Over/Unders at beginning of the year..

rrc

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
2,503
13
0
Got these #'s from another site, they're certainly worth a look...

2001 71 over 33 under
2000 94 over 40 under
1999 84 over 39 under
1998 174 over 83 under

So much for pitchers having the edge early on. Good luck
 

Valuist

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 21, 2001
2,314
0
0
63
Mt. Prospect, IL
What site did you get these #s from? I have to admit I'm skeptical; each year its between 67-70% overs. I find it hard to believe LV wouldn't have caught on.
 

rrc

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
2,503
13
0
M*jor W*ger in the mess hall forum. The guy who posted the info has been reliable as long as I've been reading.

Additional info from same source:
In 1998 the games the first 23 days went OVER 20 days.
 

superbook

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 26, 2001
2,868
0
0
Saratoga Springs, NY
Valuist --

The guy who posted these #s, Sick Gambler, is a legit poster.

The numbers reflect the first 10-14 days of the season.

In his thread at MW, I suggested that the Mega might be a good play for the next week or so. It went way over yesterday.

- Jon
 

Nolan Dalla

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 7, 2000
1,201
2
0
Washington, DC/Las Vegas, NV
I was stunned to see those percentages and doubted whether they were correct. So, I went back and tracked the first ten days of 2001 (which should be enough of a sample to determine the validity of the numbers). Here is what I found:

2001 April 1 through April 10

OVERS: 60
UNDERS: 52
PUSH: 5

Even though I did not track the full 14 days, you can see that there is NO WAY the trend produced only 33 UNDERS. The information and tracking is just flat out WRONG!

While I appreciate RRC sharing that information with us, whatever site he is refering to might be not a very good source for accurate information.

Hope this helps.

-- Nolan Dalla
 
Last edited:

Nolan Dalla

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 7, 2000
1,201
2
0
Washington, DC/Las Vegas, NV
I also want to point out that the point made about the MEGA-RUNS is probably legitimate. There were, in fact, many more games where the total runs scored went WAY OVER the posted total, than games where the total was high and very few runs were scored. THis MEGA RUN prop does appear to be a decent value, so long as it correlates roughtly to the added totals of all the games. This is especially true when there are home games at Houston, Denver -- and where the Rangers are playing.

-- Nolan Dalla
 

superbook

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 26, 2001
2,868
0
0
Saratoga Springs, NY
Nolan --

Thanks for straightening out these numbers.

FWIW, I'm playing the MEGA RUN Over today.

1. MEGA of 69 is just one run higher than the sum of the totals.

2. Houston is at home and Texas is playing.
 

rrc

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
2,503
13
0
Thanks for the heads up Nolan. As Superbook said the guy I took that from is a legit poster but I should have dug a little deeper. GLTA
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top