MLB Wednesday what you think ?

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
I never even once thought Cabrera would do so bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Well? He did as bad the last time and only time he faced the A's, which was the point I was earlier trying to make. He's gonna be a good pitcher but it often (especially for pitchers) takes a lot of seasoning for them to get there.

Ignoring the past can be very detrimental to the sportsbettor. Him getting lit up by the A's last August was huge red flag in my opinion.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never even once thought Cabrera would do so bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring the past can be very detrimental to the sportsbettor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is an issue of ignoring the past, this is an issue of ignoring randomness, variance, volatility, chance, luck, whatever you want to call it. Thinking things like "this guy is never gonna get lit up" is never going to help you make money betting sports.

[Tboner7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never even once thought Cabrera would do so bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring the past can be very detrimental to the sportsbettor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is an issue of ignoring the past, this is an issue of ignoring randomness, variance, volatility, chance, luck, whatever you want to call it. Thinking things like "this guy is never gonna get lit up" is never going to help you make money betting sports.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it was more about the A's than "never gonna get lit up". They didn't do well against Lopez, so I figured they couldn't do well against Cabrera. A team like Boston or New York I wouldn't have been so confident with, but the A's I didn't see. I also didn't factor in the fact that he hasn't pitched in about 9 or 10 days and this was his first regular season start in front of the home crowd. He was probably a little too hyped up. That can get to a young guy. Probably why he was so wild.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]


Well, it was more about the A's than "never gonna get lit up". They didn't do well against Lopez, so I figured they couldn't do well against Cabrera.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I'm talking about. Thinking like this is only going to hurt you when you are betting sports. If you are betting for fun/recreation whatever that is fine. But that isn't really what this forum should be about.

[Tboner7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Well, it was more about the A's than "never gonna get lit up". They didn't do well against Lopez, so I figured they couldn't do well against Cabrera.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I'm talking about. Thinking like this is only going to hurt you when you are betting sports. If you are betting for fun/recreation whatever that is fine. But that isn't really what this forum should be about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I said everyone should just ignore everything I say. (If they haven't already)

I'm new to all this so I'm just trying to pick up some stuff here. I'm just learning the hard way. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[MicroBob]

Palukas has been appropriately tough on you...and you admit you are learning...but I'm going to throw a little more on the fire here anyway so take of what you like. The good news is that you seem to be listening and are interested in learning.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm still in shock.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is absolutely NOTHING to be in shock over.

Even if you thought this game was worth betting at -200 then you should be approaching it as "I think there's a 70% chance that they will win. The line says he only needs to win 67% of the time to be profitable." Something like that anyway.


The Royals can beat Roger Clemens...4 astro pitchers can combine to throw a no-hitter against the Yankees...baseball is a game of HIGH variance and the best team only USUALLY wins (and much less frequently than football or basketball).


Anyway...statements such as 'guaranteed win' and 'I'm in shock' might be exaggerations of how you feel...but I do think they are indicative of a mentality that is not going to bring about success at this stuff.


you have SOME ideas on this stuff. Looking at the scouting reports and determining that you like such-and-such pitcher is obviously putting you on the right track.



Don't take all scouting reports as gospel though. Two scouts can be watching the same game and come away with completely DIFFERENT impressions of a player.
This is coming from someone who was in minor-league baseball long enough to meet and chat with SEVERAL scouts...some of whom were really good and others who were not terribly brilliant....hence the reason why so many trades come off as completely lop-sided when analyzed a few years later.


Example that was talked about on ESPN some on opening-day (that I'm somewhat familiar with as well) is that of Paul Wilson of the Reds.
Not THAT great of a pitcher (although got off to a great start last year that the Reds are hoping he can repeat).

Wilson was the #1 overall pick in the draft (1994 I believe) out of Florida State and had it ALL.
Seriously...EVERYONE thought this guy was going to be the next Roger Clemens. Not kidding.

He's had some arm injuries along the way (and lost something from his blazing fastball)....but it's also a case of him just not being as good as EVERYONE thought he was going to be.



Obviously there are cases similar to this all over baseball (the Dodgers gave up on Pedro Martinez....the Rangers and White Sox gave up on Sammy Sosa...the Red Sox thought Clemens best days were behind him and thus lost him to TOR, etc etc etc).



Again....looking at the scouting reports, etc is obviously a good idea. But just take them with a grain of salt and the knowledge that NOBODY really knows how good a given player is going to be.

[scott8]

Great breakdown, should be its own post.
-SC

[Bob L]

Dogs 5 vs fav 3 -another profitable day.Jump on today -lots of games.