This question is frightening in it's reference to MATH.
While math is incontrovertible when it comes to long term results on most anything.....
There are innumerable other factors much more important in any singular situation. (When considering a sports bet)
Guys on here seem like there is some solace in the fact that a certain wager may be mathematically correct in the long run...... even when it is a bitter failure, a dumb-assed bet, and a meaningful loss of money in the short term!
People have not made half a dozen meaningful lay-downs of REAL meaningful money in their lives. That must be why quoted math facts (which are "book" smart and accurate) feel so good.
While math is incontrovertible when it comes to long term results on most anything.....
There are innumerable other factors much more important in any singular situation. (When considering a sports bet)
Guys on here seem like there is some solace in the fact that a certain wager may be mathematically correct in the long run...... even when it is a bitter failure, a dumb-assed bet, and a meaningful loss of money in the short term!
People have not made half a dozen meaningful lay-downs of REAL meaningful money in their lives. That must be why quoted math facts (which are "book" smart and accurate) feel so good.
I agree. There are too many variables to come up with a number that would be accurate. Sure you can find a percentage of how many times Texas swept Angels, but that has no effect on the next time. It's kind of like roulette IMO how some people think well it's hit black 10 times so the odds are better it hits red. Nope
But there are exceptions to this rule sometimes.
Not always but most of the time.
I'm 98% sure that there are not always exceptions to every rule 100% of the time. But even if it's not 100% 100% of the time it's still pretty damn close to 100% at least 98% of the time and in this case of teams sweeping 50% of the time 100% of the time I'm sure this is accurate 98% of the time most of the time.
hno: in the last game of the series
+1
This was discussed in great detail about 4 or 5 years ago in the old pops69 thread. (unfortunately my memory is like my pecker , not too long) .... I "think" it was something like 22% for sweeps of a 4 game series ....BUT , the pitfall was that the team down 0-3 was coming -170 or higher on the 4th games. So while winning 78% sounds good , losing 70% juice on the 22% losers made it not such a great deal.
I think one of the guys in his crew had deduced that playing the loser in game 2 of a dh was better long term than playing the 0-3 team on the 4th game of a series.
I think one of the guys in his crew had deduced that playing the loser in game 2 of a dh was better long term than playing the 0-3 team on the 4th game of a series.
