im running a system in the handicapping zone on this subject.... its up around 20 units on the season. but here is my spin on it..
going into a set of all the series about to start, ill cap each game of the series, and try and SELECT a team that will not be swept,, im playing almost all dogs in doing this.. here is an example of how it works.
Reds (+1.30) game 1 of series, laying $50 to win $65.
if reds win, then series is over (no more plays). if reds lose game 1 then game 2 ill take. Reds (+1.20), laying $100 to win $120.. if reds win then series is over and ill profit $70. if reds had won game 1 then my profit would have been $65.. if reds lose game 2 however, then ill play for game 3 of series,, Reds (+1.20) laying $150 to win $180... you see on game 3, ill just try and come out... its sort of a progressive dog betting system.. you need to know (by projected pithching matchup) if your team is going to be a dog in all 3 games.....
having said that, i am starting to play a series in which a team may be a dog, then a small favorite,, key word meaning dog.... during my example above, ive got 3 chances to make a small profit -- if a sweep occurs then i lose $300..... if you would like to see a day by day of this, go to the handicapping zone here....
going into a set of all the series about to start, ill cap each game of the series, and try and SELECT a team that will not be swept,, im playing almost all dogs in doing this.. here is an example of how it works.
Reds (+1.30) game 1 of series, laying $50 to win $65.
if reds win, then series is over (no more plays). if reds lose game 1 then game 2 ill take. Reds (+1.20), laying $100 to win $120.. if reds win then series is over and ill profit $70. if reds had won game 1 then my profit would have been $65.. if reds lose game 2 however, then ill play for game 3 of series,, Reds (+1.20) laying $150 to win $180... you see on game 3, ill just try and come out... its sort of a progressive dog betting system.. you need to know (by projected pithching matchup) if your team is going to be a dog in all 3 games.....
having said that, i am starting to play a series in which a team may be a dog, then a small favorite,, key word meaning dog.... during my example above, ive got 3 chances to make a small profit -- if a sweep occurs then i lose $300..... if you would like to see a day by day of this, go to the handicapping zone here....
by the way, this weekend i got lucky and had 4 dogs win on friday, leaving me with only colorado.. i selected 5 series this weekend.. reds, braves, bos, tex, and col... either way its going to be a small profit,,
1 other thing, if the juice is high on dog, then i may go 50-50-100.... im just trying to avoid the sweep and make a profit..
by the way, i wouldnt play all,,, my numbers show it wouldnt work.. there are going to be alot of sweeps over the course of season..
1 other thing, if the juice is high on dog, then i may go 50-50-100.... im just trying to avoid the sweep and make a profit..
by the way, i wouldnt play all,,, my numbers show it wouldnt work.. there are going to be alot of sweeps over the course of season..
Jman, you cant play all the series,,, you must cap the series much like you would an individual game....
For example, my week 3 ended today and week 4 starts tomorrow.. I will select 5 of the 15 series to use for first half of next week.. the first 3 are:
Cubs +1.20
Atl +1.50
Col +1.15
now in doing this, i know the teams i selected will either be a dog or a small favorite and im trying to avoid the sweep.. Cubs have zambran against johnson tomorrow night and mitre against webb on tuesday so they will be a dog in those.. remember im using all 3 games to get just 1 win,, im not just picking game 3 of a series in which a team has lost the first 2.. i think it has potential..
For example, my week 3 ended today and week 4 starts tomorrow.. I will select 5 of the 15 series to use for first half of next week.. the first 3 are:
Cubs +1.20
Atl +1.50
Col +1.15
now in doing this, i know the teams i selected will either be a dog or a small favorite and im trying to avoid the sweep.. Cubs have zambran against johnson tomorrow night and mitre against webb on tuesday so they will be a dog in those.. remember im using all 3 games to get just 1 win,, im not just picking game 3 of a series in which a team has lost the first 2.. i think it has potential..
Historically,
MLB teams coming off two str losses return slightly more than teams coming off two str wins,
this was over an enormous sample size, I did not have patience to break it down by series,
but given MLB is bet in like a half of one percent market, it may be enough of a winner to overcome the miniscule take, but I would be surprised if we're talking anything that will make anyone rich.
MLB teams coming off two str losses return slightly more than teams coming off two str wins,
this was over an enormous sample size, I did not have patience to break it down by series,
but given MLB is bet in like a half of one percent market, it may be enough of a winner to overcome the miniscule take, but I would be surprised if we're talking anything that will make anyone rich.
SSI- I wasn`t blindly playing game 3 per say..
I like what your presenting with this....are you going to keep using smallish dogs, say 140- or less or are you taking very large dogs as well?
An example, would you take series with say game two a pitcher like Pedro and then Shilling for game 3, or would you pass on these situations? wehn the dog would be huge in both 2 and 3?
I like what your presenting with this....are you going to keep using smallish dogs, say 140- or less or are you taking very large dogs as well?
An example, would you take series with say game two a pitcher like Pedro and then Shilling for game 3, or would you pass on these situations? wehn the dog would be huge in both 2 and 3?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Journeyman:
SSI- I wasn`t blindly playing game 3 per say..
I like what your presenting with this....are you going to keep using smallish dogs, say 140- or less or are you taking very large dogs as well?
An example, would you take series with say game two a pitcher like Pedro and then Shilling for game 3, or would you pass on these situations? wehn the dog would be huge in both 2 and 3?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those are great questions. I would love some insight as to what successful guys would do in those situations.
SSI- I wasn`t blindly playing game 3 per say..
I like what your presenting with this....are you going to keep using smallish dogs, say 140- or less or are you taking very large dogs as well?
An example, would you take series with say game two a pitcher like Pedro and then Shilling for game 3, or would you pass on these situations? wehn the dog would be huge in both 2 and 3?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those are great questions. I would love some insight as to what successful guys would do in those situations.
A mix on the martingale system is still essentially the martingale system. Any betting system where you double up after a loss is flawed from the get-go.
As for a "no-sweep" system -- you think that if a team that you know "won't get swept" loses the first 2 of a 3-game series that Vegas doesn't adjust that line for the same line of thinking?
It's like when people say take the Yankees no matter what if Tampa Bay has won the first 2 of 3 -- because we all know the Yankees won't get swept by the DRays. Problem is, the line on the third game already reflects that the Yankees likely won't get swept, so you aren't generating any value (and likely getting *less* value).
As with anything else in sports gambling -- if you want to win long-term, you must look for value -- not play "system" plays where you take Team X no matter the line.
I'd be willing to bet that if you look at the past 5 years or so data on those big public favorites that people really thought wouldn't be swept in the last game of the series -- betting the underdog that last game I bet has been profitable.
As for a "no-sweep" system -- you think that if a team that you know "won't get swept" loses the first 2 of a 3-game series that Vegas doesn't adjust that line for the same line of thinking?
It's like when people say take the Yankees no matter what if Tampa Bay has won the first 2 of 3 -- because we all know the Yankees won't get swept by the DRays. Problem is, the line on the third game already reflects that the Yankees likely won't get swept, so you aren't generating any value (and likely getting *less* value).
As with anything else in sports gambling -- if you want to win long-term, you must look for value -- not play "system" plays where you take Team X no matter the line.
I'd be willing to bet that if you look at the past 5 years or so data on those big public favorites that people really thought wouldn't be swept in the last game of the series -- betting the underdog that last game I bet has been profitable.
ok guys, i for one am not a systems guy and wouldnt recommend them either.. im merely toying with this on a very small scale.. $50 on game 1, $50 or $100 on game 2, then $100 or $150 on game 3 if need be..... not much money that im talking about and by taking the dogs- we know our max loss will be at most $300 if we go to the max bet, so guys this is very small money.....
Now for you Jman, first off i probably wouldnt select Tampa Bay playing at Boston having to face Lowe, Martinez, Schilling,,,,, that would be a series that i would have skipped... once again im telling you that im capping the series first, so its not a 100% mechanical system... and yes i play some big dogs -- i had atlanta +1.70 against beckett on friday...
Now for you Jman, first off i probably wouldnt select Tampa Bay playing at Boston having to face Lowe, Martinez, Schilling,,,,, that would be a series that i would have skipped... once again im telling you that im capping the series first, so its not a 100% mechanical system... and yes i play some big dogs -- i had atlanta +1.70 against beckett on friday...
i try to locate 1 or 2 home teams out of 15 series.
last year the home team won either game 1 or game 2 82% of the time in a 3 game or longer series.
home teams were swept 48 times. a lot of the time by teams that should sweep them.
home teams swept the visitor 109 times.
knowing i have a 82 % chance of getting out by game 2 and 7% chance of being swept , i lean to finding a couple of home teams with good pitching matchups for the 3 days.
another trend last year in the AL was when a team won the last road series before heading home. that home series they won either game 1 or game 2 , 59 out of 64 times. they were swept only twice. both times by better teams that i wouldnt have bet against.
when they swept the last road series they were 15-0 getting a home win by game 2 during the first trip home.
i think their is money to made looking for 1 or 2 teams per 15 series to win a game out of 3.
hope some of that made sense.
i forgot to mention that the above numbers do not include the tigers or brewers from last year. under no circumstances would i have taken either of those last year. i looked at the other 28 teams as possibles.
keep in mind that about 72 % of the time it didnt matter what team you took. both sides won at least 1 game.
getting to game 3 still needing a win can get expensive. you need a good size bank.
[This message was edited by KING0818 on April 26, 2004 at 07:11 AM.]
last year the home team won either game 1 or game 2 82% of the time in a 3 game or longer series.
home teams were swept 48 times. a lot of the time by teams that should sweep them.
home teams swept the visitor 109 times.
knowing i have a 82 % chance of getting out by game 2 and 7% chance of being swept , i lean to finding a couple of home teams with good pitching matchups for the 3 days.
another trend last year in the AL was when a team won the last road series before heading home. that home series they won either game 1 or game 2 , 59 out of 64 times. they were swept only twice. both times by better teams that i wouldnt have bet against.
when they swept the last road series they were 15-0 getting a home win by game 2 during the first trip home.
i think their is money to made looking for 1 or 2 teams per 15 series to win a game out of 3.
hope some of that made sense.
i forgot to mention that the above numbers do not include the tigers or brewers from last year. under no circumstances would i have taken either of those last year. i looked at the other 28 teams as possibles.
keep in mind that about 72 % of the time it didnt matter what team you took. both sides won at least 1 game.
getting to game 3 still needing a win can get expensive. you need a good size bank.
[This message was edited by KING0818 on April 26, 2004 at 07:11 AM.]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sound of Silence:
A mix on the martingale system is still essentially the martingale system. Any betting system where you double up after a loss is flawed from the get-go.
As for a "no-sweep" system -- you think that if a team that you know "won't get swept" loses the first 2 of a 3-game series that Vegas doesn't adjust that line for the same line of thinking?
It's like when people say take the Yankees no matter what if Tampa Bay has won the first 2 of 3 -- because we all know the Yankees won't get swept by the DRays. Problem is, the line on the third game already reflects that the Yankees likely won't get swept, so you aren't generating any value (and likely getting *less* value).
As with anything else in sports gambling -- if you want to win long-term, you must look for value -- not play "system" plays where you take Team X no matter the line.
I'd be willing to bet that if you look at the past 5 years or so data on those big public favorites that people really thought wouldn't be swept in the last game of the series -- betting the underdog that last game I bet has been profitable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
g post
A mix on the martingale system is still essentially the martingale system. Any betting system where you double up after a loss is flawed from the get-go.
As for a "no-sweep" system -- you think that if a team that you know "won't get swept" loses the first 2 of a 3-game series that Vegas doesn't adjust that line for the same line of thinking?
It's like when people say take the Yankees no matter what if Tampa Bay has won the first 2 of 3 -- because we all know the Yankees won't get swept by the DRays. Problem is, the line on the third game already reflects that the Yankees likely won't get swept, so you aren't generating any value (and likely getting *less* value).
As with anything else in sports gambling -- if you want to win long-term, you must look for value -- not play "system" plays where you take Team X no matter the line.
I'd be willing to bet that if you look at the past 5 years or so data on those big public favorites that people really thought wouldn't be swept in the last game of the series -- betting the underdog that last game I bet has been profitable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
g post
