Adding a Hedge Play

[Nolan Dalla]

I will have a write-up on the reason for this hedge play in a upcoming report, but it appears that hedging any game with a total at 10+ runs has a value between 8 and 13 percent (explanation to come -- it's complicated and will take time to exaplin in detail). One game fits this bill tonight:

COLORADO -1.5 (run line) at +145
SAN DIEGO (moneyline) +125

Wagering $200 on each play, hoping to win back +50 or +90, so long as Rockies do not win game by exactly one run.

-- Nolan Dalla

 

[djv]

I find that very interesting. Believe it's worth a touch or two.

 

[JJP]

Nolan--

Do you ever hedge the other way? I like to look for home favorites in low-total games (where runs will be at a premium); take the fave on the moneyline and the dog on the run line.

 

[Nolan Dalla]

JJP:

I've spent most of the day running the numbers on hedge plays (both ways) and will post results in a write-up in a day or two. The results are surprising to a certain extent.

ND

 

[slvrblet]

COL WINS BY 1

 

[taoist]

Nolan,

...this is a very interesting theory and I look forward to your follow-up. Unbelievably amazing how the one thing that shouldn't happen tonight, did in fact happen. Too bad you couldn't cash this time.... I suspect though that over the long haul this theory may have some validity....

Please post your findings either here or on your page. Thanks again for all you work and contributions here at Jack's Place.

...keep up the great work and get after 'em again tomorrow.

 

[taoist]

...pondering trying this theory out on KC (+136) and Ana -1' (+145) today. any thoughts? anyone think Ana will win this one by a single run?

 

[ssiproop]

Anaheim should win by 5

 

[Theboundbook]

If you want to gamble skip the hedge and take the run line. If you want to bet take Ana. I think Ana by 3-4 run lead at then end of the game.

 

[taoist]

guys, i'm simply pondering nolan's theory and to which games it may or may not apply. with the way kc hits lefties and the hot bats at ana, i would agree that most would think that ana wins this one by 3-5 runs....BUT if byrd has a great day....????? just trying to think this thing through....

obviously you wouldn't want to do this on a game you expect to be low scoring as it would have a greater tendency to end up a 1 run game.... i was just looking over the lines pondering this theory and this was one of the few games that jumped out at me....

...if you know me, you know i'm always looking for the "lower risk" plays, and this theory has really got me thinking....

i'm looking for positives and negatives as to how and why this theory may or may not apply to this particular game.... or if you think it may be better applied to any other games on the board.

nolan, this "theory" has caused me to get very little sleep last night.... LOL Please post the numbers that you ran to give me some data to chew on. thanks.


p.s. yes, anthony, i do have other more important things to be thinking about like that final on thursday night. :thefinger

 

[rrc]

Think that Nolan wants the game's over/under to be at least 10 1/2. Hope this helps.

 

[taoist]

...thanks rrc. i didn't read that very well, huh? LOL i don't know how i missed that.... although i still think that it could apply to some other games that don't have totals that high (like the ana/kc game), but now I see that his regression is based on games with totals over 10'. thanks again for bringing my attention to it.

so, we're looking at cubs/pitt and bosox/chisox....

 

[Nolan Dalla]

All the data is up and will be posted in tomorrow's report. I did find a strong correlation on the games that are expected to be higher scoring. Details to follow.

Regarding the ANA/KC game, that is nearly an 80 cent spread (far too high, in my view). Trouble is -- I REALLY like the UNDER in this game as we have two decent starters. Because of the strength of pitching and KC's lack of batting power, I really see a greater liklihood of a one run Angels win here than normal. Also, as my data will show tomorrow, the totals that are 8 to 9.5 do NOT produce profits for the hedge play.

I still want to run more data, over the course of the entire 2001 season. So far, I have run data for the first three months of 2001 and the first two months of 2002. That's purely random, so I think the data reflects an overlay. But, I'm not 100 percent sure yet.

Please see tomorrow's report and give me your opinions as to what you think. We may be on to something here that can ensure a profit.

-- Nolan Dalla

PS -- Regarding COLO/SD loss last night, that's the breaks. It was the first loss in 27 games that hit on the one run margin of game where the total is 11+.

 

[THE HITMAN]

Yup, COLO got me last nite, too. But's that's OK. I have been hitting them pretty good the past 3 weeks or so with the run line in the ROCKIES games that I play.........first time in a long time that I got snagged. I am usually not a big fan of the run line bet, but it has salvaged my season so far. as not much else seems to be working for me. ........In addition to COLO., I have been pounding the AL central with the same theory. All 5 teams in that division have a very low # of one run games. HIT EM HARD. .THE HITMAN

 

[nighthorse]

Something else to think about. I'm going to assume that a fairly large percentage of 10.5+ games involved Colorado at home. As we all know, a great many of those games have fallen under the total, which would lead one to believe that the normal percentage of those games should have been 1 run outcomes. Obviously, by what you stated earlier Nolan, there's been a lack of 1 run outcomes in these games. This would lead me to believe that what has happened so far is an anomaly. Can you parse the data further by showing the outcomes of the hedge play when the total actually did go over/under?

 

[TheShrimp]

Here's a little math

Here's a little math

Interesting angle, Nolan.

Two games tonight fit the bill : chi-pitt and chi-bos. Both about +140 on the RL and +135 on the ML.

Let's say you put 100 on each play (or 200 wagered per game). If a 1 run win by the favorite doesn't happen, you win about $37.5 per game.

If a 1 run win by the favorite occurs, you've just lost $200.

This is equivalent to laying 5.3-1 (16-3) that it WON'T be a 1 run game.

SO, in games with 10+ totals, if more than 3 in 16 are 1-run favorite wins, you lose. If less than 3 in 16 are 1-run wins, you win. From reading what you wrote, I am guessing that the actually number of 1 run wins by the favorite in high total games is much less than 3 in 16.

As always, having several books to shop your lines around is critical for squeezing those extra percentages out.

TheShrimp

 

[Valuist]

I'd like to see numbers on the opposite: totals of 7.5 or less where the home favorite isn't likely to win by much more than a run (i.e. Cubs last year). In that case you play the fave on the m/l and take the dog on the runline. When runs are at a premium, that extra 1.5 runs can be huge.

 

[nighthorse]

Very good Shrimpster,

To show the importance of shopping, if the average win drops to just 32.5 a game..........then the ratio is now 3/18.5.

There's all kinds of data teasing possibilities with this.

 

[TheShrimp]

In reply to Valuist,

Look at a low total game like atlanta tonight. Let's say they are laying -135 as the favorite, and montreal is laying -135 on the RL.

Let's say you put 135 on each bet, or a total of 270 wagered. Anything other than a 1 run win by ATL, you get back $235 for a loss of $35.

However, a 1-run win by the favorite returns $470, or a $200 win.

This is the same as putting up 35 and getting 40-7 odds (about +570) that it will be a 1 run win by the favorite.

TO boil the whole thing down. Here are two wagers for you to consider.

In a game with a 10-run total, would you make the bet -530 that it WON'T be a one-run win by the favorite?

In a game with a 7.5-run total, would you make the bet +570 that it WILL be a one-run win for the favorite?

It's possible that those are both good bets, and it is possible that for totals in the "normal" range they are both bad bets. Putting those two together would indicate that the books do not change the RL's enough for small totals and large totals.

TheShrimp

 

[taoist]

...nevermind.... my mind's on other things today. i re-calculated the math and it's correct. sorry to waste the space.