Old Baseball Betting Method.

[wilheim]

Ok baseball bettors quick question. The 4 game series has become a rare thing in MLB of late, but every team still has a few on their schedules. An old method for betting baseball I once used was to bet a single unit on an obviously superior home team to win game one of a 4 game set. If you win, that is it take the unit and run. If you lose, you bet enough $ on game 2 using the same home team to win what you lost on game 1, and your single unit. You win game 2 thats is it, done, plus 1 unit. Lose and you go for it with game 3, same thing, bet enough $ to win back all you lost on games 1 and 2, plus the single unit. Win game 3, and your up a unit and done. Lose game 3, and it comes down to everything riding on game 4. All the money lost on games 1,2, and 3 plus the single unit. Obviously you can end up with a lot of money at risk to win a single unit. The question is how great is the risk in relation to the gain. Take the Yankees, they play two 4 game series vs. Tampa Bay in Yankee Stadium this year. The first from July 8th thru 11th, and the 2nd from Sept. 6th thru the 9th. On paper the Yankees should be prohibitive favorites to not get swept in either series. In reality, is this a good way to go broke, or a viable way to win some easy money?

wil.

 

[viking611]

I definitely like your tactics there. You can use that in quite a few series too. 4 game sweeps are quite a rarity in baseball. I'm there with ya.

 

[-Slim-]

wil, what happens if they do get swept that 4 game series? How many times would the system have to work for you to make back the money you lost on that sweep?

 

[blueedwards]

theoretically, this method makes sense. but, i would never do it for two reasons:

1) i just can't lay the kind of wood you would need to lay throughout the season

2) the 1990 world series

 

[PanchoSanza]

I think Texas and Toronto both swept the yankees last year in NY.

Texas was a 3 game series, not sure about Toronto.

Few would have enough stones to lay that kind of money in the 4th game since you would have lost so much in the first 3 games.

 

[SoundofSilence]

Because just like any Martingale method, it has major flaws.

Much better teams DO get swept by lesser teams.

The chalk you would be laying in the last 3 games to make up your money wouldn't be worth it. Not sure what the moneylines were on the TB series last year, but lets say they were around -250 to -300.

Game 1: -250
Game 2: -300
Game 3: -250
Game 4: -300 (and this line will DEFINITELY be adjusted if they lost the last 3)

If Yankees just happen to drop 3 games, which happens all the time in baseball, on that fourth game you end up laying 147 units to win just ONE unit on that Game 4.

Does that sound like a wise money management decision to you?

 

[wilheim]

Good points - I personally am not advising anyone to use the system as much as I am looking for feedback on how viable it is today. Based on last years final standings teams that would qualify as extremely strong home teams would be the Yanks, Red Sox, A's, Mariners, Braves, and Giants. While the opponets would ONLY come from a a pool of the worst teams which are DRays, Tigers, Indians, Rangers, Mets, Brewers, and Reds. This is subjective and up to the individual handicapper to decide what teams would go into play on and play against pools.

2003 MLB Final standings


wil.

 

[LEYKIS101]

What about the opposite system - taking the dog to win just one game?

 

[PanchoSanza]

A wise guy like Sonny Corleone would never try such a strategy.

 

[wilheim]

Pancho - LOL. but a very good point. I think LEYKIS101 may have the best point though. Why not play the big dog to win one out of four games, worst you can lose is 10 units if the home teams sweeps, or probably less if you just play to win a single unit, and not a single bet (plus major juice). What I mean is you really don't have to bet an entire unit to win an entire unit when betting on big dogs.


wil.

 

[NoTax]

Wilheim


You bring up a great topic.I would say that betting on a team to break a streak is a losing proposition but the theory that you mention with alterations is what I use and consistantly win with every year.

 

[wilheim]

No Tax - Glad to hear your input. I know there are several varitions of the home series theory. One that I recall is to wait for a team to be one game away from being swept, and only play them at the point. Maybe you could share some of your successful variations.

Thanks, wil.

 

[RobFunk]

after i saw the rangers sweep the yanks in yankee stadium last season, anything is possible. except going against me in the long run

 

[cecil+]

It sounds like the Martingale losing theory applied to baseball. The only difference is, one game does affect another slightly.

Still, to blindly bet a game based on this theory is crazy imo. Every game is still an independent event and should be treated as such.

Doubling your units based on a loss will get you in serious trouble no matter what the sport or the circumstances...

 

[nets2k2]

All it is is the Martingale system. Same thing the dumb casino players use thinking no way can Red come up 5times in a row on roulette. They keep doubling their bet till eventually they meet the table limit and next thing they know they are broke.

 

[RobFunk]

get good with stat fox, end of story. buy the dtv package buy stat fox. youll think some sort of MLB profit. it isnt that hard. its just sports. its just baseball.

when i see a thread like this from a guy like wilhiem, i think he is that knowlegeable he's just looking for some system so he can bet it, have it win. and giggle about it, and say "I'm only following situations that do this!"

 

[wilheim]

Net2k2 - The big difference between baseball and roulette is the probability. Red and Black have the exact same probability of showing on any given roll. The Devil Rays, or Tigers have a much lower probability of sweeping 4 straight from a team like the Yankees in their own ballpark.

wil.

 

[nets2k2]

Yes I agree with that wilheim, but just like roulette anything can happen and the tigers could sweep 4games against the yankees. If it were really that easy and profitable everyone would be doubling up on each bet in a situation like this. All it takes is one time to happen and forever to make back that money.

 

[SoundofSilence]

But you are betting against odds in Baseball that aren't like roulette -- so the flaw in Martingale still applies.

Regular martingale on a roulette table would be:

Bet 1 to profit 1 - LOSS
Bet 2 to profit 1 - LOSS
Bet 4 to profit 1 - LOSS
Bet 8 to profit 1


Baseball betting on -250 to -300 dogs would end up with the above Betting 147 to profit 1 example.

 

[PatPatriot]

Ya might wanna do yourself a very, very big favor,and go the other way..play the dog.