Money Ball 4-24-2015

4-23 Rays -107 (Bucholz/Odorizzi) W

YTD 17-18, +299.12, (4.28% RoR)

4-24

$200  Cubs -107 (Lester/Leake)

$200 Royals +101 (Duffy/Quintana)

Cubs: We see reversals to true form all the time. Tonight I think Lester gets his crap together and when he does he is far superior to Leake. The offense are a wash at this point but the Cubs have a better prospectus.

Royals: In this one you can flip a coin between Duffy and Quintana, but there is no comparing the offenses. In 8 games versus lefty starters the Royals have established a 5.2 oera and are 7-1 in the good old W-L column. The ChiSox have faced only 3 lefties, but have established only a 2.6 oera and have lost all 3 games. Also, this is a rematch of an earlier Duffy/Quintana pairing and that was the only one of the 3 ChiSox losses in which they did anything at all with the sticks, but it was Duffy’s first start of the regular season and I am willing to cut him some slack on that one. Your money, your choice.  

BOL

Best of Luck  

My book has KC -105 right now.  Been holding out for better number all day.  Think that's the best I get?

It might be. I was patient as a nun waiting to hit it at an even or better number but as soon as I did, so did other smart money. The -105 is OK though as far as probability goes. I think I would hit it now. jmho

Thanks Key.  Good luck tonight.      

With you on the Royals but have to fade the Cubs. Like the Reds coming home to GABP which is better suited for a a their offense, what little they have. Hopefully another 16 run output is in the cards

First wanna start by saying much respect as i respect anyone who puts in the work rather than just ''gamble''. i am interested to know where you find your stats that you spit in your write ups? for instance you mentioned chicago hasnt won a game vs a lefty in all three starts. did you do the hard homework and go looking down the line of games played or do you have a search engine that gets these results for you ? your response would be much appreciated. thanks

Smellier,
is that really a word??
                                       

Good luck Key!

Thanks for asking. Many, in fact most, of the stats I quote come from my own database, which takes 2+ hours daily to keep updated. Some are not available no matter where you look, but my computer is programmed to utilize the key factors many handicappers are ignoring or not applying correctly. You can verify any stat I claim, but it may take a hunk out of your day. When I quote pitchers ratings that is strictly proprietary per my own formula and database. It is not projected from any known traditional method or SABRmetrics. 

If not then I just coined it. Next time I am asked to update Merriam-Webster's I will include it.

Just jumped in  ROYALS +113 . lets get it fellas

There is some really weird reverse line movement today. If you are to believe published public wagering percentages then really big bucks are coming down on the Yankees, Indians and White Sox. We shall see how that pans out.

Best of luck tonight buddy...

Wow you called that hours ago.

Just starting to get into the more serious side of statistics ...not just reading what is online. Is there a good book to start off with? I do have a small background with descriptive statistics.

The Tigers had 60% of the public betting on them so if all bets were equal the Tigers would have gone up, not down. That is reverse line movement and indicates one or more investors with very deep pockets nailed the opposite side. Same thing with the Yankees, 60% of the bettors were on the Mets, but the line moved against the Yankees. Same result, Yankees won. Big bettors lose too, but you have to be very careful going against people that can change a line by by big margins.

Bob McCune (R.I.P.) did some fine mathematical analysis in his "Realities in Sports Wagering" and J.R. Millers "How Professional Gamblers Beat the Pointspread in the NFL" are classics of statistical analysis and application, as well as mathematical realities like binomial distribution. Both are many years old but as true as they were when written. Why aren't they famous works. Simple; every sports gambler is already an expert and has nothing left to learn. The Covers Forums are like a university with 50,000 professors and 10 students because Joe Six Pack already has his degree in A) Sports knowledge B) Gambling knowledge and C) mathematical probability and risk/reward analysis. 90% are losers only because they are unlucky, umpires are blind, players and managers are stupid, or "Vegas" fixes all the games they wager on.

Key.....that is a hilarious synopsis of the Covers forum. I can't stop laughing because it is so true. 

Nice picks my friend