Sports betting chatter
Quote: DRichI see one bet that I like so far this weekend. Texas Tech is a 48.5 point favorite over Kent State and the total is 58.5. For many years I have been betting overs on games where the total minus the spread is less than 15 points. With only a 10 point delta I will definitely be taking the over.
link to original post
Interesting. Do you have records that show how you've done in these bets? Do you just bet it every time this is true or do you look for other indicators as well?
Quote: SkinnyTonyQuote: DRichI see one bet that I like so far this weekend. Texas Tech is a 48.5 point favorite over Kent State and the total is 58.5. For many years I have been betting overs on games where the total minus the spread is less than 15 points. With only a 10 point delta I will definitely be taking the over.
link to original post
Interesting. Do you have records that show how you've done in these bets? Do you just bet it every time this is true or do you look for other indicators as well?
link to original post
I do not keep records but it has been pretty good to me. What sticks out about this have is how low the number is. It is very rare to see a number as low as 10. In the early part of the season you will see a few almost every week below 15.
Quote: DRichQuote: SkinnyTonyQuote: DRichI see one bet that I like so far this weekend. Texas Tech is a 48.5 point favorite over Kent State and the total is 58.5. For many years I have been betting overs on games where the total minus the spread is less than 15 points. With only a 10 point delta I will definitely be taking the over.
link to original post
Interesting. Do you have records that show how you've done in these bets? Do you just bet it every time this is true or do you look for other indicators as well?
link to original post
I do not keep records but it has been pretty good to me. What sticks out about this have is how low the number is. It is very rare to see a number as low as 10. In the early part of the season you will see a few almost every week below 15.
link to original post
I’ll tail you.
My two baseball games won, but the Red Sox game was not at all how my ‘analysis’ had it going. I guess bad pitching beats worse pitching!
But now on to what I really do. LOTS of these type offers pouring in. Using bonuses/boosts/etc…. Got Cowboys +700, Eagles -410. Got Barkley over 89.5 at +134, Barkley under 95.5 at -113. Guaranteed small win with chance for a middle winning both. Had a NRFI +118, YRFI -115. That’s a free latte for me. Freebet turned into $40 cash.
I am limited of course on these offers to now often quite low amounts. But it’s fun, and free $$ is well, free $$!
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: DRichQuote: SkinnyTonyQuote: DRichI see one bet that I like so far this weekend. Texas Tech is a 48.5 point favorite over Kent State and the total is 58.5. For many years I have been betting overs on games where the total minus the spread is less than 15 points. With only a 10 point delta I will definitely be taking the over.
link to original post
Interesting. Do you have records that show how you've done in these bets? Do you just bet it every time this is true or do you look for other indicators as well?
link to original post
I do not keep records but it has been pretty good to me. What sticks out about this have is how low the number is. It is very rare to see a number as low as 10. In the early part of the season you will see a few almost every week below 15.
link to original post
I’ll tail you.
My two baseball games won, but the Red Sox game was not at all how my ‘analysis’ had it going. I guess bad pitching beats worse pitching!
But now on to what I really do. LOTS of these type offers pouring in. Using bonuses/boosts/etc…. Got Cowboys +700, Eagles -410. Got Barkley over 89.5 at +134, Barkley under 95.5 at -113. Guaranteed small win with chance for a middle winning both. Had a NRFI +118, YRFI -115. That’s a free latte for me. Freebet turned into $40 cash.
I am limited of course on these offers to now often quite low amounts. But it’s fun, and free $$ is well, free $$!
link to original post
As always, we here at Red Sox nation are happy to oblige to help our betting brethren win any way we can!
If I bet sports, I'd always bet the over on any Red Sox game, with their pitching staff.
Having said that.... Minnesota's pass rush against a QB who holds the ball too long and doesn't quite understand the new offense yet. It's going to be a disaster. I might even make some silly same game parlay involving a lot of sacks, a defensive score and a 17+ pt win if I can get a decent promo to pair it with.
Quote: SkinnyTonyMy bet of the week is Minnesota -1.5 over the Bears on Monday night. This is based on my prognostication skills rather than any data or computer modeling so it's certainly -EV.
Having said that.... Minnesota's pass rush against a QB who holds the ball too long and doesn't quite understand the new offense yet. It's going to be a disaster. I might even make some silly same game parlay involving a lot of sacks, a defensive score and a 17+ pt win if I can get a decent promo to pair it with.
link to original post
FD. Vikes -16.5. Vikes D TD. Greenard sack. Van Ginkel sack. Around +5000. A dollar and a dream.
DK just offered Barkley TD at +100. Gotta be +EV.
Line shop, line shop, line shop..
Quote: avianrandySoopoo sounds like fd isn't even count on ears showing up Minnesota favored by 16.5 last time they played at . Minnesota bears lost 12-30. Last time at soldier they lost 27-30. Vegas insider shows Minnesota by 1.5 total points 43.5
link to original post
Minnesota isn’t favored by 16.5. It’s an ‘alternate line’. The parlay is paying around 50-1 for a reason. All aspects are correlated, at least.
Thus far in 2025
Teams that do not hit a home run are winning just 31 percent of their games.
Teams that hit one home run win at a 49% pace
Teams that hit two or more homers win over 70 percent of their games.
Is that something that can be exploited?
Quote: billryanSome interesting stats from this years MLB. With over 75% of the season already in the books, I'd expect the trends will continue.
Thus far in 2025
Teams that do not hit a home run are winning just 31 percent of their games.
Teams that hit one home run win at a 49% pace
Teams that hit two or more homers win over 70 percent of their games.
Is that something that can be exploited?
link to original post
Not really. You could say the same about hits, doubles, triples, walks, any kind of offense. You're just saying that runs win games, and hits and baserunners lead to runs.
Football teams that score 4 touchdowns in a game win significantly more often than teams that score only 3, despite the fact that there are other ways to score.
One run is a lot in baseball, and if you look at the stats for average runs scored per game for each team, they are all within 1 run of the league average. Which suggests that if you spotted the lousy teams 1 run at the beginning of the game they would have win/loss records like the good teams. On defense, with the exception of the Rockies all the teams give up less than one run plus or minus the league average.
Or to put it in blackjack terms, if you are playing a 6D game that is busy you might get an average of one natural per shoe. The shoes where you got two naturals, I like your odds of being ahead for that shoe. But all that means is "When you get more than your share of naturals, you're more likely to be having a good session." There's no way to exploit that fact alone, and it is true for both skilled and unskilled players.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/2025.shtml
Teams that hit two or more home runs win 70% of their games.
You can't know until the end of the game which team will score the most runs, but armed with the knowledge that once a team hits two home runs, it will win seven of ten times, a small bet might work out. In the event both teams hit two, you just bet the other team as well.
The Yankees are 44-20 when they hit two or more home runs. If you'd made 64 midgame bets as soon as the second home run was hit, you'd have won 44 of them. Even if most of them paid less than even money, wouldn't that still show a profit? Is it reasonable to expect that trend to continue? I don't bet on sports so while I know you can make a bet midgame, I have no idea what a $10 bet winning bet would pay
Quote: billryanTeams that score the most runs win 100% of their games.
Teams that hit two or more home runs win 70% of their games.
You can't know until the end of the game which team will score the most runs, but armed with the knowledge that once a team hits two home runs, it will win seven of ten times, a small bet might work out. In the event both teams hit two, you just bet the other team as well.
The Yankees are 44-20 when they hit two or more home runs. If you'd made 64 midgame bets as soon as the second home run was hit, you'd have won 44 of them. Even if most of them paid less than even money, wouldn't that still show a profit? Is it reasonable to expect that trend to continue? I don't bet on sports so while I know you can make a bet midgame, I have no idea what a $10 bet winning bet would pay
link to original post
You are assuming that it has predictive power, which is not the case. It's just that scoring runs is correlated with winning, and hitting home runs causes runs to be scored. If you bet on a team after they already have a lead the odds are adjusted accordingly.
Quote: billryan
The Yankees are 44-20 when they hit two or more home runs. If you'd made 64 midgame bets as soon as the second home run was hit, you'd have won 44 of them. Even if most of them paid less than even money, wouldn't that still show a profit? Is it reasonable to expect that trend to continue? I don't bet on sports so while I know you can make a bet midgame, I have no idea what a $10 bet winning bet would pay
link to original post
No. Once that second home run has been hit the odds you can get will have been adjusted for that fact. So you will win more often but not enough to overcome the odds you will be laying.
However, if you do a pregame parlay with Yankees win/Judge HR/ Stanton HR that would be almost the same as just the judge/Stanton parlay. The books are well aware of this. I just checked. The Judge/Stanton HR parlay is +725. Adding a Yankee win only bumps it to +825.
The one site where I can bet O/U team HRs won’t even let me parlay it with that team winning.
Except for the extremely lame ESPN.bet, which is sticking to the same uncompetitive offer as before season, bet $10 to get $100 in bonus bets. And don’t expect things to get better once you’re in, they spend a lot of time making sure any offer is just not worth it. I ended my relationship, realizing NFL season wasn’t going to make any difference in this, and I wonder how many other people did the same….
Quote: billryanIt's not a parlay. It's a bet made in-game, after the second home run. If you are telling me that the books will automatically update the odds as soon as the second home run is hit, I'd have to see that in action.
link to original post
The books update with literally every pitch. And there may be some money to be made there, if you are physically at the game or have the AM broadcast on, which is close enough to real time where you might be able to get a bet down before the books update. Hurrah for the analog world!
As far as the correlation of home runs as distinct from runs, to winning, try this: What does the number of home runs hit in a tie game have to do with winning? End of the 4th, game is tied 3-3, one team has scored their runs on 2 home runs and the other on 0 home runs. Is there any history that says the team that hit the homers is more likely to win now? I'd say not.
Should somehow the Texas Rangers qualify for the MLB playoffs, currently 1.5 behind Seattle for the last wild card spot, I would bet them to win both the wild card and ALDS series. Their 1st and 2nd starters are having historic years, and they are hotter now than any of Seattle, Houston, or Detroit. If their bats come around (something which admittedly this season has happened only in spurts) I think they'd be a tough out.
My guess is, they would be favored in the Wild Card but a big dog in the ALDS. Good value, IMHO.
Please don't spend a lot of effort telling me why I'm crazy. I already know it's a flyer and if they're within 1.5 games or better in a week or so, worth $100 of my dollars!
But hey, I would have bet the farm the Eagles would have covered, so ... yeah.
I saw someone at Reddit complain that he was doing this at the game and soon was subjected to an inserted delay that had not been there beforeQuote: AutomaticMonkey
The books update with literally every pitch. And there may be some money to be made there, if you are physically at the game or have the AM broadcast on, which is close enough to real time where you might be able to get a bet down before the books update. Hurrah for the analog world!
link to original post
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIt's not a parlay. It's a bet made in-game, after the second home run. If you are telling me that the books will automatically update the odds as soon as the second home run is hit, I'd have to see that in action.
link to original post
The books update with literally every pitch. And there may be some money to be made there, if you are physically at the game or have the AM broadcast on, which is close enough to real time where you might be able to get a bet down before the books update. Hurrah for the analog world!
As far as the correlation of home runs as distinct from runs, to winning, try this: What does the number of home runs hit in a tie game have to do with winning? End of the 4th, game is tied 3-3, one team has scored their runs on 2 home runs and the other on 0 home runs. Is there any history that says the team that hit the homers is more likely to win now? I'd say not.
link to original post
A team that hits two home runs will win 70% of their games, while a team that hits no home runs will win 30 percent of its games. Those numbers bear out over the season. In the 2025 season, it has been tough to win a game without hitting a homerun. If you knew ahead of time that the Yankees would not hit a homerun, you could clean up on the win line. That is impossible.
It is possible to know during the game that the Yankees will hit two or more homeruns and if you made a bet right after the 2nd homerun, you'd be have won 44 out of 64 bets. Do you think the money from 44 winning bets won't exceed the losses from twenty of the bets.
Quote: SummerlinDaveIf anyone's looking for a flyer ...
Should somehow the Texas Rangers qualify for the MLB playoffs, currently 1.5 behind Seattle for the last wild card spot, I would bet them to win both the wild card and ALDS series. Their 1st and 2nd starters are having historic years, and they are hotter now than any of Seattle, Houston, or Detroit. If their bats come around (something which admittedly this season has happened only in spurts) I think they'd be a tough out.
My guess is, they would be favored in the Wild Card but a big dog in the ALDS. Good value, IMHO.
Please don't spend a lot of effort telling me why I'm crazy. I already know it's a flyer and if they're within 1.5 games or better in a week or so, worth $100 of my dollars!
But hey, I would have bet the farm the Eagles would have covered, so ... yeah.
link to original post
The second and third WC teams have the deck stacked against them.
Quote: odiousgambitThe betting sites have ramped up their offers now that the NFL season is upon us, so if you’ve been waiting till you saw some good ones, now might be the time.
Except for the extremely lame ESPN.bet, which is sticking to the same uncompetitive offer as before season, bet $10 to get $100 in bonus bets. And don’t expect things to get better once you’re in, they spend a lot of time making sure any offer is just not worth it. I ended my relationship, realizing NFL season wasn’t going to make any difference in this, and I wonder how many other people did the same….
link to original post
BetMGM isn't giving me any promos. I see the promos and then they disappear when I log in. Sore losers I guess. At least they didn't limit me.
I'm cleaning up with FanDuel and to a lesser extent, bet365 though.
Quote: billryan
A team that hits two home runs will win 70% of their games, while a team that hits no home runs will win 30 percent of its games. Those numbers bear out over the season. In the 2025 season, it has been tough to win a game without hitting a homerun. If you knew ahead of time that the Yankees would not hit a homerun, you could clean up on the win line. That is impossible.
It is possible to know during the game that the Yankees will hit two or more homeruns and if you made a bet right after the 2nd homerun, you'd be have won 44 out of 64 bets. Do you think the money from 44 winning bets won't exceed the losses from twenty of the bets.
link to original post
This is all completely irrelevant.
Teams that score a run win at least 50% of their games, and always have, and always will for all of eternity (unless they ever add ties). But teams that score no runs win 0% of their games. So that first run takes a team's chances of winning from 0% to over 50%!!! Right? Of course not.
Your home run observation is in the same ballpark as this.
Quote: SkinnyTonyQuote: billryan
A team that hits two home runs will win 70% of their games, while a team that hits no home runs will win 30 percent of its games. Those numbers bear out over the season. In the 2025 season, it has been tough to win a game without hitting a homerun. If you knew ahead of time that the Yankees would not hit a homerun, you could clean up on the win line. That is impossible.
It is possible to know during the game that the Yankees will hit two or more homeruns and if you made a bet right after the 2nd homerun, you'd be have won 44 out of 64 bets. Do you think the money from 44 winning bets won't exceed the losses from twenty of the bets.
link to original post
This is all completely irrelevant.
Teams that score a run win at least 50% of their games, and always have, and always will for all of eternity (unless they ever add ties). But teams that score no runs win 0% of their games. So that first run takes a team's chances of winning from 0% to over 50%!!! Right? Of course not.
Your home run observation is in the same ballpark as this.
link to original post
Teams that score a run win 50% of their games? No.
Which of these is wrong?
The Yankees have hit two or more home runs in 64 games. They are 44-20 in those games. If I had started with the Opening Game and bet on the Yankees to win immediately after the second home run every time it happened, I'd have won 44 of 64 of those bets.
Is any of that wrong? If I bet $10 a game, I'd have $200 in losing tickets and be holding 44 winning tickets. Each winning ticket is worth $10 plus the winning premium. $440 returned on the winning tickets cost, so the winning premium on the 44 tickets has to exceed $160 to break even. The rest would be profit, no? Would a winning midgame $10 bet pay more than $14 on average?
It isn't just the Yankees. Across all of the MLB, teams that hit two or more home runs have won at similar percentages. After 140 games, it doubtful this change very much.
Quote: billryan.. Would a winning midgame $10 bet pay more than $14 on average?...
link to original post
Sure! On average a bet made midgame will pay as well as a bet made before the game... but not for a team that's ahead midgame.
So the Yankees are up 6-0 in the 5th, and they've hit 2 home runs. Guarantee you that you wont be getting $14 for $10. Maybe $10.40 for $10.
Now the Yankees are down 6-2 in the 5th, and they've hit 2 home runs vs. 0 for the bad guys, they just ran around the bases. Odds will be great for the Yankees then, you might see +800 or +1000. But do you think they are going to win 44 out of 64 games like that?
The Yankees are 44-20 when they have hit 2 home runs for not other reason than because if they have hit 2 home runs they probably have more runs.
Hey I have one! When they dump Gatorade all over somebody on the field, bet on that team. Because teams only do that when they win!
Quote: billryanQuote: SkinnyTonyQuote: billryan
A team that hits two home runs will win 70% of their games, while a team that hits no home runs will win 30 percent of its games. Those numbers bear out over the season. In the 2025 season, it has been tough to win a game without hitting a homerun. If you knew ahead of time that the Yankees would not hit a homerun, you could clean up on the win line. That is impossible.
It is possible to know during the game that the Yankees will hit two or more homeruns and if you made a bet right after the 2nd homerun, you'd be have won 44 out of 64 bets. Do you think the money from 44 winning bets won't exceed the losses from twenty of the bets.
link to original post
This is all completely irrelevant.
Teams that score a run win at least 50% of their games, and always have, and always will for all of eternity (unless they ever add ties). But teams that score no runs win 0% of their games. So that first run takes a team's chances of winning from 0% to over 50%!!! Right? Of course not.
Your home run observation is in the same ballpark as this.
link to original post
Teams that score a run win 50% of their games? No.
Lol. Of course teams that score at least 1 run win at least 50% if their games. Stop and think. This is an incredibly obvious statement. It's been true in every year since baseball started and will continue to be true forever. And it's true in every other sport too. Football teams that score at least 1 point win over 50% (excluding ties).
Teams get shutout much less frequently these days. The White Sox went 41-121 and were shut out in 8 games. They scored one run or more in 154 games and only won forty-one. If someone had bet $10 on every game the Sawx scored a run, they lost far more than half their bets.
Quote: billryanPerhaps I'm not understanding you. The 1962 Mets are the worst team in history, as far as I'm concerned. They were 40-120. As they were shut out 30 times,It seems they scored at least one run in 90 games. They lost 50 of those games.
Teams get shutout much less frequently these days. The White Sox went 41-121 and were shut out in 8 games. They scored one run or more in 154 games and only won forty-one. If someone had bet $10 on every game the Sawx scored a run, they lost far more than half their bets.
link to original post
But overall, league wide, teams that score at least one run win over 50% of their games.
If there are 100 games and one shutout then teams that scored 1 or more run are 100-99 (over 50%) and teams that scored 0 are 0-1 (0%).
The fact that you are looking at a good team that wins a lot of their games means that they have a high baseline. Obviously they are going to do better than average when hitting home runs, and their average is already pretty high. Look at the same stat for the Rockies and see what you end up with.
Quote: DRichI see one bet that I like so far this weekend. Texas Tech is a 48.5 point favorite over Kent State and the total is 58.5. For many years I have been betting overs on games where the total minus the spread is less than 15 points. With only a 10 point delta I will definitely be taking the over.
link to original post
I'm now seeing 59.5, with the over slightly juiced up (-115). Congrats if you got it at 58.5!
I have a boost to use and I'm leaning towards over 42.5 in Iowa/Iowa St. Unfortunately the book that where I have the bonus has the total at 43.5. I'm still seeing 42.5 elsewhere.
Quote: billryanIt's not a parlay. It's a bet made in-game, after the second home run. If you are telling me that the books will automatically update the odds as soon as the second home run is hit, I'd have to see that in action.
link to original post
I’m not making this up. They will update the odds mid at bat. After a home run there will ALWAYS be a significant odds shift.
In tennis, the odds update after every point.
In football, after every play. Now some plays won’t change the odds, but the play wasn’t ignored.
Quote: DRichI just made a small bet on the over 50.5 on Northwestern State vs Minnesota. Minnesota is -43.5 so only a 7 point spread between favorite and over.
link to original post
looks like a great bet
Minnesota is up 21-0 with 2:52 left in the 1st quarter
edit - wow - it just went to 27-0 and the 1st quarter still isn't over
edit again - now it's 35-0 and the 1st quarter is just about over_______________________(-:/
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: DRichI just made a small bet on the over 50.5 on Northwestern State vs Minnesota. Minnesota is -43.5 so only a 7 point spread between favorite and over.
link to original post
looks like a great bet
Minnesota is up 21-0 with 2:52 left in the 1st quarter
edit - wow - it just went to 27-0 and the 1st quarter still isn't over
edit again - now it's 35-0 and the 1st quarter is just about over_______________________(-:/
.
link to original post
Even I get lucky once in a while. Now 56-0 in 2nd quarter.
Teams that hit no home runs in a game will lose 70% of them.
One home run decreases the chances of losing to roughly 50%
Two home runs boost it up to losing less than a third.
If I were to try this next season, there would be times I'd pass on the bet. If they are losing 11-1 and Judge hits his second home run of the game, I'd most likely pass. I'm thinking a $500 bankroll will get fifty ten-dollar bets.
I don't bet on sports, but I'm starting to learn more about it. I'll be following how some hypothetical bets do.
Can someone explain this?
Over the last few seasons, MLB regular season games played when the wind is blowing out at 10 MPH have resulted in the Over winning at a sixty percent rate, across baseball. As it is pretty common knowledge in some circles, you'd expect those games to have more action on the Over.
My question is why are the books losing 60% of these bets?
Quote: billryan...
Can someone explain this?
Over the last few seasons, MLB regular season games played when the wind is blowing out at 10 MPH have resulted in the Over winning at a sixty percent rate, across baseball. As it is pretty common knowledge in some circles, you'd expect those games to have more action on the Over.
My question is why are the books losing 60% of these bets?
link to original post
I can not only explain it, I could also post my Python code that retrieves the atmospheric pressure and wind vector relative to a line from home plate to center field for each ballpark!
Being a lot of games are played in domes these days I think atmospheric pressure is a bigger factor. A ball will have less air resistance in lower pressure but more importantly a breaking ball doesn't break as well in low pressure. Hanging curve balls; every baseball fan knows how those end up. That's why very good pitchers will often get roughed up in the first inning, as their breaking balls are not performing the way they expect and they need to adjust.
But everything is factored into the odds now. It's not like the over and under are both going to be at -105 in the modern books.
Every week? Not quite, but when they occur, there can be multiple games in a night. My guess is the books need to keep the number low to attract the under bettors. Gametime weather conditions are easily determined.
Math can be funny.
When a Yankee hits a flyball at home with the wind blowing in, the average distance is approximately. 360 feet
Yankee flyballs at home with the wind blowing out average 415 feet, with the deepest part of the ballpark being 410 feet. Interesting information, but other than winning a bar bet, not very exploitable. The math is skewed by the two dozen plus home runs that traveled 440 feet or more.
Quote: billryanHowever, they are setting the line on those games, they are losing 60% of the bets made. Is there a game like that every night? No.
Every week? Not quite, but when they occur, there can be multiple games in a night. My guess is the books need to keep the number low to attract the under bettors. Gametime weather conditions are easily determined...
You're still thinking in terms of old-timey bookmakers. The way it's done now, you pick your own Over/Under number. The book is not "losing" anything. So I can pick O/U 8.5, or O/U 9.5, or O/U 10.5, and the odds are different for each side of each line. And they will be updating constantly, from the night before to the last pitch of the game. So I can pick Under 13.5 every game every day and the book will "lose" a lot more than 60% of those bets. But they will still make money.
Quote: billryanLook at the 2024 Sawx. Pick any four teams in the MLB this season. It's across the league. Eliminate the Yankees, and the MLB average is still close to seventy percent. It's a fact that teams that hit two home runs will win more than two-thirds of those games. Whether that can be used to make money is uncertain, but over the last 10,000 or so regular-season games, the results are precise.
Teams that hit no home runs in a game will lose 70% of them.
One home run decreases the chances of losing to roughly 50%
Two home runs boost it up to losing less than a third.
If I were to try this next season, there would be times I'd pass on the bet. If they are losing 11-1 and Judge hits his second home run of the game, I'd most likely pass. I'm thinking a $500 bankroll will get fifty ten-dollar bets.
I don't bet on sports, but I'm starting to learn more about it. I'll be following how some hypothetical bets do.
Can someone explain this?
Over the last few seasons, MLB regular season games played when the wind is blowing out at 10 MPH have resulted in the Over winning at a sixty percent rate, across baseball. As it is pretty common knowledge in some circles, you'd expect those games to have more action on the Over.
My question is why are the books losing 60% of these bets?
link to original post
Obviously teams that score more runs win more games. The fact that they are home runs is irrelevant. Runs are runs; they all count the same. If you bet after the runs have been scored you will get worse odds. This has been explained several times and you are ignoring it.
One option is to deposit some money into an online book and try this. Report back and tell us how much you lose.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryan...
Can someone explain this?
Over the last few seasons, MLB regular season games played when the wind is blowing out at 10 MPH have resulted in the Over winning at a sixty percent rate, across baseball. As it is pretty common knowledge in some circles, you'd expect those games to have more action on the Over.
My question is why are the books losing 60% of these bets?
link to original post
I can not only explain it, I could also post my Python code that retrieves the atmospheric pressure and wind vector relative to a line from home plate to center field for each ballpark!
Being a lot of games are played in domes these days I think atmospheric pressure is a bigger factor. A ball will have less air resistance in lower pressure but more importantly a breaking ball doesn't break as well in low pressure. Hanging curve balls; every baseball fan knows how those end up. That's why very good pitchers will often get roughed up in the first inning, as their breaking balls are not performing the way they expect and they need to adjust.
But everything is factored into the odds now. It's not like the over and under are both going to be at -105 in the modern books.
link to original post
I believe that unusual humidity seems to have an impact on baseball games . It's now well known that the low humidity in Denver dried out baseballs and made their home park a hitter's paradise. I believe that baseballs in Coors Field are now kept in a humidifier before the games.
Conversely, humid air has less drag on a moving object than dry air.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryan...
Can someone explain this?
Over the last few seasons, MLB regular season games played when the wind is blowing out at 10 MPH have resulted in the Over winning at a sixty percent rate, across baseball. As it is pretty common knowledge in some circles, you'd expect those games to have more action on the Over.
My question is why are the books losing 60% of these bets?
link to original post
I can not only explain it, I could also post my Python code that retrieves the atmospheric pressure and wind vector relative to a line from home plate to center field for each ballpark!
Being a lot of games are played in domes these days I think atmospheric pressure is a bigger factor. A ball will have less air resistance in lower pressure but more importantly a breaking ball doesn't break as well in low pressure. Hanging curve balls; every baseball fan knows how those end up. That's why very good pitchers will often get roughed up in the first inning, as their breaking balls are not performing the way they expect and they need to adjust.
But everything is factored into the odds now. It's not like the over and under are both going to be at -105 in the modern books.
link to original post
I believe that unusual humidity seems to have an impact on baseball games . It's now well known that the low humidity in Denver dried out baseballs and made their home park a hitter's paradise. I believe that baseballs in Coors Field are now kept in a humidifier before the games.
Conversely, humid air has less drag on a moving object than dry air.
link to original post
The most home run friendly park in MLB? Cincinnati. No idea why. It is of average dimensions, and right in the middlest part of Middle America, nothing special about the weather or terrain. But that's what the park factor guide says.
https://swishanalytics.com/mlb/mlb-park-factors/
Quote: AutomaticMonkey\
The most home run friendly park in MLB? Cincinnati. No idea why. It is of average dimensions, and right in the middlest part of Middle America, nothing special about the weather or terrain. But that's what the park factor guide says.
https://swishanalytics.com/mlb/mlb-park-factors/
link to original post
I would have guessed Colorado for the obvious reason.
Quote: DRichThe Ohio State quarterback is 15/15 for 289 yards and 4 TD passes in the first 19 minutes of the game.
link to original post
At halftime all 19 of his passes have been caught. Unfortunately, one was caught by the other team.
Quote: DRichJust placed a small bet on Michigan +5.5 against Oklahoma. I have not seen either team play yet, but the line just seems to big. This game should be lined at 3.
link to original post
I had a boosted Oklahoma "double result" (be ahead at halftime and win) bet and also (separate bet) I sold a point and bet Oklahoma -6.5 to use a 50% profit boost.
So, that more than paid for my Iowa/Iowa St. over debacle.
Lots of teams made it to 70+ pts today (and one made it to 69). I'm guessing that your overs when "total minus line < 10" bets did well.
