Before I recommend any betting system for any sport, I normally like to run "trials" over a long period of time in order to determine if the system has any merit. After all, no system is worth a damn unless is produces profits.
Before getting into the specifics of the following system, I must confess that I have NOT run the numbers (W-L results) in order to determine if this system actually produces a profit. It would take me at least a few days to run all the stats and figures -- and I think readers might be better served by looking at the general nature of the system, then deciding for themselves if they want to consider the factors contained herein.
This system was first conceived by Jim Barnes and was first published in 1992. It strikes me as far too an over-simplistic way to pick winners, but one nonetheless that has been profitable according to the author/handicapper. According to Barnes, his system produced about 53 percent winners during the 1989 and 1990 Major League Baseball regular seasons, and slightly less than 50 percent winners in 1991 (since it was published in 1992, I have no idea how it has performed since then). However, since he focuses only on underdogs, the system was profitable because the winners paid higher prices than the losers. With regard to this system now being more than a decade old -- all I can say is that in baseball the basics of the game essentially stay the same from year to year, so I don't think the fact this is not "new information" hurts the system. In fact, if a system is worthy, it or its derivative is probably something that worked and was uncovered many years ago and tinkered with in subsequent years.
Barnes says this system is the "Quickest" Betting System known to mankind -- and it's hard to argue with how easy it is to employ. It plays only the underdogs. No favorites are bet.
The system is based on the notion that starting pitchers who have deviated from their normal level of performance in most recent starts, are apt to return to their overall consistency, or lack thereof. For example, a pitcher with a season ERA of 4.75 who throws two shutouts in his next (last) three starts, is predicted to regress back the mean of an ERA of 4.75 in the next start. But since the public will be more aware that the pitcher is now "hot," his current value will be inflated. The value comes from betting against this pitcher in his next start.
By comparison, a pitcher with an ERA of 3.60 who has been routed his last three starts can be expected to return back to common form at some point. NOTE: EXCEPTION WOULD BE INJURIES (this factor is not discussed in the Barnes system -- but I would be wary of betting on any pitcher with a nagging injury if he has not performed well in recent starts). If Kevin Brown has an ERA of 3.60, but has given up far more runs than normal in the last three starts (ERA last three games -- 5.16), we can presumably expect him to return to his normal level of performance, since he certainly is CAPABLE of pitching well and will be MOTIVATED against the next opponent.
I agree with this system, in theory. However, Barnes uses a specific model that I am not convinced works (i.e. is "accurate" or "useful") -- but I will share it with readers to be fair to him. Barnes suggests that all that's needed is a daily newspaper to make this calculation and the daily picks. Look at the pitcher's ERA (season) against his ERA (last three starts).
Hypothetically speaking, I'll use Kevin Brown?.
KEVIN BROWN
SEASON ERA -- 3.50
LAST THREE STARTS ERA -- 5.10
To calculate the NUMBER OF RUNS due against a pitcher, DOUBLE THE SEASON TO DATE ERA and SUBTRACT THE LAST THREE STARTS ERA.
So, in Brown's case, we double the Season ERA of 3.50 to 7.00 and subtract the Last Three ERA of 5.10??giving us 1.90 (or about 2 runs).
Barnes suggests doing this for every starter of every game. He admits the system is far from perfect as it will not project the total number of runs for a game (i.e. it has no bearing on totals), but is a somewhat accurate indicator for what can be expected from a starting pitcher in his next start, juxtaposed against the odds of winning posted by oddsmakers.
Barnes recommends playing the "live" dogs (NOTE: He does not quantify the dogs with numbers, so I presume he means every team that is +105 or higher). Adding my own caveat, I would recommend playing any dog +120 or higher on the road, or any outright home dog where one starter appears to have an edge over the other starter (as determined by run projection)
It is recommended that you wait until each starter has at least five starts (pass on first-time starters or late season games where starters are called up from the minors) so the statistics will be an accurate reflection of overall talent. For this reason, May through August is the prime time where this system may be useful. Barnes also recommends taking a lot of heavy road dogs, particularly when the road team has a quality starter who has not performed well in his three recent starts.
I agree that Barnes system is at least worth looking at. While it's far too simple (team batting averages, left versus right, bullpens, recent streaks, and other factors must be taken into account as well), I do agree with the notion that pitchers return to form and that it's wise to bet against short term deviations from the longer more proven level of performance.
Before getting into the specifics of the following system, I must confess that I have NOT run the numbers (W-L results) in order to determine if this system actually produces a profit. It would take me at least a few days to run all the stats and figures -- and I think readers might be better served by looking at the general nature of the system, then deciding for themselves if they want to consider the factors contained herein.
This system was first conceived by Jim Barnes and was first published in 1992. It strikes me as far too an over-simplistic way to pick winners, but one nonetheless that has been profitable according to the author/handicapper. According to Barnes, his system produced about 53 percent winners during the 1989 and 1990 Major League Baseball regular seasons, and slightly less than 50 percent winners in 1991 (since it was published in 1992, I have no idea how it has performed since then). However, since he focuses only on underdogs, the system was profitable because the winners paid higher prices than the losers. With regard to this system now being more than a decade old -- all I can say is that in baseball the basics of the game essentially stay the same from year to year, so I don't think the fact this is not "new information" hurts the system. In fact, if a system is worthy, it or its derivative is probably something that worked and was uncovered many years ago and tinkered with in subsequent years.
Barnes says this system is the "Quickest" Betting System known to mankind -- and it's hard to argue with how easy it is to employ. It plays only the underdogs. No favorites are bet.
The system is based on the notion that starting pitchers who have deviated from their normal level of performance in most recent starts, are apt to return to their overall consistency, or lack thereof. For example, a pitcher with a season ERA of 4.75 who throws two shutouts in his next (last) three starts, is predicted to regress back the mean of an ERA of 4.75 in the next start. But since the public will be more aware that the pitcher is now "hot," his current value will be inflated. The value comes from betting against this pitcher in his next start.
By comparison, a pitcher with an ERA of 3.60 who has been routed his last three starts can be expected to return back to common form at some point. NOTE: EXCEPTION WOULD BE INJURIES (this factor is not discussed in the Barnes system -- but I would be wary of betting on any pitcher with a nagging injury if he has not performed well in recent starts). If Kevin Brown has an ERA of 3.60, but has given up far more runs than normal in the last three starts (ERA last three games -- 5.16), we can presumably expect him to return to his normal level of performance, since he certainly is CAPABLE of pitching well and will be MOTIVATED against the next opponent.
I agree with this system, in theory. However, Barnes uses a specific model that I am not convinced works (i.e. is "accurate" or "useful") -- but I will share it with readers to be fair to him. Barnes suggests that all that's needed is a daily newspaper to make this calculation and the daily picks. Look at the pitcher's ERA (season) against his ERA (last three starts).
Hypothetically speaking, I'll use Kevin Brown?.
KEVIN BROWN
SEASON ERA -- 3.50
LAST THREE STARTS ERA -- 5.10
To calculate the NUMBER OF RUNS due against a pitcher, DOUBLE THE SEASON TO DATE ERA and SUBTRACT THE LAST THREE STARTS ERA.
So, in Brown's case, we double the Season ERA of 3.50 to 7.00 and subtract the Last Three ERA of 5.10??giving us 1.90 (or about 2 runs).
Barnes suggests doing this for every starter of every game. He admits the system is far from perfect as it will not project the total number of runs for a game (i.e. it has no bearing on totals), but is a somewhat accurate indicator for what can be expected from a starting pitcher in his next start, juxtaposed against the odds of winning posted by oddsmakers.
Barnes recommends playing the "live" dogs (NOTE: He does not quantify the dogs with numbers, so I presume he means every team that is +105 or higher). Adding my own caveat, I would recommend playing any dog +120 or higher on the road, or any outright home dog where one starter appears to have an edge over the other starter (as determined by run projection)
It is recommended that you wait until each starter has at least five starts (pass on first-time starters or late season games where starters are called up from the minors) so the statistics will be an accurate reflection of overall talent. For this reason, May through August is the prime time where this system may be useful. Barnes also recommends taking a lot of heavy road dogs, particularly when the road team has a quality starter who has not performed well in his three recent starts.
I agree that Barnes system is at least worth looking at. While it's far too simple (team batting averages, left versus right, bullpens, recent streaks, and other factors must be taken into account as well), I do agree with the notion that pitchers return to form and that it's wise to bet against short term deviations from the longer more proven level of performance.
