Juicebeater: MLB UNDERDOG ANALYSIS (1990-2002)

[Eugene Michaels]

Guys,

Juicebeater's thread sparked my interest, so I did some inquiries at SSS Stats. The database I came across does not have the 2003 season, but a 13-year sampling (1990-2002) should be sufficient. I only did this analysis over the ENTIRE 13-year period. I can do an individual season if someone requests it, but keep in mind it may take some time because I do queries for all odds one at a time (i.e., +110 to +114, +115 to +119, etc.) for both home and away teams. Here are the results for the 13 years:

ALL Dogs +101 or more: 10793-14661, -84.57 units
ROAD Dogs: 7812-10762, -1.76
HOME Dogs: 2981-3899, -82.81


-85 units over a 13-year period works out to about -6.5 units per season, which can rather easily be turned into a profit by lineshopping.

Juicebeater, maybe you could INCREASE your profits by playing ONLY ROAD underdogs? Just a thought.


Good Luck to All.

 

[Theboundbook]

Interesting.......

 

[Antonio]

Thanks Gino!!!! Much appreciated

 

[The Big Tease]

wow....not questioning the numbers, but that seems off to me......home dogs have always been profitable for me......dont quite understand how they have been so poor over the course of 13 years!

 

[Eugene Michaels]

Tease,

Here are my results for Home Dogs by line:

+101 to +104: 9-3, +6.09
+105 to +109: 497-495, +26.85 (WOW.....Over .500!)
+110 to +114: 437-490, -9.30
+115 to +119: 341-464, -71.85 (OUCH!)
+120 to +124: 316-368, +11.20
+125 to +129: 236-334, -39.00
+130 to +134: 231-316, -15.70
+135 to +139: 171-215, +15.85
+140 to +144: 147-210, -4.20
+145 to +149: 108-170, -13.40
+150 to +154: 90-139, -4.00
+155 to +159: 71-110, +0.05
+160 to +164: 76-110, +11.60
+165 to +169: 42-68, +1.30
+170 to +174: 58-100, -1.40
+175 to +179: 28-48, +1.00
+180 to +184: 25-56, -11.00
+185 to +189: 6-2, +9.10
+190 to +199: 10-25, -6.00
+200 to +209: 24-42, +6.00
+210 to +219: 16-29, +4.60
+220 to +229: 10-23, -1.00
+230 to +239: 10-20, +3.00
+240 to +249: 5-16, -4.00
+250 to +259: 2-10, -5.00
+260 to +269: 4-15, -4.60
+270 to +289: 3-10, -1.90
+290 to +299: 5-6, +8.50
+300 to +319: 1-2, +1.00
+320 to +339: 2-1, +5.40
+340 to +999: 0-2, -2.00


As you can see, there are plenty of prices where home dogs have turned a profit, so it is not really surprising that you have had success with them.


Continued good luck in the future!

 

[Stag]

Eugene...thanks for the info.

Can you please post the link or website that you used. I would love to run some numbers through it. Thanks!

 

[Eugene Michaels]

JB,

I got the info at a "rival" forum that has the nice stats link, and Jack does not allow us to post links to competitors. However, if you drop me an email at [edit email by admin], I will gladly send you the link.


Thanks,

EM

 

[verbalkint]

rudementary statistical analysis yields the following ...
over a 12 year period all favorites won at a 58% rate.
to break even this would translate too a money line of -133.

 

[countinguy]

Very Nice Info.

Thanks!!

I am not a big dog player, but I absolutely refuse to play big favorites, always looking for the dog to upset them. So great info.

 

[verbalkint]

this analysis is fruitless... the data is no good.

2 real evident reasons:

1. pic um games . what to do with any game where the favorite is less than -110

2. lines change constantly . sometimes a morning fav is a gametime dog for instance.

 

[Eugene Michaels]

Juicebeater,

Apparently, I cannot post my personal email address here either. Please contact Jack and he will hook you up with my email address.

Thanks,

EM

 

[ViGoR]

Great Info EM! How could i get your email address, I would like to know the link, want to run some numbers too.

 

[Eugene Michaels]

Vigor and Anyone Else Interested,

Contact Jack by clicking the "Contact Us" link and just ask him for my email.

If I am not mistaken, his address should be madjack@madjacksports.com


Thanks

 

[mack the knife]

I've been around long enough to see multiple variants of the "bet dogs only and all" approach, and I can say that it is not that easy. The worst ones are the line analyses that say play dogs between certain ranges, say +120 to +150. The historical data suggest that randomness explains the range of where dogs win. On the other hand, betting every dog at the most favorable line could win some years. BUT there are such major swings in dogs covering within any given year that you can bust very easily. Plus, this approach is very taxing on the bankroll--a lot of games every day, so that the odds of busting in any one year are higher than tolerable. You can't survive the inevitable streak playing 10 or more games a day where dogs can go 5-35 in 3 days unless you play 1% as your unit maximum, and even then this is risky. You can lose 25 units easy in this 5-35 streak. And the streaks are sometimes worse and longer.

You can't count on dogs winning early to beef up your bankroll in any given year, or as that one guy said, "win the first year" and you can weather the storm....yeah--that's brilliant, "just win the first year" as if that is a given...

Its not my opinion--its in the math and the historical data that shows this.

 

[verbalkint]

in your scenerio of 1% per play, you would have to lose 100 plays in a row to go bankrupt..

of course streaks of 5/35 will happen and can be expected but remember would result in a total loss of less than 25% bank.

cause each loser will decrease the amt of the next play.

 

[mack the knife]

1. you don't re-calculate your unit play after each win or loss or even day. It is a set unit. Recalculating that way costs you money....

2. what makes you think dogs win $ after the 5-35? Maybe the break even for a while and THEN go 20-80 an no big dogs hit? I've been doing this long enough to know from experience, and I have data that goes back to the 80's, to tell you with confidence that big dogs can go long stretches without hitting. Dogs don't have to hit for a month. In that month, you can bust.

3. betting 1% without a big bankroll means that your unit --regular wager--is pretty small, and thus you don't make that much money even if dogs do hit. TO bet 1% and expect a meaningful return you must have a very large bank--at least $50 k in my opinion. Probably 100k. And if you have that bank, betting every dog as your strategy is inance to say the least....

 

[verbalkint]

when you pic 80 winners out of 100 trials callme.
cause that is what you are trying to say. 80 winners or 20 losers is the same thing .
even huge favorites will not hit at 80%. ever, not with that many trials that is the crux of the argument.
i dont care if you dont believe me i cant teach you basic statistics.
you make no factual statements onluy rationalizations.

 

[verbalkint]

1% of 50k is 5000 per game.. do you realize that.

 

[fletcher]

Don't try and tell me that you can't make good money if you know what your doing betting on favs. I have been cleaning house for over 9 years, and not as a rec player. It is all in how you do things. But there is no set rule that says you have to bet dogs trust me on that, and those that know me also know that i have no problem in making a nice profit, do i play dogs some not many on sides now will with totals but sides I make a very good living out here in my job and the only dogs for the most part are the 3 in my house. You just have to know what to look for and play it. What works for some might not work for another but i see this every year , come out here and set in a book and watcvh some of the runners and how they play, I showed nick douglas one summer 2 years ago he was shocked at how much big money was rapped on favs by big players, it is all in how you do it and that I keep for myself no off. but somethings i do not give up but it can be done i see it every year and not just from me out here, not talking 25-50 buck bets either, like i said all in your set up and how you use it.

 

[countinguy]

1% of 50k is 5000 per game.. do you realize that.

Hate to correct u but no it is not!!
1 percent is $500

10 percent is $5000