Baseball - Jun18 - Picks

[Raken]

Jun 18 Picks

Take Rockies -210

W/L 0-0-0 Units 0-0-0

Raken

[Raken]

Jun 18 Results

Take Rockies -210

Rockies 5-3

Season W/L: 1-0-0 Units + 1.00

Raken

[jerome baker]

why did u pick what u pick? thx.

[Raken]

<font color="blue"> why did u pick what u pick? thx. jb </font color>

Reversion to mean.

That is the major handicapping factor I use for baseball. Rockies had lost 2 straight to Padres. Reversion to mean calls for the Rockies to win. Then I check it out further and find that Rockies have the superior pitcher and are playing at home. It's that simple, so, I went with it.

Tonight, there is the SF-LA game. It's another opportunity to utilize the same principle. SF has lost 2 to the Dodgers. SF has Schmidt going. He had a bad game last outing. He had only 4 K's against 3 BB's. He usually puts up ratios like 6-1 or 8-2. Was it a tired arm or a touch of the flu that hit the team last week? I'm going with flu.

In addition, the run production indicates a SF win. In June, SF had a 10-6 ratio of games in which they scored 4 or more runs. This corresponds with a 15-13 ratio in May. In contrast, LA had a 7-8 ratio in June with a 13-14 in May. When you consider that SF had only 1 and 2 in the last two games they ought to score 4 or more tonight. Likewise, LA having hung 4 or more in 5 consecutive games ought to score 3 or less tonight.

Reversion to mean says:
Giants 4 or more runs
Dodgers 3 or less runs
Schmidt 3-1 ratio or better

Raken

[Glenn]

I don't bet sports really, but your use of reversion to the mean is wrong. Reversion to the mean is defined as:

the greater the deviation of a random variate from its mean, the greater the probability that the next measured variate will deviate less far. In other words, an extreme event is likely to be followed by a less extreme event.

It does not dismiss the idea of independant events. If black has come up 10 times in a row in roulette, it is not any less likely to come up again. This is very important. If you continue to use that faulty logic, it is going to cost you.

[Raken]

<font color="blue">I don't bet sports really, but your use of reversion to the mean is wrong... If you continue to use that faulty logic, it is going to cost you. - Glenn</font color>

I did a cut and paste of your reply to a Word file I keep with other helpful comments on probability from other "really smart theory guys." Comments like this:

<font color="blue">meaning the past hand or event is in no way connected to the future one.
if you do not understand this then you need to get some probability help. or you will have no chance of ever winning at gambling. Ray Zee 5-20-03

If you continue to play systems that "capitalize" on streaks in casino table games you may not lose all your money, but you will lose all the money that you bet.

Listen to Ray. Learn probability. Terry 5-20-03</font color>

I've heard all the ex ante, post ante, standard deviation "facts" that "prove" I can't win at negative expectation games. Funny thing is, I do win. So, when theory is in conflict with results, I stand with results.

Raken

[Wildbill]

Wait a second. You missed half the equation here. Giants scored 1 against Kevin Brown and he is giving up about 2 a game, no big surprise there. The Dodgers aren't hitting, but they are winning for a reason, simply put teams are getting 0-3 runs in just about every game in the last 20 or so. To say the Giants are due for scoring runs but ignoring the fact that the Dodgers are their opponent seems very faulty thinking.

The under is 1-1 so far in this series, going in I felt very sure it would be an under series. Dodgers games recently have been low scoring struggles mostly, especially their NL games. The fact that these two teams are running away from the pack and their long standing rivalry has given it a playoff flavor with each team likely recognizing the need to work to get runs and both bullpens are at the ready. While the totals have been 6.5 and 7 and tonight a 7, the number seems high in light of the propensity of games in LA to be under 7 and the added provision of the atmosphere making lower scoring games a bit more likely. As long as there isn't an 6 run inning like in last nights game, and the Dodgers are the last team I even expect to see score 3 in an inning, I don't think it will go over 5 with good potential for even a 1 to 3 run total score.

[Raken]

<font color="blue">going in I felt very sure [SF-LA] would be an under series. wb </font color>

Well, gosh, that's like really neat. Now, maybe I missed it because I was up on Long Island for a party this past weekend, so, correct me if I am wrong. I don't recall seeing anything posted to that effect prior to the series start. Or am I laboring under a misunderstanding, to wit: that we're here to help each other?

When I feel I have a winner, I post it. After-the-fact stuff does not impress me.

Raken

[mikelow]

Ok, Mr. Megachalk (your new posting name [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] ), I do see merit in your approach. The pitching matchup is key.

[Glenn]

Hey Raken,

It might be a valid phenomenon in baseball, but it does not occur for the reasons you stated. While it will not ruin your life if you don't understand it, you will certainly lower your expectation by not trying to understand these things. A reason a team might be more likely to win after two losses might be because they are more likely to be losing at the end of their rotation, and then winning when they go back to their #1. The opposite effect may also occur. IMO, you are better off ignoring the math then using it incorrectly.