This is very valuable, causes serious LEAN..read/respond

[Its Gravy]

Ok, you are all familiar with the law of averages...say Seattle averages 6.5 runs per game, and Oakland averages 4.5 runs per game.
In game 1 Oak wins 2-1. Both teams scored well below their averages. Say the line for game 2 of the series is o/u 9.5. The law of averages must kick in, there is a greater than 50% chance that game 2 goes over the total, because Sea avgs 6.5 rpg and the prev game they scores only 1 run, so in order to maintain the 6.5 rpg they must score 7 or 8 runs, the same for Oakland, so game 2 should get anywhere from 9-13 runs to maintain the Law of Averages...What do you all think about that. As with anything nothing is 100%, but with little tidbits of helpful info maybe we can all average 60%+ in the long run. As always Good Luck in your plays. And manage those accounts. Remember if the line seems too good to be true, Fade it!!

 

[NJO]

What you say makes some sense, but one thing scares me from giving it too much credibility:

Baseball is a game of streaks, and the very nature of this type of bet goes against that fact.

Not that there isn't some value to what you wrote, but like anything in the world of sports gambling, I don't think you've unearthed a great secret.

 

[TexasBC6]

Well, you asked for responses so here is my attempt at saying something coherent and pertinent.

That theory would only work if you were able to see the future and know what a team's average runs per game would be at the end of a season. That way, if they had averaged 5 runs per game up to a certain point and you magically knew that they would average 6 runs per game for the entire season, then you would be justified in saying that you have an edge in betting on them and/or the over. Just because a team averages a certain number of runs up to a point in the season does not mean that they are going to keep up that pace. If a team scores below their average, it may mean that they are undergoing a shift in what that average is. Let's say a team averages 5 runs per game before the all star break. I can see someone getting killed in the second half of the season trying to play based on averages. If said team's production drops their production and only scores 4.5 runs per game the second half of the season, the player that bets overs would get killed. Lines always take a while to adjust so the lines would reflect totals for when the team scores its normal 5 runs per game, not for the adjusted average (that nobody knows about). The bettor, assuming that the average will stay the same, would get killed.

I would think it would actually work the opposite way than what you said. If teams put up a 2-1 score, I would say that they would be slightly more likely to go under in the next game (all else being equal). It all goes back to what NJO said about streaks. If a bettor tries to bet over after every time a team goes way under, what happens when that team goes on an under streak of 5 or 6 games?

This is in no way meant to criticize you or your idea, I must say I disagree though. It's still always a good thing to share thoughts like this with the forum. Having said all of this, I will probably go 0-6 tonight.

 

[visionary]

texas- i couldnt have said that any better.....nice write up....

 

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Gravy:

I'm not one to restrict thinking like that. But from a mathematical perspective, I think that's a dangerous way to think.

If the season avg is 11, and the previous gm was 8, in no way does that mean the next gm should be 14. A good statistician would tell you that premise is wrong.

The season avg can be adjusted to include the most recent gm. So if the last gm makes the season avg 10.9 YTD, then maybe that is a reasonable projection for the next gm. But to say it's going to magically "bounce" up to 14, to stay in line w/ the season avg is flat out wrong.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[marine]

wont work. you have an 80+ game base you are working with right now per team. the average of , lets say 6.5 runs per game, is based off of approx 80 previously played games, all weighted equally. each game accounts for 1/80 of that average. to take the next game and use it the way you suggested would be the equivalent of making the "weight" of that game equal to 41/81, or half of all previous games combined.

from a mathematical standpoint you are changing the weighted value of each game. kinda like in high school when the teachers would say "the final exam counts for 50% of your grade" or something. just that one instance accounts for one half of all the grades... minimalizing the previous grades weight carried.

hope this makes sense. I couldnt bring myself to put up the math proofs for this one. way too painful.

 

[Man O' Vegas]

Two words: Current form

MOV