Does anybody ever do this/is this legit

[D-Woww]

if there are 5 afternoon games, and the over goes liek 4-1, does anybody then bet the under of every game that night?

i know that it makes no sense, but mathamatically, it seems like overs and unders move towards the median (50%), so if you catch it at a time when that number is skewed, you can use that 50% to your advantage?

legit at all or total crap?

 

[JumpOnBoard]

Makes no mathematically sense to do that at all...it's like people who go to a roulette pit with four wheels and wait for runs of three of the same color and bet the opposite....the chance of hitting a color is still 18 in 38 either way...

 

[orangemonk]

each game is independent so it makes 0 sense

 

[RetroVK]

it makes no sense. there are no short cuts.

 

[D-Woww]

grump, i see that point 100%

but the mathamatical odds are if you were to spin the wheel 100 times, it would land on black 47 times and red 47 times. so if you see a long run of one or the others, you can expect that to even out over the long run

 

[D-Woww]

im not nor have i ever done this btw, i just had the thought

 

[JumpOnBoard]

Your talking about variance though...the number 100 has absolutely no bearing on it...it's just a number pulled out of the air...

It could hit red 1000 times in a row and "even" out over a much longer period....or it may not..

It's arbitrary...

 

[orangemonk]

grump, i see that point 100%

but the mathamatical odds are if you were to spin the wheel 100 times, it would land on black 47 times and red 47 times. so if you see a long run of one or the others, you can expect that to even out over the long run

each time you spin the wheel you have the same exact chance of red or black. just because there are 100,000 reds in a row on spin 100,001 red has the exact % chance of hitting as black.

 

[Capt. Slap]

grump, i see that point 100%

but the mathamatical odds are if you were to spin the wheel 100 times, it would land on black 47 times and red 47 times. so if you see a long run of one or the others, you can expect that to even out over the long run

Well, that example only works in a perfect/absolute world.

Fact is, if you spin a Roulette table the chances of it hitting 47/47 is probably worse than you picking the correct number 5+ times out of those 100 spins...

 

[nawlins51]

Never bet unders in MLB unless you like torture. I like torture.

 

[gsro]

Never bet unders in MLB unless you like torture. I like torture.

you would :36_11_6:

 

[VThokies]

Betcrimes used to chart this...I dont know if he still has it. Anyway this was a couple yrs ago last time I saw it but you would see very clear runs of over dominated days followed by a run of under days. Very seldom could you take three days ( a normal series) and not have it titled in one direction

 

[ljump12]

If you look in any math textbook, you will find that your logic is flawed.

The outcomes are entirely independent. If you were to flip a fair coin 100 times and it landed on heads all 100 times, the chance of the next flip landing on heads would still be 50%.

Now there COULD be some other minute factors, like 3 days of intense overs making linemakers shift the lines off the true middle. but as far as a single day goes - doesn't make any sense.

 

[BetCrimes1984]

My opinion differs from the majority of the above, only I do agree that 1 day's early results aren't enough of a time frame to take action from. If you had a day's early games in 1 particular league go all Under (or Over), and that was on top of that particular league's games having gone mostly the same way total result wise the previous 5-6 days (ie, come out ahead of), then I'd look at the most obvious opposite result games within those late games and as long as Ump & weather conditions gave a green light, I'd go ahead and back it with confidence.

In my experience of recording results, unders dont occur 100,000 times out of 100,000, and this isn't a roulette wheel. The same pitcher isn't being wheeled out every day, the same batters aren't physiologically in the same space everyday, the same weather conditions don't apply every day. Those variables guarantee that lengthy ocurrences of either total result for a particular league as a totality never last for more than 5-6 days before the opposite total result at least ties a day (AL 3-3-1, NL 4-4). So if you've had 5-6 days of Unders winning in a particular league every day, then Under comes out on top for 3-4 early games the next day, feel safe an Over correction of sorts will start to make itself felt in those coming night games and if they don't, then the next day is a green light for said results. The immediate observation that these games have no connection to one another so there's no reason that should be, has logic on it's side. The way things actually pan out in real time runs counter to that logic. My basketball trend thread I've kept for 6 seasons manifestly represents the fact. I don't keep such a thread for baseball because there are 2 different leagues, this is a ml based sport and the fact there are so many more games played. All that means the arcs of results are much less even in immediate terms than what they are in the NBA, so less amenable to being made use of with any certainty. It's just as easy to not do the intensive work of recording all results, and more quickly noting "freehand" when 5-6 days of 1 result have predominated (which is something I actually do when I'm fully focused on the mlb, but I'm not currently).

 

[cubsker]

read Fooled by Randomness by Talib. In fact, this is a book every gambler should read.