I Have No Business Betting On Soccer
Posted: June 9th, 2008 | Filed under: Last Decade | 16 Comments »
I really don’t. The lack of thought and rational that was put into the Italy/Holland under play is alarming even to me. I basically chased a very slight line movement in the hopes that whoever was pounding a soccer total involving Italy might know something that nobody else did.
So I learn yet another lesson the hard way. Do not bet European soccer totals at -120 unless you have a real good reason for doing so.
Seattle +163 (1)
Tampa Ray +135 (1)
I love the Tampon play. The move on Washburn is me punishing myself.
Early indications are that Tiger will be available for close to 3-1 at the US Open. So much for him being overpriced. He will likely be the best value in the field.
Also, don’t force yourself to bet on Seattle, you’ll only cause injury.
Early indications are that Tiger will be available for close to 3-1 at the US Open. So much for him being overpriced. He will likely be the best value in the field.
This is a joke, right?
He is +250 at The Greek. Still, FAR AND AWAY, the worst value in the field at that price. He would have been +100 before the surgery. The significant increase in price is a good indicator of how (un) healthy he really is.
I am foaming at the mouth over this tourney right now.
No, if I were joking I would ask what you should do with an elephant with three balls?
TIger Woods would normally be something along the lines of a 6-5 underdog at the US Open course in question. The injury factor has dropped his win odds over 20%. If you think he shows up lame without a realistic shot to win, fine, bet against him.
I think that if he plays it is because he feels he has a realistic shot to win, and, for Tiger, that generally is better than 25%.
As for the elephant, I’d walk him and pitch to the rhino.
For a gambler foam at the mouth generally goes before the fall. Perhaps the best play against Tiger will be in various head to head match ups where he is large chalk.
Seth, could you start posting your picks? I’d love to know who you like this weekend. Forget this “Moneyline” character and his 113 “units.”
Miggy Cairo suicide squeeze in the top of the ninth, and then bases loaded no out in the bottom of the ninth. ML, I love your picks, but do you need to pick the ones that shorten my fucking life span?
I was surprised to see you weren’t (a) on the Giants (road favorites) and (b) chasing your KC losses in New York (even though Hochevar was on the mound). I usually check here before I fill out my card, but I was so sure you’d be all over San Fran laying chalk on the road, KC +220, and Tampa (haha, Saunders) that I didn’t even feel the need.
Regardless, good card today.
I am sure this question is inappropriate for this venue, but I am going to ask it anyway, because I’m really confused.
According to wagerline and Oddsmaker, Boston is getting HAMMERED. I think it opened at most shops at Boston +8.5, moved to 9, and then to 9.5. Boston’s getting most of the action at +9 at WL, and even more at +9.5. At Matchbook, the Celtics were +110 at +9.
How should I interpret this? It seemed to me like Boston was getting drilled, but the books reacted by giving them MORE points. Do they thing the true price is something like LA -11? Somebody help me out here. Is there a contrarian play in here anywhere? Am I getting my wires crossed?
Deebs
You are reading the situation perfectly Deebs. I am probably going to hammer LA tomorrow.
Reverse line movement can really be interpreted to mean a number of things. The possibilities that I know of are:
a) More “sharp” and/or “big” money is coming in on the Lakers. Books aometimes tend to adjust lines based on certain people’s picks, who usually also wager much higher dollar amounts. A perfect example of this is our boy ML, who is no stranger to moving lines completely on his own accord.
b) Any injury news, player developments, etc. that may warrant a shift in the initial number.
c) What I see as a huge “fuck you” to the squares who are pounding the Celtics. The more idiotic backers the books can squeeze on the wrong side of the line, the better.
d) A combination of all three.
That’s my take on it anyways. Either way, be wary of such line movement. Even though this game is sure to be a pretty big play on the Lakers, reverse line movement can sometimes be misleading. It takes a lot of experience to interpret any of this shit, and most people who read this site (myself included) are nowhere near able to do it as well as the pros.
The Lakers have been getting pounded on both the spread and the moneyline. There is a consensus among gamblers that there is no way the Lakers will be allowed to go down 0-3. ABC would certainly prefer a long series and I am sure David stern would as well. Joey Crawford, Mark Wunderlich, and, wait for it, Bennett Salvatore have been assigned to make sure that the Lakers do not lose. Combining their three H/A records ATS gives us 111-89 which is not quite good enough to achieve a p value of .05, but is is pretty darn close. Also, context matters. They know why they have been selected.
Now, Chris was kind enough to ask for my picks. However, I don’t like he slagged Moneyline so let me stand here and defend Moneyline.
Not counting Gold and Soccer Moneyline has gone 564 and 533 for a net gain of 80.915 units. This implies that he is betting into lines that should normally win 47.88% of the time (I know that it is often -110 and other times +200, bear with me). The P value of such a record as about .01, or, more simply, there is a 1% chance he would achieve such results (or better) through random chance.
Past performance is no guarantor of future success but Moneyline has proved to me that he is better than random chance (read: positive EV).
There simply isn’t enough data for me to judge his golf results with any kind of significance.
I know he is just guessing in Soccer. He knows too.
Now, as for my performance and my p value. I too am better than random chance.
I can’t say I care much if Chris wins or loses but I do want to protect Moneyline from trapping himself (although putting 8 units on various long shots isn’t really going to hurt him much EV wise). I am saying that IF Tiger Woods shows up to play he thinks he has a realistic (by Tiger standards) chance of winning. He has no desire to show up and get Nadal’d by the course. It is possible that Woods will skip. It is possible he will show up at 80% and play out of a sense of honor. It is possible he shows up at 98% and is still far and away the best golfer in the world. I just think option 1 and 3 are more likely than option 2. I could be wrong.
The Lakers are getting pounded??? Are you high??
You detect sarcasm about as well as you write-poorly. And on what universe are you seeing the Lakers get pounded?
Lord only knows where I would be without Seth Burns watching over me.
When I said the Lakers were getting pounded I meant that max bets were coming in on LAL on both lines. there have been a ton of people betting smaller amounts on the Celtics (often buying points), but most of the max bets that I am aware of have been on the Lakers.
moneyline: You’d be pretty much EXACTLY where you are.
Betting on the Lakers = good plan.
Oh, and Chris, I can detect sarcasm just fine.