Due factor is something to consider. The reason why you have to is because the numbers move so fast, at some point they can move the number too much and create value. What you can't do is double up on a team until they cover. Just add it to your checklist as teams due to win often get some value in the number.
Due bets will defintely keep you behind the 8-ball, never try to make a losing team win. EXAMPLE: last night the Yankees 10 game win streak was broken, after the Yankees won the first 3 or 4 games the yankees were due to lose a game, you only would have lost 6 or 7 bets in a row trying to beat them...
The due theory has always intrigued me.
Flip a coin once: Heads.
Next toss is still 50/50, but if it comes up heads, you have two in a row.
The odds of the coin coming up heads twice in a row are only 25%. Since you know the first toss was heads, by betting on tails, you should have a 75% chance of wining the next toss.
But in reality, the logic posted above is severely flawed because it doesn't work that way. It is still 50/50.
Later,
Books Worst Enemy
Flip a coin once: Heads.
Next toss is still 50/50, but if it comes up heads, you have two in a row.
The odds of the coin coming up heads twice in a row are only 25%. Since you know the first toss was heads, by betting on tails, you should have a 75% chance of wining the next toss.
But in reality, the logic posted above is severely flawed because it doesn't work that way. It is still 50/50.
Later,
Books Worst Enemy
"Due" is for losers
You can only be due in a long term sense where you are on a losing streak and you stick to your guns and remain consistent in how you pick your games and money management. If you are a decent capper, then it will all work out in the end. Teams aren't due, nor are individual games. Consistent cappers are due to be all right in the end
You can only be due in a long term sense where you are on a losing streak and you stick to your guns and remain consistent in how you pick your games and money management. If you are a decent capper, then it will all work out in the end. Teams aren't due, nor are individual games. Consistent cappers are due to be all right in the end
Books Worst Enemy said:
Books Worst, I don't agree all the way. You are talking about independent events and given independent events you are exactly correct. However, baseball games are not wholly independent and especially when talking about the same team playing over and over. STILL, playing a losing team because they are due or playing against a winning team because they are due actually doesn't work (has never worked for me I should say.) So, the end result is the same. Hahahaha. I just want people to understand that baseball games are not independent events like games of chance are....dice, quarters etc. tulsa
my two cents worth:
i don't know what the stats are on this, but how about a three game baseball series where the road team has won the first two games. you could say they are due to lose as they'll ease up, and the home team are due to win as they will be determined to avoid being swept at home.
maybe there are other cases like this.
the other way you could say teams are due are on totals and handicaps. if the colts keep covering and going over, then you know the line will be gradually increased until it is >50% likely they won't cover and the total will go under.
so in that way, yes, some teams are due.
other than that, it's like b.w.e said about flipping a coin.
i don't know what the stats are on this, but how about a three game baseball series where the road team has won the first two games. you could say they are due to lose as they'll ease up, and the home team are due to win as they will be determined to avoid being swept at home.
maybe there are other cases like this.
the other way you could say teams are due are on totals and handicaps. if the colts keep covering and going over, then you know the line will be gradually increased until it is >50% likely they won't cover and the total will go under.
so in that way, yes, some teams are due.
other than that, it's like b.w.e said about flipping a coin.
My 3 CENTS...honest abe said:
I dissagree with you 100%. never... never... never... try to make a losing team win, and never try to make a winning team lose, it might cost you 10 bets before you finally cash a bet, the San Diego Padres are due to lose a game they have won 9 in a row I hope you didnt bet againt them the last 6 games, trying to make a losing team win or trying to make a winning team lose will keep you dead BROKE...
Rainbow said:
In terms of winning/losing straight up, i was just wondering if teams would ever ease up, such as when they win the first two games in a road series. i'd like it if someone had stats on this. maybe they'll say that the road team, the better team as they've already shown in the first two games, is worth backing as the public expects the home team to come back. you subconsciously consider the odds of winning 3 in a row, or in the case of the padres 10 in a row, and assume it can't happen so bet them to lose that last game instead of treating each game on its merits.
aside from this, i don't believe in teams being due to win/lose straight up. with wins comes confidence, high morale and enjoyment and the winning gets a lot easier. and the opposite's true for losing.
Scenario:
The Colts win and cover five straight, game six rolls around. Now, they aren't 'due' to lose the game simply because they've been winning. But isn't there some logic in saying they are due to not cover? After all, the number is laid with betting amounts on each side in mind, yes? So if you can reasonably presume that the public will be on the Colts in game 6, almost reflexively, it is then safe to assume that the line might have an additional 1-2 points or so.
Would the line not be due for exploitation?
The Colts win and cover five straight, game six rolls around. Now, they aren't 'due' to lose the game simply because they've been winning. But isn't there some logic in saying they are due to not cover? After all, the number is laid with betting amounts on each side in mind, yes? So if you can reasonably presume that the public will be on the Colts in game 6, almost reflexively, it is then safe to assume that the line might have an additional 1-2 points or so.
Would the line not be due for exploitation?
xpanda said:
I understand what you are saying, without a doubt the line would be inflated. I just know when a team is winning in Football, Basketball, or Baseball they just find a way to win, same thing goes when a team is losing they usually find away to lose, until the team starts playing better or worst, I try to stay away...
1. You are less about winning/losing when their is a point spread involved. You would care less who actually wins and loses.
2. You should be using a system where you are playing multiple games (Not just a single Team) and you should have stats to back up your opinion, although this is not a definant constant.
3. Enjoy tracking and working out a winning system. It is fun stuff.
4. Seek first to understand and then to be understood.
Good luck
2. You should be using a system where you are playing multiple games (Not just a single Team) and you should have stats to back up your opinion, although this is not a definant constant.
3. Enjoy tracking and working out a winning system. It is fun stuff.
4. Seek first to understand and then to be understood.
Good luck
Great article regarding the Due Theory from Rx. Daily Reporter:
http://www.therx.com/nm/templates/article.asp?articleid=3529&zoneid=36
wil.
http://www.therx.com/nm/templates/article.asp?articleid=3529&zoneid=36
wil.
