TB vs Yanks, +300 today 4/19

[Amid Cent]

Anyone taking Tampa Bay at +300 today versus the Yankees and Randy Johnson? I think the DRays are going to be a little ticked after last night's beating, and Johnson hasn't looked that dominating so far. Of course...they are the DRays and they still stink.

[MCS]

I always think that huge dogs would be profitable in baseball. But then I remember that I don't know anything about betting baseball and it's the bookie's job to be better than someone like me at this stuff.

That said, I actually don't like this one much. The D-Rays do stink and Johnson does not.

[Tboner7]

I was really tempted, but I thought "No way Nomo can shut down the Yanks after being crushed by the Sox". Oh well.

[MCS]

Just like I said: ALWAYS BET HUGE DOGS [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[craig r]

My guess is if somebody always bet huge dogs they would lose. The main reason is the juice. The lines (usually at best) are 30 cent lines. Most likely the true odds lie somewhere in between.

craig

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is if somebody always bet huge dogs they would lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know.

I was making a joke about how in my first post I said that my intuition always tells me to bet huge dogs, but that cannot possibly be a +EV technique, and I don't actually recommend doing it here. Then, of course, the one time I say that, the dog actually wins.

This is one of the reasons I don't bet on sports.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is if somebody always bet huge dogs they would lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad guess. Historically the big favs suck and the big dogs are very profitable. The big favs get waaay overbet to levels that aren't mathematically possible to cover in the long term. People get such a woody for Johnson and the Yanks they figure it's a sure thing even though historically he wins 65% of the time and the Yanks win about 60% of the time.

The ball bounces real funny sometimes and and there is a lot of parity and randomness in baseball that never skews the actual outcomes this far. Remember the very very best teams win about 60% of the time and the dregs of the league still win about 40% of the time. When you get into the 70% to 80% range just to break even you are making a very bad bet.

Today features perhaps the biggest pitching mismatch imaginable with Lima (possibly the worst) vs Santana (possibly the best). I'm not sure I can force myself to pull the trigger on KC but a bet on Santana is a very iffy if you ask me. There is no such thing as an upset in baseball and even with this matchup a KC win is no big surprise.

[VinnyTheFish]

Good for anyone that took the dog here! Well done!

[krackerjack]

My book had Yankees at +425 ... lol. Unfortunately I stayed away from the game because I hadn't read this post

[craig r]

You mentioned the worst teams win 40% of the time and the best win around 60%, but how often do teams that win 40% beat teams that win 60%. I am almost positive from my research (i just moved so I have no idea where my notes are) that 40% teams do not beat 60% teams 40% of the time. Regardless though...

Do you really think that blindly betting lines of -330/+300 are beatable? I am not saying they are not beatable, I am saying that they aren't beatable by betting them blindly.

I think the value in these huge dogs is by finding rogue lines. But, you have to find them at sites that don't charge a lot of juice. For example, lets say the closing market line for yesterday's games was -350/+320. But, if bowmans was offering -390/+350, this might not be a horrible bet (as long as the +350 was higher than the true line). But, if the line at Bowmans was -400/+330, this is not as good.

And that is what happens a lot. The public bets on the favs, but the line doesn't move at the same rate on the dog as it does the fav.

craig