TUESDAY JUNE 17th

[E-Z MONEY$$$]

SYSTEM PLAYS 10 - 5 + $2117

YESTERDAY 2 - 1 + $360

1) Mets/ Florida OVER 8 + 104 300/312

2) Toronto/ Orioles OVER 9 +106 300/318

3) St. Louis -123 369/300

4) Texas OVER 10 +102 300/306

TREND OF THE YEAR SO FAR: had some free time today as I don't do anything, and went through all the box scores of the year so far. I had a hunch on something and was right. There have been 12 double headers played this year and yup you wouldn't have guessed that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them was a sweep. The team that has won game one has won every game 2 in all 12 d headers this year. So, that leads me to my stupid bet of the year and not a system play. Will take a flier on the drays for small amount in game 2 and hope to get lucky. Not a system play, but a trend play.

Also, the dodgers fall into the system tonight, but will not lay the juice on that offense.

Good Luck to All

 

[JCB]

Thanks for the info. I thought it was still undefeated this year. Gotta take a small chance on the Drays. You know Piniella would love nothing more. GL tonite.

 

[x2man]

Hey E_Z, by memory I have kept track on the total for the Double
headers', but correct me if I'm wrong, the total that hit the 1st game also hit the 2nd , except for 1. Most all D-headers have gone over.
Do u have exact number, thanks for info.

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

Interesting trend, or coincidence, E-Z.
I remember just a couple years back several people were arguing that doubleheaders are generally a good bet for the split.

Regardless, hypothetical Q here:

Say We've got Mark Prior facing Glendon Rusch in game 2 of a doubleheader @Wrigley. Sheets beats Clement in game #1, 4-2.

Also say I've already got game #2 'capped, by %, at around 70.
How much do you think I should adjust this # due to such a trend?

I understand that Wells hasn't been that sharp lately, and I certainly wouldn't touch the line with a ten-foot pole - not even on the run-line here, for me, on this one. Question ain't about tonight's action.

It's a serious question, not merely meant to suggest that such trends can be misleading, but also to try and figure out how some other forum users are employing these trends.

Let me know if you have any thoughts on this.

 

[E-Z MONEY$$$]

As for the totals question, I don't know the answer, but I will look it up. Do not have time to do it before tonights games, sorry.

As for whether this trend is useful or not, it's probably not since most games are seperate entities in themselves. Had we known that such a trend would have occured we would have cleaned house up til this point, but we didn't.

This surely is a coincidence as statistically regardless of the first game, the second game is always another entity which much be capped with the knowledge of the first game in hand. Ex. Did the yankees use too many pitchers? Injuries? etc.
Granted, the yankees will probably win game 2n according to statistics.. I just noticed the trend and looked it up. Hope it helps someone.

This gets into the theory of betting teams that are due. An awful thing to get in the habit of. Baseball is a streaky sport and over the course of 162 games, bad teams will go on winning streaks and good teams will go on losing streaks. Each game must be looked at individually. If anybody bet the yankees today solely for the fact that they are a better team than the yankees you would be correct, but would have lost money. Capping this game you must account for how Weaver has pitched, how the DRAys have hit him, umpire, etc. Are the yankees better than Tampa? YES, by a large margin. Will they beat them every game. Of course not. Just get in the habit of really breaking down an individual game before wagering on it. Hope this helps and once again, good luck to all.

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

I think you made some good points in response to my question about this trend, E-Z.
Thanks, and good work.

Myself, I'm a little bit apprehensive to put much stock in what are often identified as "trends." This, at times, has probably kept me from risking money in situations that I would later have regretted.
At the same time, this apprehension may cause me to miss certain regularities that would prove to be beneficial.

Certain teams or starters may have better (or worse) success in day games, with certain umpires, vs specific teams, etc.
Such situations I try and stay alert to, and any of them could rightly be called "trends."
The fact that the Blue Jays have won 80% of their games in which I have watched while wearing my Madjacks T-shirt is, by common sense, a pseudotrend.

My concern is with the rather large grey area that lies between these two extremes: the useful trends and the pseudotrends.

Unfortunately, even those trends deemed useful may have key factors that override their usefulness.

One case in point (and I could provide a gazillion others) would be Tuesday night's game between SF&LA: the fact that, historically, SF had done quite well vs Kevin Brown - including their matchups at Dodger Stadium - seemed to be a trend that one should not ignore. In addition, and while not particularly a "trend," per se, Foppert had been hot and the Dodgers bats have been abysmal. Identifying these latter two facts only seemed to strengthen the possibility of the Brown vs SF trend coming into play here.
Hindsight is, of course, but the strong Dodgers pen combined with the remarkable recent work by Brown clearly overcame these other considerations, in this example.

While I agree with the idea that each game is a separate entity in itself, we can only analyze each of these separate entities based on the information collected from a number of other isolated entities.
Almost sounds like a contradiction ... almost.

I guess, in the end, my belief is that recent streaks and trends should probably be given more weight than events that are buried deeper in the past. Where I have the most difficulty is in assessing situations where anomolous events appear to factor into the equation. e.g., if Glendon Rusch were to throw a complete game shutout (as if) in his next start, I would be wary of giving him too much credit going into his following start.

I guess nobody told us this was going to be easy.
Sure is fun, though!

Hope to discuss matters in the future.
Keep on chooglin' (CCR)