A trend question

FairWarning · Sep 30, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by The General:
For the record, I have never tracked any baseball and have no idea where is an ideal start to fade or ride a trend in bases.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

General: A popular baseball play is to bet with the winning/losing streak after the 3rd game. You can win big, but lose once.

ATX · Sep 30, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Even if a team went over 16 games in a row, its odds of going under next game is 50-50..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

rarely is a sporting event 50/50 IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Whether a team goes over or under a total is not a statistical 50-50 prop like flipping a coin, subject to balancing out over several million random games the way you expect a coin toss to.

The line is designed to attract two way action, not reflect the actual game result, therefore it just has to be set appropriately to generate that action, REGARDLESS of outcome.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tend to agree with this. However, a lot of lines are not designed to get even action, some are designed to get one-sided on a number that is fair or even shaded the wrong way. Some LVSC numbers are not significant in regards to the actual outcome of an event, they are offered b/c they know they will get the best action for the house. One can argue this either way until they are blue in the face. No one is right or wrong, I enjoy reading other people's opinions as do many others. I feel there are two things at work in situations like this: 1. team mentality-- teams that usually play overs have that sort of gameplan in a lot of cases, they may try to outscore the opp. b/c they have a weak defense. 2. generally the numbers offered on a team that plays over are inflated until they hit an under. Rams two or three years ago hit a total of over 60 I believe. This topic can get so complicated that I forget what I am trying to say, and for me this one is difficult to put into words to begin with. I usually ride streaks if I am on a streak from the beginning, but I guage value and wager accordingly. I usually bet against streaks (like MINN today) if I have not been on it, I usually see value on the other side.

Tablarasa · Sep 30, 2003

Big Games: Yes, that is definitely often the case especially in football, and most especially in college football. The fact that there is extreme value in a number on the contrarian side is indisputable in many cases.

Fair Warning: Using a standard of 5 wins or loses, if you bet every single game from the start of the 1997 season to the end of the 2001 season, you would have shown a very nice gain on initial bankroll(at an average increase of 18% per season). I don't have numbers on the last 2 seasons, though this year looked to be a fairly good season for streak followers. 3 is a risky number to set the standard at though, IMO, for baseball, and I don't have any hard stats on how it did as a standard.

General: Thanks, I generally try to keep an open mind about these kinds of things so long as the logic is sound. I would like to point out what I was stressing above again to people though..the books don't care if the game goes over every single time, if the number is high enough to generate under action. And sooner or later, it will be high enough to do that, no matter how long a streak is.

ATX · Sep 30, 2003

I also think that if enough games are played a team will win 20 games in a row ATS. Not counting Oakland where they were favorites in most of that streak, I bet against Oakland 8 or 9 times during that run, lol. There is a very small possibility that a team will make an ATS run like that, BUT there is a possibility, and with a large enough sample size those minute possibilities WILL occur at some point.