Lets talk Baseball...

If anyone has a Matchbook.com account, you can get LAA +248. After their "commission" it comes out to about +243.

[Feltin Licter]

Last year at had the Yankees...didn't hedge...the rest is history...

[Feltin Licter]

Betting Chicago is like this...you're rolling a 3 headed dice and getting 4-1.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
Todays lines are seriously whacked. They are what I call "playoff" lines. The books are totally loaded on Bos and NYY futures bets. They would like nothing more than to see both of these teams lose today. When/if these teams finally get eliminated they breathe a sigh of relief and count their futures profits.

So what do they do? They pay us to bet on Chicago and LA today. The lines are laughable and possibly two of the biggest edge lines of the season. Anybody on the fav side of these lines doesn't understand value in the least. I really like the runlines too!

[/ QUOTE ]

Even with these crazy lines, Sportsbook.com is reporting that 75% of the action is coming in on the Yankees. I think it's more likely that they're putting up these ridiculous lines because they know the can get away with it. The public is going to bet on their favorite team regardless of the line, so the books are going to charge them for that.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I repeat - it's not how good the pitchers are, it's how good they are COMPARED to the other starters on the team

[/ QUOTE ]

Boston won 54% of Wakefields starts and Chicago won 60% of Garcia starts. On that comparison I like Chicago to win at least 40% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I don't think this stat means a whole lot.

Second, maybe they do win at least 40% of the time, but they shouldn't be even or favored, and I think that is obvious.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Last year at had the Yankees...didn't hedge...the rest is history...

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am 0 for my last 6 when I have resisted hedging. Unless you are in serious need of money it doesn't make sense to take a -EV bet to guarantee a profit on a previously made bet that is looking hugely +EV at the moment.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
shouldn't be even or favored, and I think that is obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a homer. I'm a homer. But when I unbiasedly plug in the numbers like I do with each and every game it comes out Chi-110. I don't know how you value a line but the way I do it, it's pretty obvious to me. Boston has the offensive advantage but everything else points the other way.

I don't know how it will come out but on an edge basis I feel I have a pretty good bet here.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
shouldn't be even or favored, and I think that is obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a homer. I'm a homer. But when I unbiasedly plug in the numbers like I do with each and every game it comes out Chi-110. I don't know how you value a line but the way I do it, it's pretty obvious to me. Boston has the offensive advantage but everything else points the other way.

I don't know how it will come out but on an edge basis I feel I have a pretty good bet here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, suffice it to say I disagree. I'd start evaluating the 2 teams as equal overall. Wakefield is not as good as Garcia - yes. But, Wakefield is better than the average BOS starter, Garcia is maybe average for a CWS starter. Boston should get a slight bonus for this and a bonus for HFA, in my opinion.

This is how I evaluate things, and if you think CWS should be favored here then it seems like you think CWS should be favored in pretty much every game against Boston, no matter who the pitchers are or where the game is played.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Wakefield is better than the average BOS starter

[/ QUOTE ]

Bos won 59% of their games but only 54% when Wake starts so your statement confuses me?

[ QUOTE ]
it seems like you think CWS should be favored in pretty much every game against Boston

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much yeah, but it depends on the matchup. Since every Chicago starter dominates every Boston starter and the fact that Chicago bullpen totally dominates Red Sox bullpen that's the way it generally comes out. Doesn't mean they win them all just means they generally have an even or better chance.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wakefield is better than the average BOS starter

[/ QUOTE ]

Bos won 59% of their games but only 54% when Wake starts so your statement confuses me?


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Besides his last start, his recent results have been excellent.

2. His ERA is the best for Red Sox starters. His RA is the best too. His VORP is the best. The fact that he has gotten unlucky with run support does not mean he should be considered anything but a better than average Red Sox starter.

3. I evaluate the CWS and BOS as even, overall. CWS has better pitching and defense. BOS has A LOT better offense. If you disagree with this evaluation - fine. I won't argue this point because I am a Red Sox fan and you are a White Sox fan and the argument is pointless.

However, if you do agree with this, then I think you need to look past the starting pitcher matchups. Every matchup is going to look good on paper for the CWS. But the CWS always get good starting pitching, and the Red Sox don't. Yet, Boston won 95 games with mediocre starting pitching. CWS won 99 with theirs - a little better, but I think they were slightly luckier. Regardless, the difference between Boston's starters and CWS starters on paper is MUCH more than 4 wins.