User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.2603 seconds
58 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 12, 2007 at 11:43 AM (#2572637)-Pedroia's beard looks glued on, like a 9-year-old's halloween costume
-Beckett's horrible soul patch, the douchiest piece of facial hair in the universe
-Youkilis' Nascar serial killer goatee
Casey Blake looks pretty silly with the beard, but he's almost got it to a indie-ish level of scruffiness, which isn't so bad.
ADVANTAGE: Red Sox
the Indians make up for that by having the most bizarre and frightening name on their roster--Fausto “deal with the devil” Carmona.
Asdrubal should be up there. There's TWO Carthaginian generals with that name.
Vegas has the Sox 2-1 overdogs. tfbg9 has the Sox at 6-5, mostly due to home field. A guy in my office just yesterday bet the Sox at 8-1 to sweep. Kiss of death...
Good luck Tribe, I can't get too worked-up over a possible loss to you guys, since you were decent enough to have bumped off the MFY's.
The weather will be just fine tonight, right?
I was actually thinking about this, since there was just a cold snap through the northeast (here in NY, I'm sure it was the same in Boston) - will Okajima and Dice-K adjust? I know in Japan its mostly indoor stadiums, is this the first time they've played in colder weather?
God, those are terrible odds.
Too much. If I were a professional gambler, I'd probably have laid some small sum down on Cleveland on these odds. They'd have made me a mint by beating the Yankees.
Not that I think Cleveland is going to win the series, mind you...I just think they have a better shot than 1/3.
I'm starting to be a little terrified of CC and Carmona. Especially Carmona. I know the sox can hit, but I expect Carmona to through a good game and I think Schilling might throw a good game. All in all, I'd rather it were the other way around.
Too much. If I were a professional gambler, I'd probably have laid some small sum down on Cleveland on these odds. They'd have made me a mint by beating the Yankees.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm no expert on professional gambling, but doesn't Vegas base the lines on how people will bet, rather than what they think are the actual odds that a team is going to win? That is, they want about half the people to bet for one team, and the other half to bet the other, and Vegas is guaranteed to make money. Given a truly realistic line, more people would bet on the Red Sox than the Indians, so if the Red Sox win, Vegas would lose a lot of money.
This is a common misconception--trust me, 99% of the time, the line reflects their guess at the real chances of either outcome. You can't grind out a profit betting against all the NY teams, for instance.
Vegas isn't stupid enough to think that the Yankees were 2-to-1 favorites without home field in a short series, and the linesmakers aren't stupid enough to see this series that way, either. The explanation has to come from factors external to the likely outcome.
Thus my theory that you can make a little bit of money gambling on the postseason, but because there are far too few postseason series, it's not a sustainable plan because you can't both bet significant amounts and survive the inevitable swings.
I don't doubt this is true for most games (the 99%) you refer to, such as regular season games, or games in which neither team has a much greater fan base, or football in general, etc. But for high profile baseball post-season series, which might attract a lot of casual gamblers just looking to bet on their favorite team, isn't balancing things out at least a factor?
Trust me, you are not the first guy to think of this. And the Yankee line got bigger as the series opener approached. I work with pro gambler types, that's why I know these things.
You guys can try out your theories if you like...bet the smaller market teams over and over in big games and see if it will pay off. It won't, certainly not to a point where it overcomes the vig.
There is no "over and over" bet possible. Professional gamblers, to succeed, need to bet "over and over" because otherwise they could get killed by variance.
I have long pondered the notion of betting the "under" on wins for all teams. I would think that a disproportionate number of "over-under" bets on the season would involve "over" bets by fanboys, no matter what team you were talking about (but particularly teams with big fanbases.) Of course you could get screwed if the distribution of wins is unusual - if the level of parity is significantly above or below what you expect.
I do think that if you're going to bet the over/under on wins, you should always bet the under, because the centers are asymmetric.
MCoA, try your theory out, good luck.
I'm saying the fact that you have to pay 5-10% just to bet will wipe out any profits you might get by chasing big underdogs.
And obviously, nobody else has ever thought of your idea. Get rich! :)
If I were a gambling regular, tfbg9, I'd probably put down some money on the Tribe. If I won I'd buy myself something nice with the proceeds. I just couldn't get myself to bet on the Yankees.
I might have gotten laid earlier if I had. My odds would have been better.
A gambling strategy is only as good as its repeatability. Otherwise, you get killed by variance. If there are only two good bets every year, you can't bet enough on them to "get rich" without putting your entire financial situation at the mercy of variation. I'm just saying that I think there is usually a good bet in the Divisional Series every year. I made a little bit of money doing this a few years ago when I had disposable income. It's just a fun thing to do, not a "strategy" or a way to "get rich".
If you only did it a few times, how do you know they were true overlays, and not just a situation where you lucked out? Answer: you don't know.
EWK-I've heard of stuff like that. Maybe you ought to do it with Wake? Heh heh.
If I were betting on this series I would certainly take the Indians. Matsusaka and Schilling are big names that are keeping the line higher than it ought to be. I just want the redsox to win and I care about that more than I do about making a little extra money.
And the root-name "Hasdrubal" in Punic meant something like "aided by Ba'al". And Ba'al, we will recall, appears in Judges (and elsewhere) as Yahweh's nemesis (and in Paradise Lost as a general in Satan's army). He's pretty much another devil figure, meaning that if Asdrubal really is helped by him then Indians would seem have the forces of Satan on their side. The signs point to an Indians-Rockies World Series, with the Apocalypse following soon thereafter.
I've said, over and over, that this is not a sustainable gambling "strategy" becuase the opportunities are so few. You're treating me like someone who thinks he can beat the house and get rich, when I've said in every single post that all I want is a good chance at a small win once a year. These are categorically different things.
Are you really arguing that the lines for the ALDS and ALCS were off by less than the vig? If so, why did you say differently in post #5? If not, why are you so dismissive of what I'm saying?
You said they were good bets, not me...
I'm just saying that I think there is usually a good bet in the Divisional Series every year. I made a little bit of money doing this a few years ago when I had disposable income.
Betting on a series, maybe, but betting individual games, no.
Remind me next year, and I will show you how it's possible to win money betting one underdog a day.
Never mind, I'll tell you how I would do it now: Choose what you consider to be the strongest underdog of the day. Consider the starting pitcher, the team, and home or away. You can usually get a 100 to win 160 underdog that is a pretty good value.
Lets quit our jobs!
Anyway, I'm sure they do the same in baseball, and probably for all events, because there's not that much money in baseball.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main