MLB Division Series

[mpast1851]

Who does everybody like?

Twins @ Yankees
Red Sox @ Angels
Dodgers @ Cardinals
Astros @ Braves

I like the Yankees to take out the Twins In 4,
Red Sox in 5 In the AL

Cards to sweep LA and the Astros to beat the Braves in 4

[Lori]

I think LA might get off to a good start and possibly lose in five because they are in the fighting mindset whilst the Cards seem to have gone right off the boil in the last couple of weeks whilst waiting for the playoffs to start.

Astros look like a lock to me, but then they would, because I like the Astros.
They've won 17 or 18 in a row at home now, and have some incredible record like 33-12 (Estimated) since mid august.

Lori

[babigm]

But, but, but...it's the Braves. Blood pressure...rising... /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[emp1346]

Yeah, the Cards haven't done great in the last couple weeks, but they haven't started their regular lineup in those weeks either, or at least let them play a full game.

The Cards have had the playoffs locked, and they've known it, so they're simply resting, taking it easy, and waiting for the good stuff to start.

Cards to sweep...

PS... Atlanta sucks... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
I like

[/ QUOTE ]

But do you like the prices offered? After all the price is really the only important thing. The key is to look at the price and figure which team is undervalued. Picking the winner disregarding the price is a ludicrous approach.

Sorry just trying to make a point that 95% of sports bettors don't seem to understand. Trying to pick winners is a suckers game. But picking undervalued teams is what gets you the money.

Anyway I'll be doing my post season series handicapping later today so I have no idea which way I'm going yet.

[MrGo]

I like NY over MN in 4 games
ANA over Bos in 4

HOU over ATL in 3
LA over STL in 5

I really liked Backe yesterday against COL. This kid can pitch and with the pressure on, as he proved yesterday. There is no better 1-2 punch than Clemens/Oswalt.

Go 'Stros!

[Lori]

I just this minute took Backe in my cheap slot for post season fantasy team.

0.5m from a 35m roll and he'll get a start /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Lori

[MrGo]

He showed alot of poise yesterday. I was a little worried when he gave up that 0-2 single to the first batter of the game, but he controlled himself well.

I really feel Houston could sweep Atlanta (not because HOU is my team) but because they are the most dangerous team to face in a short series. The first game is crucial. If Clemens can win game one, the pressure is off of Oswalt, who doesn't have mcuh postseason experience, to win game 2. He'll be able to relax and do his thing. Houston has won 18 straight at home and are 36-10 in their last 46 games - a streak that is comparable to the best of all-time.

[shemp]

That's why I'm looking to bet on them when the price gets better, as I suspect it will. This is the same franchise and not the same team that didn't get it done in [fill in the blank] -- I think they are slightly undervalued right now, but I expect it to get more so.

I think the Angels and Twins may become good bets as well. Curious that the Twins are big favorites to win game one and big dogs to win the series. Anyway. I'm not excited about anything at the moment.

[Porcupine]

Considering the series prices, Houston is by far my favorite pick right now. I've actually seen the series price "improve". Opened at Astros -140, currently -135.

Although, I can certainly see why someone would like Angels at +160.

[Iplayragstoo]

I have to disagree here, picking the winner makes almost all of the difference. If you take team A becouse the value is great, or whatever your method is, and team B wins, whats your return? If you bet a race horse at 1-5 to win the return sucks, but its still the winning horse. Pick your winners first, then grade them for best plays based on the money line value. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Thythe]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to disagree here, picking the winner makes almost all of the difference. If you take team A becouse the value is great, or whatever your method is, and team B wins, whats your return? If you bet a race horse at 1-5 to win the return sucks, but its still the winning horse. Pick your winners first, then grade them for best plays based on the money line value. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you're very sure that the Yankees will win for example, but a $5 bet on the Twins returns $1000. Which team are you taking now?

[justin D]

Have fun at the Northwestern game?

[Iplayragstoo]

In a heads up series where one of the teams paid 200-1. I would put 5$ on that 200 to one shot. I would also call that playing the little lotto, not handicapping. If your going to refute the argument, trying using an example that is realistic at least a little bit. The last 200-1 shot I saw come in was the Rams in 89 I believe it was. But you had to bet that preseason. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Gallopin Gael]

[ QUOTE ]
What if you're very sure that the Yankees will win for example, but a $5 bet on the Twins returns $1000. Which team are you taking now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that the Yankees are going to win it and at that price I'd put a chunk of change down on the Twinks.

I think they've got a real good shot at the Series.

[craig r]

If the line is BOS -210/TB +190 and you think that Boston is going to win, but you do think there is a 35% chance or better that TB will win, then betting TB is the right play.

craig

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif i got yanks -165 and braves +125...small bets..

gl

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Iplayragstoo]

[ QUOTE ]
If the line is BOS -210/TB +190 and you think that Boston is going to win, but you do think there is a 35% chance or better that TB will win, then betting TB is the right play.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

In a very short list of games - short in camparison to the "long run" where % plays based on money line values would play out - you have to look at the team that you think is gonna win. This isnt a play that is going to repeat it self 100's of times where you can actual profit from a very badly made line. This is a short series of games where handicapping far outweighs the small amounts a line may be valued a different way. I do agree, and have played lines, where the value is way off. This usaually happens with my local guy who heavly weighs the favorites, so playing dogs has been better then they would be in vegas, or with more true odds. That being said, the bottom line is still the same. This is a very short run of games, and picking the winners at whatever odds is still the better play. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Lori]

This much is true at least.

If you are going to bet a huge chunk of your roll on a game, then a 1% edge in the long run probably isn't as important as winning, but then you probably shouldn't be betting huge chunks in the first place......

Lori

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
but then you probably shouldn't be betting huge chunks in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially if you are giving up 1% (or more!) of edge! 1% either way is NO BET. But as this thread illustrates some folks just don't understand.

[mrbaseball]

I'm only making one series bet. Minnesota! Highly underated yet very effective. Game one will tell if Santana can get it done and give homefield back to the Twinkies. He is better than Mussina and has a better overall bullpen backing him up. Yankees rotation is vulnerable here and this is the only series that I can see an edge in.

I like Boston to win but not at the price. Same with St Louis. Just not worth laying the wood in a short series where anything can happen. I see Hou/Atl too close to call with the lines offered.

Good luck to all!

[craig r]

i would definitely agree with you on series prices...especially with the 20 cents or more vigorish...

craig

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Pick your winners first, then grade them for best plays based on the money line value

[/ QUOTE ]

Giving up any edge won't get you anything in the long run and will make you go broke. Figure out the value and then see who is underpriced. It's just like pot odds in poker. If the price aint right you gotta fold.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a very short run of games, and picking the winners at whatever odds is still the better play

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm? I recall cleaning up on all 3 Florida post season series last year. Then again I though they would win all 3! But if there weren't guys out there disregarding the lines the lines wouldn't be quite so good. I owe a lot to the disregarders /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[$DEADSEXE$]

I think the upset of the four will be Angels over Sox...Angels have been on fire of late.
Yanks probally will beat the Twins but its not a given due to the Yanks having the worst pitching of all the contenders.

[GuyOnTilt]

Given the current lines, I like:

1) Dodgers at +193.
2) Twins at +159.
3) 'Stros at -135. (not enough to wager anything significant)
4) Angels at +157. (not enough to wager anything significant)

Disregarding the lines, I still like:

1) 'Stros
2) BoSox
3) Twins
4) Dodgers

GoT

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to disagree here, picking the winner makes almost all of the difference. If you take team A becouse the value is great, or whatever your method is, and team B wins, whats your return? If you bet a race horse at 1-5 to win the return sucks, but its still the winning horse. Pick your winners first, then grade them for best plays based on the money line value. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong. Mrbaseball is correct.

The correct bet is to bet on undervalued teams. Say a team is getting +230 and you think thats off because you think they'll win 33% of the time. Well, according to you, you should take the other team that will win 66% of the time because they'll most likely win...thats ludicrous. Over time, the team with the better value will pay you off and you'll be a winner.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the line is BOS -210/TB +190 and you think that Boston is going to win, but you do think there is a 35% chance or better that TB will win, then betting TB is the right play.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

In a very short list of games - short in camparison to the "long run" where % plays based on money line values would play out - you have to look at the team that you think is gonna win. This isnt a play that is going to repeat it self 100's of times where you can actual profit from a very badly made line. This is a short series of games where handicapping far outweighs the small amounts a line may be valued a different way. I do agree, and have played lines, where the value is way off. This usaually happens with my local guy who heavly weighs the favorites, so playing dogs has been better then they would be in vegas, or with more true odds. That being said, the bottom line is still the same. This is a very short run of games, and picking the winners at whatever odds is still the better play. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is poor gambling thinking. You shouldn't be too eager to win in the short term. Who cares if you win money this postseason...you may even lose for the next year or so. But if you keep betting the good values, over time, you'll be a winner.

[housenuts]

[ QUOTE ]

You're wrong. Mrbaseball is correct.

The correct bet is to bet on undervalued teams. Say a team is getting +230 and you think thats off because you think they'll win 33% of the time. Well, according to you, you should take the other team that will win 66% of the time because they'll most likely win...thats ludicrous. Over time, the team with the better value will pay you off and you'll be a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with this theory in principle. however for it to be correct you need to have a large enough bankroll to withstand losses.

[Lori]

I got one houston contract at $7 and one at $14.

Pay schedule is 25-25-50-100 so if they win the first round I've got a yummy freeroll /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Lori

[MicroBob]

Your original post on this was good but I also thought it was so obvious that it wasn't even worth discussing.

I was right about half of that....it really isn't worth discussing....but it's evidently not as obvious to some as i thought.


I have made SEVERAL bets where I thought a team had only a 40% chance of winning but was paying 2:1 or even 3:1.
I had pegged the favorite as having a 60% chance of winning yet betting the underdog was OBVIOUSLY the correct play.

I thank all bettors who don't understand this for running up the line to ridiculous levels for my value-bets.

[MicroBob]

I'm taking.....

LA +196
MIN +159
ANA +157


i also have LA +152 in game 1 and
ANA -101 in game 2 (colon vs. pedro) - the line has moved to -106 now.

[ihaterivers]

I like Houston big time, St. Louis, Boston, and New York. Boston is the one that scares me the most. I don't think Minnesota or Los Angeles are going to have enough offense to get the job done.

[bunky9590]

Yeah its hard to like a team thats won like what 12 straight division tiltes with different players every year??

Well at least they closed the deal in 95.

I can see them getting past houston, but NOT Saint louis. That team is wicked good.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree with this theory in principle. however for it to be correct you need to have a large enough bankroll to withstand losses

[/ QUOTE ]

How big of a bankroll do you need if you continually give up edge and bet on overvalued plays that aren't offering you the correct odds?

[MicroBob]

agreed.
if you have a smaller bankroll then you just bet smaller...but still take the side that you deem to have value.

if you really think that you need a large bankroll to take the underdog that is giving you value then I wonder why you would be on a poker-forum....
obviously you wouldn't want to be in the pot with "only" a draw that will come in for you a minority of the time.


in poker i'll value-bet my 4-to-1 and 5-to-1 draws if i have enough opponents. I might only have a 20% chance or so of winning the hand....but if the payoff is large enough then I know I'm getting value-aplenty. It's the exact same in certain aspects of sports-betting as best i can tell.

If your payoff is higher than the chance of it coming through for you then it's a good bet and if you're not taking too many 3:1 or longer underdogs it shouldn't effect your bankroll requirements imo.
In fact, it probably shouldn't effect your requirements too much even if you are taking long-shots that are 4:1 or 5:1 payoffs....as long as you think they have a better chance of pulling it off for you.


The Dodgers are +195. Meaning that if they win roughly 35% of the time it's pretty much even. Well, even against the vaunted Cards I believe that the 'Think Blue' magic can get there more than 35% of the time. Ton of chemistry....and the best closer in baseball. I think it should be a fantastic series.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Angels over Sox

[/ QUOTE ]

I see big value on Angels today on the +1.5 runline at a line of -115. Schilling Schmilling!

Angels at home and adjusting their record to the +1.5 runline puts them at 112/50 this season. When you adjust Boston to -1.5 they come in at 82/80. Playoffs games are historically close anyway and this runline is out of whack.

[MicroBob]

Mr.Baseball and others.

Any thoughts on the Dodgers +2051 to win the WS?

[Iplayragstoo]

Listen, I am not stupid, I do understand the concepts you are talking about, but you are also not taking into account what I am talking about here. A very short contest where there is no "long run". Handicapping in this case weighs more then the small amount a line may be screwed up. If the line is way out of wack, and you think the team the is gonna win is way, way to much of a lay, or not enough of a return, then should you bet the other side for value? NO /images/graemlins/shocked.gif you should just not make the play. The winner is the winner period. Now you just have to figure out how much you want to wager depending on the odds, your bankroll, etc. Just becouse you really love a team, and think they will win no matter what but the ML is out of wack should you bet the other side? Thats just dumb.

[mrbaseball]

That sounds pretty good. But I'll admit series/futures forecasting is not my niche. But I see this years field of playoff teams all pretty damn good and it wouldn't surprise me to see LA or any of the others emerge. It seems like an incredibly even slate this year.

Statistically StL and Bos look like the teams to beat to me. But as Florida showed us last year heart and momemtum can be much more important than statistics. So I'm going with (heart) Minnesota and (momentum) Houton to meet up in the series.

These are pure guesses though as nothing would surprise me and I see no clear cut favorites to dominate.

[MicroBob]

so....you think the Cards will beat the Dodgers in the opening round series.....but if someone were offering you a 20-to-1 payoff to take the Dodgers you would still turn it down??

[MicroBob]

yeah... i took the LA future for kicks.
ESPN was talking about how Gagne has been a bit overworked and how they will wind up really missing Guillermo Mota and i have to say I agree. But I still think the Dodgers have some terrific chemistry going and MIGHT be able to pull it off.

side-note - I saw Mota for a whole season in the minor-leagues when he was a shortstop. batted about .220, had a great arm and made some great plays deep in the hole, and looked pretty darn goofy as a 6'6" tall shortstop. Yet another good one the Mets let get-away.


I don't like the Red Sox primarily because Pedro has stunk so much lately.
The Cards had a terrific season and may prove you correct.
HOU has a very legitimate shot as does MIN.

[Iplayragstoo]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the line is BOS -210/TB +190 and you think that Boston is going to win, but you do think there is a 35% chance or better that TB will win, then betting TB is the right play.

craig


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In a very short list of games - short in camparison to the "long run" where % plays based on money line values would play out - you have to look at the team that you think is gonna win. This isnt a play that is going to repeat it self 100's of times where you can actual profit from a very badly made line. This is a short series of games where handicapping far outweighs the small amounts a line may be valued a different way. I do agree, and have played lines, where the value is way off. This usaually happens with my local guy who heavly weighs the favorites, so playing dogs has been better then they would be in vegas, or with more true odds. That being said, the bottom line is still the same. This is a very short run of games, and picking the winners at whatever odds is still the better play.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again, this is poor gambling thinking. You shouldn't be too eager to win in the short term. Who cares if you win money this postseason...you may even lose for the next year or so. But if you keep betting the good values, over time, you'll be a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I will say, listen up now....this is intended for the "SHORT RUN"....let me say it again if it wasnt clear enough in the other posts....This kind of handicapping is intended for the "SHORT RUN only". The very short run in fact as the playoffs do not contain alot of games. Further more I did say that in the course of the season I have, and will continue to play, the value in teams as my local guy squews the line towards the favorites big time. As mentioned by Mrbaseball...he cleaned up on florida last year, but he also says "I thought they would win". So he handicapped them as the winners, he didnt bet them strickly on thier potential value alone. Handicap first value second. Now for the record, here are my picks

Series-
Minn
St Louis
Boston
Houston

I have not even seen the series prices yet, but I will decide who to play based on my teams I have choosen, and then by the lines I get. Good luck to you all! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[GuyOnTilt]

If the line is way out of wack, and you think the team the is gonna win is way, way to much of a lay, or not enough of a return, then should you bet the other side for value? NO you should just not make the play.

You are completely incorrect. To put this into a poker terms and make it very clear how wrong you are, let's say I am headsup on the turn against an opponent whose cards are faceup and I can see that I have exactly 7 outs against him. He has bet all-in and I am getting 10:1 on my call. Your logic would have me folding, i.e. not taking the wager, because I know that my hand (team) is not going to win 50% of the time. The correct play though is to take the wager that is being offered to you, regardless of the fact that you'll only win the wager less than 1 out of 6 times. Your logic is seriously flawed.

Thats just dumb.

Yes it is.

GoT

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to disagree here, picking the winner makes almost all of the difference. If you take team A becouse the value is great, or whatever your method is, and team B wins, whats your return? If you bet a race horse at 1-5 to win the return sucks, but its still the winning horse.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/mad.gif


YIKES!

[Iplayragstoo]

Ok, I am gonna stop this debate now as I am getting no where with it. I will wish you luck, and I hope that the losses you take by betting the better "value" pays off for you in the long run..say 10-12 years from now. That should be a good amount of MLB playoff games to justify the long term, from the short term. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[GuyOnTilt]

Ok, I am gonna stop this debate now as I am getting no where with it.

And you never will if you continue making poor bets.

I will wish you luck, and I hope that the losses you take by betting the better "value" pays off for you in the long run..say 10-12 years from now. That should be a good amount of MLB playoff games to justify the long term, from the short term.

Apparently you don't think you'll be alive in 10-12 years, so whatever. But since I most likely won't die for another 50 years and I value money, I'll continue to make the smart bets. Go ahead and continue to feel good about yourself for knowingly making bets that are -EV and thinking you're making a smart decision.

GoT

[MicroBob]

If i'm getting a 7% advantage on a variety of series/games by getting 2:1 pay-off (odds havce them as only 33% likely to win) in a situation where I believe they are 40% likely to come through then it seems unlikely it would take 10-12 years to reach a sample-size large enough to reap the rewards of such betting.

[Porcupine]

[ QUOTE ]
i got yanks -165 and braves +125...small bets..

[/ QUOTE ]

Scalf -
Good luck on the Yanks (my fav team, although I have Bos to win AL and WS/images/graemlins/confused.gif).

Although I have the Astros at -130. I havne't looked around much, but looks like we both got pretty good lines (you Braves at +125 and me Astros at -130).

[Iplayragstoo]

Thank you..I have been having a great year in both sports and poker, and feel very good about it. I stopped betting by impulse, and started HANDICAPPING games, and have a winning years for the last 3 years due to this. I will continue to make plays based on this no matter what your grinding methods may say. I am sure you do profit with them, but miniscule amounts over a long period of time. I prefer a more rapid payoff with a riskier method. But since my handicapping has improved, so have my profits...best of luck GoT - seriously /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SossMan]

Not that this is a big enough sample size, but....

When the Dodgers traded Mota, they were able to bring up Yhenzy Brazoban from triple A.

Here are two set of stats from the trade till the end of the season....I'll let you guess which are Brazoban's and which are Mota's.

W/L
6-2 vs. 1-4

ERA
2.48 vs. 4.81

Games
31 vs. 26

Saves
0 vs. 3

Save Opps.
0 vs. 7

Blown Saves
0 vs. 4

Innings pitched
32.2 vs. 33.2

Hits
25 vs. 24

Runs
9 vs. 18

Earned Runs
9 vs. 18

HR allowed
2 vs. 4

Hit batters
0 vs. 2

walks
15 vs. 10

Stikeouts
27 vs. 33



Don't let my avatar influence your pick...

[MrGo]

5 run 3rd inning is killing the Dodgers, especially since all those runs came with 2 outs. Ouch.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
5 run 3rd inning is killing the Dodgers, especially since all those runs came with 2 outs. Ouch.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for that....I work at a bank and I'm getting calls every 5 min from our CFO who has subscribed to a service that allows him to hear Vin Scully play by play over the internet...sounds like 3 of the big 4 have already homered....sweeeeet...looks like Gagne can rest till next year.

[MrGo]

You are able to purchase the games over at mlb.com
It's $14.95 for the entire playoffs and you can listen and watch in real time each game. Or it's $10 for just the audio. Working at a bank, I assume it would be difficult unless you have a cube...

7-2 now.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Working at a bank, I assume it would be difficult unless you have a cube...


[/ QUOTE ]

lucky for me, i don't work in a bank, per se..i work at the bank's HQ...and luckily for me, I don't have a cube...how do you think i've accumulated so many posts?? lol

[Iplayragstoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Series-
Minn
St Louis
Boston
Houston

[/ QUOTE ]


For the record I played 3 units on St louis, 3 units on Boston, and 1 unit on Minn...I guess that was my value play.