I'll defer to the experts on this board but seems this year these 4 teams might be historically bad? Any chance to bet vs blindly? throw -1 Run parleys in? Just curious any thoughts. Obvious time to give a shot would be early before books adjust too much. thanks
Blindly Bet Vs CWS, OAK, COL, LAA?
- Thread starter lvmike32
- Start date
jedi ninja
Larry the liberal
Yes and no. Even the worst team of those is going to win close to 60 games, which is 37%. Even if we use 33%, that means they’re going to win one out of every 3 games. You’ll need to be getting better than -200 for the favorite for it to make sense, and even then you’re talking slim profits if they lose one of three in a series. But yes you can probably pick and choose your spots.
You can also play the RL but if they lose games by 1 (and something like 30% of games are decided by one run) you’ll lose that bet as well without the bad team even having to win.
It may end up making sense to bet on the bad teams when the odds are well above +200 as again they’re going to win one out of every 3 games at least.
Picking spots, putting the favorites against them in parlays could make some sense. I’d say it’s not just that simple to blindly bet against them or everyone would do it and come out way ahead every year…which doesn’t happen.
You can also play the RL but if they lose games by 1 (and something like 30% of games are decided by one run) you’ll lose that bet as well without the bad team even having to win.
It may end up making sense to bet on the bad teams when the odds are well above +200 as again they’re going to win one out of every 3 games at least.
Picking spots, putting the favorites against them in parlays could make some sense. I’d say it’s not just that simple to blindly bet against them or everyone would do it and come out way ahead every year…which doesn’t happen.
jedi ninja
Larry the liberal
I’m also not sure the White Sox and Angels belong in the same category as the A’s and the Rockies. Their win totals were much higher than the 2 bottom dwellers, which doesn’t mean they won’t be bad…but they shouldn’t end up as bad as the Rockies and A’s.
pressitup
Leader of the Adult Humor Industry
post it and it fails
on to today
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
Seems in theory like a great option after a loss against these teams although I don't know how much I include the Angels yet, but them whiffing on Snell likely weighs in on them sucking in the big picture. Only thing ChiSox have going against them (in this case) is the AL Central and how much you can trust those other teams to win by 2+ to cash. I do agree that these teams could all end up being historically awful.
Guess I'd approach it by prioritizing road teams first (obv because they're guaranteed 27 outs) then teams off a loss. I really don't know how much weight should be put in to lookahead spots, that probably matters later in the season than April/May/June.
GL with it, I might dabble and see how some of it works out.
Inspekdah
My man, Michael Jordan!
Perhaps while the opponents are still -150-200 ish. Soon they could be well above -200 and then they just need to win one game in a series for you to break even. And if they win 2 you’re losing your shirt.
Perhaps something to be found on the RLs though for these hopeless teams.
Perhaps something to be found on the RLs though for these hopeless teams.
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
It seems like these types of teams, OAK, COL, CHW are likely to win 2 or maybe three series all season at most. Jury is still out on LAA for me but they could be there too.
But yes I agree the RLs will likely be the better way to fade these teams
reNew Orleans
Clubbin' with Rasual Butler
This is anecdotal and has nothing to do with todays teams but is relatable.
Maybe something like 17-18 years ago I remember seeing Johan Santana and Twins favored at -300, maybe closer to -400 vs the Nats. The Nats called up some random pitcher that year and had made a few horrendous starts prior to this game but I took a stab at the Nats anyways just bc the line was so absurd since the Twins weren’t great anyway, it was just the name of Johan Santana vs the inept Nats. And you know what… The Nats ending up winning.
Maybe something like 17-18 years ago I remember seeing Johan Santana and Twins favored at -300, maybe closer to -400 vs the Nats. The Nats called up some random pitcher that year and had made a few horrendous starts prior to this game but I took a stab at the Nats anyways just bc the line was so absurd since the Twins weren’t great anyway, it was just the name of Johan Santana vs the inept Nats. And you know what… The Nats ending up winning.
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
So many games are decided innings 6-9 that it's hard to bet on starting pitching unless you do it first five anymore. Fading a starter is great but it doesn't mean the team you're on has a bullpen that won't blow up.
Same thing a few years ago Tigers at Astros (Verlander).
JV was -435 or something like that.
Tigers won.
