Posted:
#601
Rangers come close. Nothing for today.
0
September Dogs - Starting with $4k
Posted:
#602
Quote Originally Posted by herbshack:
Rangers come close. Nothing for today.
Rangers come close. Nothing for today.
Winner there. Just didn't come in well enough as a top play.
For today:
$273 to win $425.88
Baltimore Orioles +156
vs Boston Red Sox
SYSTEM: A that just lost by a single run and had scored runs in more innings than the other team goes 552-473 +82.44 units SU. - This is a powerful trend for many reasons; a couple of them being: A. Positive performance since inception. B. Logic- It is easy to understand why this one might work intuitively: if a team just lost, they'll be undervalued; dig a little deeper and you'll see that the loss really felt like a fluke....maybe it even was, but more importantly, it FELT like a win, but wasn't for our guys. Value + motivation here for the O's.
Your thoughts on the system are most welcome. That would be good discussion in this thread (as the topic has come up).
0
Posted:
#605
For today take:
$236 to win $292.64
Tampa Bay Rays -1 +124
vs San Francisco Giants
BETTING SYSTEM: For 48-25 +23.73 units, +28.8% roi SU - look to play on a home team withing 25 or 30 cents of pickem off of a game where they had 3+ errors vs. a road team off of 3+ games with ZERO errors. - Take the Rays.
0
Posted:
#609
Quote Originally Posted by herbshack:
Winner there. Just didn't come in well enough as a top play.
For today:
$273 to win $425.88
Baltimore Orioles +156
vs Boston Red Sox
SYSTEM: A that just lost by a single run and had scored runs in more innings than the other team goes 552-473 +82.44 units SU. - This is a powerful trend for many reasons; a couple of them being: A. Positive performance since inception. B. Logic- It is easy to understand why this one might work intuitively: if a team just lost, they'll be undervalued; dig a little deeper and you'll see that the loss really felt like a fluke....maybe it even was, but more importantly, it FELT like a win, but wasn't for our guys. Value + motivation here for the O's.
Your thoughts on the system are most welcome. That would be good discussion in this thread (as the topic has come up).
Decent hypothesis. The multiple inning part is the key ingredient. Makes sense that a team that was consistent, throughout the game, yesterday might bounce back vs a team that had a couple good innings (but snuck the win).
0
Posted:
#612
Quote Originally Posted by gbpackman:
Play OVERWASHINGTON on the total in All games in June games
The record is 13 Overs and 3 Unders this season (+10.40 units)
SO PLAY UNDER 5.5??? LOL
Whenever I see those crazy low totals and most of the public piled on the Over, I'm looking to bet the under. Nice call.
0
Posted:
#613
Quote Originally Posted by herbshack:
Whenever I see those crazy low totals and most of the public piled on the Over, I'm looking to bet the under. Nice call.
Thanks, these trends are killin it on totals but sides keep going the same way
Play ONTEXAS using the money line in All games in all games.The record is 46 Wins and 25 Losses this season (+28.90 units)
This trend is red hot and I think BAL can win one, but no other team has the overall pitching to stop all 9 TEX hitters.
0
Posted:
#614
Hey Herb Quick Question
After watching the ARZ game where the underdog +100 won SU
and the underhit -8.5
I saw the same exact line for Col v Marlins and I took Colorado +100 and under 8.5 BOTH HIT
Do you ever see underdog lines that are simialr and have the same results at the end of games... I was surprised both underdogs won str8 up and the game went under
After watching the ARZ game where the underdog +100 won SU
and the underhit -8.5
I saw the same exact line for Col v Marlins and I took Colorado +100 and under 8.5 BOTH HIT
Do you ever see underdog lines that are simialr and have the same results at the end of games... I was surprised both underdogs won str8 up and the game went under
0
Posted:
#615
Quote Originally Posted by royboymiami:
Hey Herb Quick Question
After watching the ARZ game where the underdog +100 won SU
and the underhit -8.5
I saw the same exact line for Col v Marlins and I took Colorado +100 and under 8.5 BOTH HIT
Do you ever see underdog lines that are simialr and have the same results at the end of games... I was surprised both underdogs won str8 up and the game went under
Hey Herb Quick Question
After watching the ARZ game where the underdog +100 won SU
and the underhit -8.5
I saw the same exact line for Col v Marlins and I took Colorado +100 and under 8.5 BOTH HIT
Do you ever see underdog lines that are simialr and have the same results at the end of games... I was surprised both underdogs won str8 up and the game went under
Interesting. First thought I have is that it is coicidental, but anything is worth digging into....so long as you lean heavier on seeing most things as variance and not worth betting.
Here's what I've seen:
#1. Since 2004, when the total has been very high (>10), the Underdog has profitted on the blind: 740-944 +23.67 units. Large sample, simple premise; this has to be considered whatever you're doing.
#2. MLB has 'handles'; 7 and 9. That is, where the actual scores of games most commonly land. With that said, the total 8.5 is a funny one right under a major handle. 8.5 is also the most commonly lined total (right a bit above 9) in all games since 2004. In those games, the home dog is 386-410 +62.90 units SU when the game went under the total. Perhaps an indication that: when you see that line (8.5) and like the under, maybe take a look at the home dog as well....
I don't want to lead you down the wrong path there with #2. That might all be hogwash; whereas, I actually think there is something to #1 and believe it might be something worth pursuing...making a system out of one specific (arbirtray let's say) integral total is a statistical no-no.
0
Posted:
#618
Quote Originally Posted by mandy1:
Herb, I have a fellow gambler we always says take the highest total and bet over and the lowest and bet under. He has done well with these plays. hope to see your play for today. Thanks for posting.
Herb, I have a fellow gambler we always says take the highest total and bet over and the lowest and bet under. He has done well with these plays. hope to see your play for today. Thanks for posting.
Do you really believe it's THAT simple??? Well, let's all quit our day jobs and bet over on the high and under on the low!
It's nothing but a trend. Wrigley Field used to be a mecca for overs and the books would actually stop taking bets on the total. Now, the under has been doing better.
It's nothing but a trend. Wrigley Field used to be a mecca for overs and the books would actually stop taking bets on the total. Now, the under has been doing better.Who knows...maybe the pitchers were paid to throw gopher balls?Maybe they found their duffle bag miraculously had 100K in it? I don't know but it was really weird to see that... 
0
Posted:
#620
Quote Originally Posted by mandy1:
Herb, I have a fellow gambler we always says take the highest total and bet over and the lowest and bet under. He has done well with these plays. hope to see your play for today. Thanks for posting.
Herb, I have a fellow gambler we always says take the highest total and bet over and the lowest and bet under. He has done well with these plays. hope to see your play for today. Thanks for posting.
I am in complete agreement with you. And I'll answer gbpackman's question ("Do you really believe it's THAT simple???") with some cold hard facts:
Since 2004, totals of 6.5 or lower (6,5.5) are money on the blind (or should I say, 'it really IS that simple'): 598-506-16 +52.32 units for the Under.
Most people see that total and cringe, but if you follow the premise: ANY bet in any sport that gives you a knot in your stomach is worth a second look; this one fits that bill.
Most people see that total and cringe, but if you follow the premise: ANY bet in any sport that gives you a knot in your stomach is worth a second look; this one fits that bill.
As for the Over outliers:
Since 2007 anything over 11, the OVER went 44-36-2 +4.62 units.
Not as strong, but the trend exists.
0
Posted:
#621
Quote Originally Posted by gbpackman:
Do you really believe it's THAT simple??? Well, let's all quit our day jobs and bet over on the high and under on the low!It's nothing but a trend. Wrigley Field used to be a mecca for overs and the books would actually stop taking bets on the total. Now, the under has been doing better.
It's nothing but a trend. Wrigley Field used to be a mecca for overs and the books would actually stop taking bets on the total. Now, the under has been doing better.Who knows...maybe the pitchers were paid to throw gopher balls?Maybe they found their duffle bag miraculously had 100K in it? I don't know but it was really weird to see that...
Lol. Well...
There have been plenty of quit-your-day-job betting exploits that come and go in props. It is harder now than ever before, but when you find something you just grind it out and be conservative about getting out once you've made profits.
Example: About 4 years back I think it was, books were putting out dog odds on the "Yes" for 'Will there be a run scored in the first inning. I checked my database and saw this:
29,542 instances where a run was NOT scored in the 1st ("No")
31,600 instances where a run WAS scored in the 1st ("Yes")
So a little bit more than 50% of the time in a huge sample size and you're getting dog odds...this one was simple. I was grinding out "Yes" for every single bet....as were some other people that picked up on the trend and now it is dead. You can't really find an edge in this prop but the books actually skrewed up there.
Another example where things were really simple:
Up until 2011, HOME DOGS were money on the blind at 2399-2861 45.6% +98.07 units SU. I rode that for a couple of seasons picking up on it in 2009. In 2011, I'm not sure what changed, but I still sort of stay away from betting against home dogs. I have a lot of home dog systems I still bet, but they aren't as simple as just a straight up home dog.
If something is very simple and broad and seems too good to be true: ask yourself this: is it logical? is it contrarian (ie. are the books probably aware of this loophole but not covering it because the public doesn't like to make this bet and likely never will (ie. betting the under on super low totals?). If yes to those, than it might be too good and it might be true!
0
Posted:
#623
Quote Originally Posted by herbshack:
For today:
For today:
(Goes off soon!)
Risk $119 to win $183.26
Atlanta Braves +154 vs Miami Marlins
Been bullish on the Braves lately. I like an undervalued, sub .400 team on a nice run. Atlanta could be putting a little something together. Grinding the risk and value...
Glad I missed it!
0
Posted:
#625
Quote Originally Posted by herbshack:
Winner there. Just didn't come in well enough as a top play.
For today:
$273 to win $425.88
Baltimore Orioles +156
vs Boston Red Sox
SYSTEM: A that just lost by a single run and had scored runs in more innings than the other team goes 552-473 +82.44 units SU. - This is a powerful trend for many reasons; a couple of them being: A. Positive performance since inception. B. Logic- It is easy to understand why this one might work intuitively: if a team just lost, they'll be undervalued; dig a little deeper and you'll see that the loss really felt like a fluke....maybe it even was, but more importantly, it FELT like a win, but wasn't for our guys. Value + motivation here for the O's.
Your thoughts on the system are most welcome. That would be good discussion in this thread (as the topic has come up).
GBpackman, this was posted this a few posts above you
0
Hot Forum Topics
