Heavy wood - What do you think?

[snoozing]

I am going to keep posting this till I get some good response. Trying to understand the logic of others. It will make us all better players.

I have heard Nolan and others I respect say you should never bet a team to accomplish something beyond their capability. This brings up the topic of betting dogs in Baseball. If randy Johnson, Pedro, etc are pitching against teams that do not have pitching opposition and do not possess an offense why wouldn't you take the favorite even with a line of -280?
For instance, knowing Tampa Bay does not have an offense, starting pitcher, or bullpen, would you take Arizona laying 280-300 with Johnson pitching? Why not?

So often I hear cappers say they never lay more than 150 or 160. I question whether that is sound logic. Would love to hear from some of the more experienced.

Thanks
Bill



------------------
Its not about succeeding, its about handling success.

 

[Man O' Vegas]

A lot of it has to do with simple money mngmt. and your win percentage. In a lot of cases it's a sure bet to lay -200 or 250 and so on, but to compensate for the dimished return on such big vig and the occasional loss at -2 or more units every time, your winning percentage has to be so much higher(65-70%) than someone who for instance plays strickly dogs(45-50%). Anyway, that's my take.

MOV

 

[stify]

money mngmt well said!

 

[cash]

one way around this is either reduce vig by
playing run line or parlay the chalk with the
under

 

[Talon92]

I have to agree the runline is the way to go on heavy favorites. Although, I tend to only do this with certain teams playing at home (STL, COL, OAK, and SF). I would never play a runline on teams like LA, ATL, & NY (too many close games). You have to pick your spots or just pass on the game. I have found the 2? run runline (if you have access to it) very profitable in a small number of games. In yesterday's OAK/TB game, the 1? runline was -110 but the 2? runline was at +180. I considered that a good value as I expected a blowout.

I don't think any team should be be a -250 favorite under any circumstance. When your team is going up against a Pedro Martinez, naturally your team will get up for that game, especially the starting pitcher as he has the opportunity to beat one of the elite pitchers in the game. Also, Pedro's teamates know what they'll get from him and the urgency to score runs is usually not be there.

The important this is, stats alone don't always determine the winner. Emotion always plays a part.

 

[Nick Douglas]

I don't lay more than -125 with rare exceptions and that is just based on my experience. When I used to play chalk, I would generally hit barely over 50% of my plays and that will not make you money. Now I play dogs and usually hit just under 50% of my plays and I make money.

I just found that no matter how good a game looks to me, since I haven't been able to hit 60% consistently (a -150 wager) there is no reason to play chalk games no matter how tempting they look.

This is definitely not advice for everyone because most wiseguys play chalk when they make big plays and look at a guy like flether on this board who makes oodles betting chalk. I am just telling you why I don't play chalk.

 

[pepin46]

snooz

i have been hammering on this for quite a while, and did a couple of pieces on the mjbb2201 folder.

just like winning or being up there in the contest is gambling on games. if you don't manage you money well, you will always be behind. i brought up this point again on nick douglas thread/picks of 5/30, where he picks two dogs he feels comfortable with, hit the small one and gets a decent return on his risked money. he din't pick them out of thin air, he 'capped it, and selected those two games. try that with totals or laying heavy wood. it doesn't work, not over the run.

also, the thing with dogs is not just picking them all, you must feel good about your selection, there has to be a valid reason to make that bet, not just that someone is due, or that is has to happen today.

a lot of guys went against pedro last night based on the fact that he had a string of losses against the yankees, prior confrontations with mussina, etc. i can understand taking it, but i won't play against him at +180 (no value for me) and neither will lay it (no value for me). that one is a pass. that is game selection. i have my reasons for doing it, others had their reasons for going for it. the fact that he won or lost is inmaterial.

also, you mention tampa bay. that is where you will find gold, precisely, because everyone is jumping against them, reason or not. they will get a good performance from a pitcher once in a while, and they will face a mediocre pitcher, and the crowd will still make them a +180 or higher. i will jump on that when the situation is right. this is exactly what happened with sturtze vs. burba. right place, right time, right price. quite an opportunity, and it came in.

what makes people bet for or against pedro or randy? i don't know, i do know that the price has to be more than right and the opposing pitcher has to have something going, otherwise, pass. laying it? never, not over 130 or so. nick is along similar lines.

game selection (value oriented). everything else comes from there, once you (we) learn to recognize value. personally, i don't always recognize it, sometimes i go nerdy and can't find it, other times it comes easy, depending on my level of concentration that night.


pep

 

[MadJack]

nick- you took the words right out of my mouth. couldn't have said it better myself. that's exactly how i stand on this. exactly.

 

[volfan]

I always say if you carry a lot of wood you wind up with a broke back.

------------------
Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered,

Those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid.

Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win.

Zhuge Liang

 

[Junior44]

Last night's NY/Boston game was one of those rare opportunities where there is a heavy line, yet the decision to bet for or against the fav doesn't revolve around the obvious contributor (Pedro, Johnson, Glavine, Kevin Brown, etc). Any time I can get a Mike Mussina (who has the best career winning percentage of ANY pitcher since 1990) in the +180 to +200 range, I'll make that bet every time without blinking. Doesn't matter if he's facing Cy Young himself.