
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 190
Posted: #109
Quote Originally Posted by bodio:


So for this Yankees game tonight, basically, if someone's standard 1 Unit bet = $100, what you would do is:

i) Bet $85 to win $50 on the ML (half of your bet)
ii) Bet $55 to win $50 on the -1.5 RL (the other half of your bet)

So you'd be risking $140 to win $100 on a pretty much a -1 RL bet, which comes out to -140 odds (same as 5Dimes has listed on the -1 RL wager). 

Let me know if someone has questions on this still.  


I dont think this is exactly true. In this scenario if yankees win by 1, youll be down 5 bucks which isnt truly a -1 runline.

If the ML = -170, -1.5 RL = -110. If unit amount = 100. I believe we would use the equation X = 1.1(100-X). X = to win bet amount for the ML. Solving for X would give you 52.38.

So you have:

Yankees ML 89.04 to win 52.38.
Yankees RL 52.38 to win 47.27.

I think this would get you closer to the $100 win amount. I know its a very small difference, but if the RL were farther away from EV, it would show more significance.

Hope this helps.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 66
Posted: #110

what's up bodio....i'm a bit nervous cause i laid alot on the marlins....one team  parlay

 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 15506
Posted: #111
Alright if you have stats to back it up than fine but I still feel it's more opinion than fact when trying to say you know what someone is thinking

Also what I'm saying is if someone is pitching in the late innings up by one and there is a man on 3rd with less than two outs a batter isn't gonna have the same approach as when his team is down 5 before the 5th inning and needs baserunners. He's just trying to lift a ball to the outfield to score or perhaps win a game ? Sure that is a dramatic example but different situations call for different approaches and there are many throughout a game.

 I would think an approach can change pitch to pitch let alone pitcher to pitcher. Depending on a lefty or right,hard or soft thrower,pounding inside or outside,defensive positioning,remaining outs,the score and any number of other factors. Last night when SEA was down 6-0 are you as likely to see a guy give himself up (not a sac) to move a runner from 1st to second rather than try to blast something deep?

What about when Granderson is at the plate and Wakefield is throwing him soft floaters inside. He's gonna try and YANKS that shit to the short porch whereas if he's getting Paplebon pounding him hard and away he's more likely to try and stay inside the ball and go the other way.

And as for golf pros are making all kinds of different strokes (check out a show making the cut and you'll see what I mean) throughout a round in order to "work" a ball left to right or for a certain trajectory to come into the green or leave an approach where they want it.

Us stiffs just try and hit it straight and we're happy but any pro makes suttle adjustment on just about every shot to have the flight path be exactly where they want it never mind how far behind the ball your hitting in order to put more or less spin on a ball. The courses we play day to day are nothing like the ones the pros play and even if it is the exact same same course it is set up dramatically differently to challenge them and force them to make these adjustments and not just grip and rip on every hole.


That reminds me of an old joke.

A guy has supposedly trained a gorilla to play golf and challenges Arnold Palmer to a round of match play for 50K. Well Palmer has honours and tees up for the 470 yard par 4 1st hole and promptly drives the ball 265 right down the middle. Then the gorilla tees up and smashes it 470 dead straight and puts it 6ft from the pin. Palmer not wanting to get embarrassed for 18 holes turns to the trainer and says "good round and heres a check for the 50K I'm fucking outta here" .

The trainer puts the check in his pocket with a smile as Palmers caddy walks over and says "WOW how did you train a gorilla to beat the best golfer in the world??" and the trainer replies I didn't train him to golf I trained him to drive the ball 500 yards and scare the shit out of his opponents. The stupid gorilla would have just walked up to that 6ft'er with a putter in his hand and drove it another 275 yards

So as they say drive for show PUTT for
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2008
Posts: 6283
Posted: #112
Over 12,000 views! 

The impossible only takes longer….
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 15506
Posted: #113
Quote Originally Posted by bodio:


haha...I'm sure I know just as much as you. If you feel you don't know enough, just read a couple of books on baseball.  There are a couple of great ones out there.  I'd start with MoneyBall.  

Either way, good discussion and I really enjoy those as it helps me learn new things and look at sports from different perspectives.  Keep 'em coming! 
No you're being modest you have shown me more in the few weeks I've been reading your info than in the 3 months of the year I was just plugging away on my own.

And I think I'll take you up on that tip on reading a few bases books so I can understand what the fuck those advanced stats mean. Right now I'm just looking at them comparatively with no clue what they mean,just that lower is better lolol


Although as frustrating as it's been the past week or so losing in late innings I may just wait til the winter and start fresh next season
That HOU salami last night killed CUBS -145 and CUBS to ATL +190. Then today I had the O 8 and it was 4-3 B4 and then the CUBS had the bags drunk T5 as well as 1st & 3rd no outs T9 and the score stayed 4-3 and I didn't even get the push. Plus you may remember the shitty run I had last week losing 3 games in 3 days with a useless run that covered the RL-1.5 and thats it costing me about a -15 unit swing with wins turning to loses,well loses for me and the -1.5 but not the team that blew they Rl....fuckers
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 416
Posted: #114
Were screwed, Francisco Cordero's fat stupid ass is coming in
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2011
Posts: 224
Posted: #115
Bodio, Anything worth parlaying with the jays game?
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 7370
Posted: #116
Quote Originally Posted by KinkyTwinky:



I dont think this is exactly true. In this scenario if yankees win by 1, youll be down 5 bucks which isnt truly a -1 runline.

If the ML = -170, -1.5 RL = -110. If unit amount = 100. I believe we would use the equation X = 1.1(100-X). X = to win bet amount for the ML. Solving for X would give you 52.38.

So you have:

Yankees ML 89.04 to win 52.38.
Yankees RL 52.38 to win 47.27.

I think this would get you closer to the $100 win amount. I know its a very small difference, but if the RL were farther away from EV, it would show more significance.

Hope this helps.

Yes, you're absolutely right.  I was just trying to keep rounded #'s in there  :)
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2008
Posts: 71
Posted: #117

Played that LAA/Tex under last night, thans for the insight Bodio..

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 188
Posted: #118
Nice call on the Reds last night Bodio, I got greedy and took the run-line, like I would have been able to retire if it hit, I know it's all about money managment, maybe one of these days I'll learn. Good luck tonight.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 223
Posted: #119
Quote Originally Posted by bodio:


Yes, you're absolutely right.  I was just trying to keep rounded #'s in there  :)


Is it safe to assume that a "manufactured" -1 RL would have the same odds as a -1 RL that's available on a book?  Or would manufacturing one cost a bit more?
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2009
Posts: 7
Posted: #120
Kershaw, arguably the #1 pitcher in NL looks to be great value at -121.

Can anyone pick against the Brewers though as hot as they've been? 

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2008
Posts: 5681
Posted: #121
Quote Originally Posted by bodio:


oh no, it's been proven.  There are plenty of analysis and research into that.  A batter has inherent skill when it comes to hitting a baseball, and in the long run he'll always perform at his true ability-level.  Each batter's approach at the plate is the same.  That's why sacrifices don't count for purposes of your batting-average, since that's the only time when a batter is doing something differently. How can I prove that batters have the same approach at the plate no matter who is pitching, because that's what the game of baseball is all about.  It's the same as golf.  Sure, there are times when you take a few risks because you're behind, etc, but for the most part your approach to hitting a golf ball and your approach at the plate is the same every single time.  (I'm using golf to compare since I've never played baseball in my life.  But I know that my approach at golf is to try to have the same consistent swing and form every time).  Sure each batter studies pitching matchups and tries to learn pitchers' tendencies, location etc, but at the same time their skill and their approach at the plate is the same.  You can't tell me that Cody Ross completely changes how he approaches a pitcher at the plate just because he has Cain on the mound today, and then his swing/approach/skill is different tomorrow when Vogelsong is on the mound.  He'll use his inherent and practiced 'skill' the same way today, tomorrow, and every other at-bat for the rest of his career (unless he does something radical and completely changes his swing/stance/etc...) Like I've said, I've never played baseball but I've read a number of books on it.  All of them teach that at the major-league level each batter will have the same probability of getting on base based on his long-term skill level, which we measure by batting-average, OBP, or my favorite wOBA.  You can't tell me that a hitter is able to improve his wOBA on days when Vogelsong is pitching, and decrease it when Cain is on the mound.  Logically, that can't make sense. 

I'm not sure if I'm even making sense right now , but if anyone has any thoughts on this would be interested in hearing them.  

Good stuff DDH! 

I think what's confusing the issue is the term "approach".  Having played and coached this game for over 40 years, I can tell you that what separates the decent hitters from the really good ones is their ability to adapt to the situation at hand....something we call situational hitting.  Thus, one's "approach" at the plate often times changes for the reasons DDH points out and then some.  Those that are willing to make the proper adjustments from pitch-to-pitch, at-bat to at-bat, and game-to-game will generally be more successful hitters.  Some of these adjustments may be subtle and some may be obvious.  Some may be mental, and some may be physical.  While this all pertains to theory, the problem in the major leagues is that some hitters are paid solely to pound the seats and others are just too damn stubborn to make the appropriate adjustments...which is what generally gets hitting coaches fired.  Nevertheless, I teach my hitters to go up with a plan in accordance to the situation at hand and be prepared to adjust that plan at any time during that at-bat...again, situational hitting.

Bodio - I enjoy reading your breakdowns and admire you as a capper.  However, on the art of hitting, I must respectfully disagree with your principle...no offense intended.

 

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 7370
Posted: #122
Quote Originally Posted by Coach19:

I think what's confusing the issue is the term "approach".  Having played and coached this game for over 40 years, I can tell you that what separates the decent hitters from the really good ones is their ability to adapt to the situation at hand....something we call situational hitting.  Thus, one's "approach" at the plate often times changes for the reasons DDH points out and then some.  Those that are willing to make the proper adjustments from pitch-to-pitch, at-bat to at-bat, and game-to-game will generally be more successful hitters.  Some of these adjustments may be subtle and some may be obvious.  Some may be mental, and some may be physical.  While this all pertains to theory, the problem in the major leagues is that some hitters are paid solely to pound the seats and others are just too damn stubborn to make the appropriate adjustments...which is what generally gets hitting coaches fired.  Nevertheless, I teach my hitters to go up with a plan in accordance to the situation at hand and be prepared to adjust that plan at any time during that at-bat...again, situational hitting.

Bodio - I enjoy reading your breakdowns and admire you as a capper.  However, on the art of hitting, I must respectfully disagree with your principle...no offense intended.

 

 

None taken.  I agree with what you're saying!

My point is that the batters do NOT change their approach according to who is pitching for their own team!  DDH was arguing that he looks at run-support as a metric in handicapping games.  I was arguing that it's irrelevant. 

Cain got plenty of run-support yesterday, and it had nothing to do with him being on the mound.  It had to do with Jurrjens being flat! 

 

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2008
Posts: 5681
Posted: #123
Quote Originally Posted by bodio:

 

None taken.  I agree with what you're saying!

My point is that the batters do NOT change their approach according to who is pitching for their own team!  DDH was arguing that he looks at run-support as a metric in handicapping games.  I was arguing that it's irrelevant. 

Cain got plenty of run-support yesterday, and it had nothing to do with him being on the mound.  It had to do with Jurrjens being flat! 

 

My bad...misunderstood the discussion.  It's always been a mystery to me why some pitchers get proportionately more/less run support than others...haven't really heard a logical explanation for this.  Maybe some pitchers are liked/disliked more than others by their teammates

 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2008
Posts: 49
Posted: #124
any plays for the day? thoughts on dodgers and giants. leaning on both of them so far. thanks
All Forums | MLB Betting Forum
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

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.