NOLAN - re:lines

[snoozing]

Not sure you would go back to the earlier thread but hope you see this: if not I will e-mail it to you. These are my follow-up thought to your reply.

Lets assume Tampa against R. Johnson -280.

If you assuming TB will win 33% of games you might also assume that the managers of the teams playing them recognize their weakness and therefore try to schedule their weaker pitchers. Just from a logical prospective, I would think that at least 50-60% of TB wins come against the weaker pitchers of all teams. Ad to this the total wins at the expense of mediocre and fairly good pitchers of teams that are the "also rans" who do not have a Johnson nor do they have the bullpens and offense to be a league leader. Once
(and if) you accept this logic, then it is time to examine point two.

If the great pitchers wind 75% of the time in 25 decisions the would mean they would lose 5 games a year. One would think a manager would also try to adjust the rotation so the great pitcher would pitch against the best competition and thus you should logically assume 3-4 of the loses would come against the better teams and the 1-2 against the ?middle of the pack team. Thus the chances of a great pitcher losing against a horribly under-manned team (Tampa Bay pittsburg, etc) would probably be less than 1 in 5. The lines for these great pitchers against the bottom-feeders probably should be ?400 to ?450 but ?the man? knows the public will not accept this line and therefore puts out a line more acceptable.

I might go back and review Johnson, and Pedro just to see their record against the cellar dwellers.

It hac been fun. I always like your insight: you have taught me a lot.

Thanks,
Bill

 

[MadJack]

bill,

just a suggestion and certainly not a putdown.

you seem to be looking for a reason to bet the heavy chalk. IMO that's the wrong neighborhood to be in.

try looking for reasons to bet the small to medium dogs. you can easily go 50% or less in win percentage but still make a nice profit.

it's much less stressful watching your dog tied 1-1 in the late innings rather than seeing your -250 fave being tied 1-1 in the late innings. too much at risk.

 

[fletcher]

thats why i don't watch

 

[He Hate Me]

RJ at home vs TB is -330 minimum.Big favs have been coming in nicely last 6weeks,that will change.

 

[snoozing]

First ;let me sayi love the design on your tee-shirts!! Real winner.

MJ, thanks for your comment. I am not really looking for a reason to play heavy favotites. Hell I sweat it out at even when my team has a 4 run lead going into the 9th.

The heavy favorite came to me as I was thinking about all the basic lesson I had learned from this site: one lesson that stuch out ws Nolan saying to never expect a team to perform beyond their capability. It was thiis thought that made me wonder why anyone would bet on Tampa Bay against Johnson or Detroit against Pedro. If you assume neither of these teams could win then why would you not take the heavy favorite.

Philosophy, statistics and logic were my favorite classes. I tend to think in a very socratic way: I ask a lot of "Why" questions.

I appreciate your input and really do not think I would bet on a -300 line but I might if I felt the odds should be more like 1:6

Hope you understand what I am noodling

. Same reasoning I started thinking about the parlays using the best recent records in a parlay. The question was IF the top 3 hottest (not best) teams were parlayed would they win more often than 1 in 4. So far the answer is yes.

Always asking why or why not.

thanks
bill

[This message has been edited by snoozing (edited 06-02-2001).]