Fading nationals is for losing players

texasfight

texasfight

Karl Marx sucks balls
I am making the following post at a time when the nationals are 1-8 and preparing to play smoltz on the road and three on the road at the mets. I am here to help those of you who have been "fading" the nats. In all forms of handicapping the player needs to be selective... there will be times when the nationals are great bets , good bets , bad bets and terrible bets. This next statement may cause some disagreement , but i will stand by it. NO BASEBALL BET IS A VALUE AT MINUS 300. This seems obvious to me and most handicappers i have met over the years. bergman vs smoltz , minor league lineup versus braves lineup ........ it can still NEVER be a value. The best pitchers in the majors have bad outings , the worst pitchers in the majors have good outings. Batters for the better lineup can hit the ball hard right at people all night and fail to record runs, while the other side reaches on error, steals a base and eventuallty sac flies home. Many times a great pitcher throws 105 pitches through seven innings, allows no runs and the bullpen promptly gives up a few to lose the game. This is professional baseball folks. I am glad that those of you "fading" the nats have been cashing tickets to date ..... but baseball gamblers who routinely lay 200 to 280 on favorites will LOSE in the long run. Baseball gamblers who routinely lay a run and a half and are still laying money ....... well ....... they need to re-evaluate what they are doing because they are not going to be a long term winner.

I personally have found 4 occasions to bet ON the nationals this year. I went 1 -3 in those games ( and truth be told was lucky in the win). I have lost 1.65 units betting on the nationals this year.
 
That's why you take RL at -137 :p. I also believe most of us have been taking the RL when the ML had obviously lost it's value. but thanks for the help.
 
I disagree with the general overall statement that fading the nationals is for losing players. Tell me when they are going to win? these guys won't win 50 games this year.
 
I think there's value in the Nats tomorrow, but I won't play it due to this feeling that Patterson is trying to throw through elbow pain. Pelphrey laying 180 at some places? Yeah I know he's a top 30 prospect, but that's a game you just gotta play the dog or pass imo. I agree, laying 300 won't get you there in the long-run. Who here is laying 300 tonight? I don't see anyone. I see a few runline wagers ranging from 125-150, but that's about it. If I were to ever lay this type juice on a runline, tonight would be the night, with a veteran mound presence out there in Smoltzie. I agree with Hunt also, these guys will not win 50 games, especially when Patty hits the DL in the near future...
 
LOL..the chase system is definitely in full effect tonight.

ML parlays and -2.5 ALT rl's...play it, they are that bad.
 
I agree, I mean I wouldn't lay -300 on any baseball game, not even against the nats..but yesterday and the day before the RL's were a gift from god.
 
I agree. Baseball is wayyy too much of a crap shoot to just blindly fade any team. No team has won less than 51 games in the past few years. Not one. Even the Tigers won 43 in a near record-setting year. In actuality, the worst record in the league is often a team that's won over 60 games. I don't see this year being any different. Just too random of a sport. If the worst team still wins over 35% of their games, you had better be getting the odds that dictate the bet.
 
When the Nats get Nick Johnson back and John Patterson is healthy then I'll seriously consider betting them based on situations. OTHERWISE, it'll be near impossible to bet on them.
 
good thread guys...but tell me when do you bet on them?

I mean shit I would take Pelphrey and the RL tomorrow, the nationals pitching is a joke and the mets might score 10 runs every game.
 
the pitching is awful renew...god could be hitting for them in the cleanup spot and the other team will still score more runs.
 
lol Hunt i realize that, it's just if John Patterson can return to his form of a couple year ago and Nick Johnson comes back they'll actually have another decent bat with Zimmerman. Maybe they could survive the 7th and 8th and get it to Cordero. but really that's best case scenario. They'd have to play a perfect game it seems for that to happen.
 
Braves ML is a great play as parlay fodder...I have Braves -305 w/ Twinkies -158...$25 to win $29...saves me the juice on the twins.
 
HUNTDOG said:
I agree, I mean I wouldn't lay -300 on any baseball game, not even against the nats..but yesterday and the day before the RL's were a gift from god.
Click to expand...

I'm on Braves ML -300... I think they win this game more than 3 out of 4 times so it's value imo.
 
that's fondystyle for you..fondy don't give a fuck..and it is smart in a way because braves win this game 19-20 times imo...I jsut don't have the balls to lose almost my whole roll doing that shit
 
thanks Fondy...I know what you mean...I don't know how many -500 NCAAB ML's I lost this season...so many 6-8 pt favs that shit the bed...but I really like Smoltz and a hot Brave team against this mediocre National team.
 
braves win 8-3 fuck the nats.....this coming from hardcore phillies fan....the braves are still good.....and nats stink.....they were ok last year because of frank robinson..a hallfamer coach.....i dont' see smoltz losing at home ....i don't see..i am taking the spread and enjoy it while i drink my beer and smoke lololo gl to everyone
 
I think the Nats were okay last year because they had Alfonso Soriano and better pitching? possibly a setup man?
 
fading the nats is for "losing players" ?
ok. tell that to my bank account. better yet, tell that to everyone who will cash in on them night in and night out this season.
 
texasfight said:
I personally have found 4 occasions to bet ON the nationals this year. I went 1 -3 in those games ( and truth be told was lucky in the win). I have lost 1.65 units betting on the nationals this year.
Click to expand...

wouldnt that make YOU the losing player :shake:
 
yeah texas, Ive bet against them for 7 straight games, i went 6-1, your minus 1.65 units....u might want to edit your origional post...


KEEP 'FADING THOSE NATS' FELLAS!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
texasfight said:
I am making the following post at a time when the nationals are 1-8 and preparing to play smoltz on the road and three on the road at the mets. I am here to help those of you who have been "fading" the nats. In all forms of handicapping the player needs to be selective... there will be times when the nationals are great bets , good bets , bad bets and terrible bets. This next statement may cause some disagreement , but i will stand by it. NO BASEBALL BET IS A VALUE AT MINUS 300. This seems obvious to me and most handicappers i have met over the years. bergman vs smoltz , minor league lineup versus braves lineup ........ it can still NEVER be a value. The best pitchers in the majors have bad outings , the worst pitchers in the majors have good outings. Batters for the better lineup can hit the ball hard right at people all night and fail to record runs, while the other side reaches on error, steals a base and eventuallty sac flies home. Many times a great pitcher throws 105 pitches through seven innings, allows no runs and the bullpen promptly gives up a few to lose the game. This is professional baseball folks. I am glad that those of you "fading" the nats have been cashing tickets to date ..... but baseball gamblers who routinely lay 200 to 280 on favorites will LOSE in the long run. Baseball gamblers who routinely lay a run and a half and are still laying money ....... well ....... they need to re-evaluate what they are doing because they are not going to be a long term winner.

I personally have found 4 occasions to bet ON the nationals this year. I went 1 -3 in those games ( and truth be told was lucky in the win). I have lost 1.65 units betting on the nationals this year.
Click to expand...

Betting the nationals is suicide. Team should be defeated..Just awful.. I will be honest, I didn't come close to reading your whole post, your topic said enough

Now onto the -200 ml to -300ml

The team is so bad you can forget betting ml and stick to a rl for a decent -130.. today is the exception the books are tired of getting crushed on the bad news bears


edit* - i had to relook at this trhead im, pretty buzzed but seriously...what the hell?

if you bet against the nationals every game u are wut 7-1? vs. being down a whole shit load of money betting on these guys..

Granted you can't fade them every game but to even suggest its for suckers is out of this world

I will end this by saying, there are many of us who are pretty good betting vs the nats, betting on them is for losing players.. just crazy, i dun even care about the outcome tonight..
 
Last edited:
I am going to state again that in my view NO BASEBALL BET IS A VALUE AT MINUS 300.

The nats/braves game just ended 2-0 nats. What does this mean in the grand scheme of these two teams ? ...........not much ... it is a single major league baseball game. the nationals are 2-8 . what does this mean in the grand scheme of how many games the nats should win ...... not much .... but slightly more than a single game indicates. the oddsmakers posted total nat wins somewhere in the low sixties. what does this mean in the grand scheme of how many games the nats will win..... likely more than the preivious two. this is simple math .... statistics ... standard deviations. the more trials of events .... the more the result approaches its "true" value. i have gotten "flamed" here for my post. my post targeted no - one , it was a post about fundamental principles in successful sport betting. I posted this at a time when the nats were 1-8 , and facing four consecutive road games to illustrate that i am not saying this from a bandwagon ( not sure there is anymore room on it anyway) but from years of experience. The nationals won tonight with the braves at minus 300 2-0 ....... had they lost 9-1 ..... the following still holds true....
NO BASEBALL BET IS A VALUE AT MINUS 300

if one continues to fade the nats as they take on the mets .... it will take a sweep to get back the money lost tonight. think about that a second .... or maybe even a minute. I want to respond to a few of my detractors. i wont call anyone out by name, just in defense of what i am saying. someone said ... "none of us were blindly fading the nats" .......................................... ................................................ and then several posts later someone states "i've bet against them for seven straight games, i'm 6-1"
seven straight games of value all against the same team consecutively ... it happens sometimes ... but more likely it is a blind fade. Someone else states they dont believe the nats will get to fifty wins .... since most books had them to win in the low sixties, and this person believes they won't hit fifty .... well again .... that person must have a HUGE ... i mean HUGE bet on the total wins under for the nats ..... its a far greater value than you will ever get in a single event. I want to be clear about what i am saying here ... IT IS NOT AN ATTACK , it is fundamental sports betting. Do you know what minus 300 baseball bettors are referred to in gaming circles ??????? bridgejumpers. BTW if the nats played 162 games and went 49 -113 .......... at minus 300 .....you would win 113 units (1x113) and lose 147 units (3x49) for a net loss of 34 units. in fact in order to make money at minus 300 over the course of a season the favorite would have to win 122 and lose 40. That's a nice winning percentage to make two units. In further illustration of this ..... I am now 2-3 when betting ON the nats, for a profit of 1.05 units. Again in finding value it is not about win percentage it is about positive expectation. ITS BASEBALL. it's math folks , its fundamentals of sports betting. its about value. Hope you take this advice for what it is worth and in the spirit in which it is given.
 
texasfight said:
I am going to state again that in my view NO BASEBALL BET IS A VALUE AT MINUS 300.

The nats/braves game just ended 2-0 nats. What does this mean in the grand scheme of these two teams ? ...........not much ... it is a single major league baseball game. the nationals are 2-8 . what does this mean in the grand scheme of how many games the nats should win ...... not much .... but slightly more than a single game indicates. the oddsmakers posted total nat wins somewhere in the low sixties. what does this mean in the grand scheme of how many games the nats will win..... likely more than the preivious two. this is simple math .... statistics ... standard deviations. the more trials of events .... the more the result approaches its "true" value. i have gotten "flamed" here for my post. my post targeted no - one , it was a post about fundamental principles in successful sport betting. I posted this at a time when the nats were 1-8 , and facing four consecutive road games to illustrate that i am not saying this from a bandwagon ( not sure there is anymore room on it anyway) but from years of experience. The nationals won tonight with the braves at minus 300 2-0 ....... had they lost 9-1 ..... the following still holds true....
NO BASEBALL BET IS A VALUE AT MINUS 300

if one continues to fade the nats as they take on the mets .... it will take a sweep to get back the money lost tonight. think about that a second .... or maybe even a minute. I want to respond to a few of my detractors. i wont call anyone out by name, just in defense of what i am saying. someone said ... "none of us were blindly fading the nats" .......................................... ................................................ and then several posts later someone states "i've bet against them for seven straight games, i'm 6-1"
seven straight games of value all against the same team consecutively ... it happens sometimes ... but more likely it is a blind fade. Someone else states they dont believe the nats will get to fifty wins .... since most books had them to win in the low sixties, and this person believes they won't hit fifty .... well again .... that person must have a HUGE ... i mean HUGE bet on the total wins under for the nats ..... its a far greater value than you will ever get in a single event. I want to be clear about what i am saying here ... IT IS NOT AN ATTACK , it is fundamental sports betting. Do you know what minus 300 baseball bettors are referred to in gaming circles ??????? bridgejumpers. BTW if the nats played 162 games and went 49 -113 .......... at minus 300 .....you would win 113 units (1x113) and lose 147 units (3x49) for a net loss of 34 units. in fact in order to make money at minus 300 over the course of a season the favorite would have to win 122 and lose 40. That's a nice winning percentage to make two units. In further illustration of this ..... I am now 2-3 when betting ON the nats, for a profit of 1.05 units. Again in finding value it is not about win percentage it is about positive expectation. ITS BASEBALL. it's math folks , its fundamentals of sports betting. its about value. Hope you take this advice for what it is worth and in the spirit in which it is given.
Click to expand...

we obviously know what you are talking about. you quoted Hile I believe and he didn't bet ML each time, when the price became too much and you still get around +100 on RL, that won't burn a hole in your pocket. When the value was gone on the ML you switch to RL. Here's what I bet.

Tuesday 4/09: -104 (Tim Hudson vs. Matt Chico)
Wednesday 4/10: -114 (Chuck James vs Jerome Williams)
Thursday 4/11: -137 (John Smoltz vs Jason Bergmann)

Still end up on top betting 1 Unit, but I varied my bet ending up with much more.

The odds of the Nats being in a 1 run game, unless the other team has a BAD night swinging or the Nats pitch great, seem slim with that starting rotation with a #1 guy who is hasn't been himself since injury, a #2 guy who started 6 games last year, #3 guy who belongs in AA ball, a bullpen that is thin missing Ayala, King, and missing a important piece in Nick Johnson who's +.400 OBP, is huge. Also adjusting to life without Soriano and plugging in Belliard at 2B. It takes time to build chemistry. I choose to fade the Nats because they are in a world of hurt right now missing so many key pieces, adjustment period, etc.
 
The opening RL number is directly correlated to the opening ML number. It is my opinion that laying a run and a half (especially true with a home team) and laying money is a long term losing proposition. Favorites of this size are not profitable baseball bets in the long term. RL bets here might be better bankroll management for "tilters" but hold no other true mathematical edge (not accounting for line moves which may make either the rl or ml the more valuable play or rather the lesser mistake).
 
Again , i am not saying that anyone here is a tilter. just stating that tilters are in more danger when losing larger sums of money and are therefore less likely to tilt when laying 135 instead of 300. just want to be clear, because when i post online sometimes people think i am talking about them specifically when i am not.:cheers:
 
texasfight said:
Again , i am not saying that anyone here is a tilter. just stating that tilters are in more danger when losing larger sums of money and are therefore less likely to tilt when laying 135 instead of 300. just want to be clear, because when i post online sometimes people think i am talking about them specifically when i am not.:cheers:
Click to expand...

everyones got their own style of betting. you like to use 1 Unit a bet and I respect that, that takes a lot of patience to build up a bankroll that quickly.

I don't have quite that patience, I tend to do it, but when I see a play I like I like to increase the unit size. and you're right, missing of those bets does hurt but gambling is gambling.
 
You have valid points as far as longterm percentages when laying such a heavy price. My problem is this . Every game is a different situation and should be treated as such and independent . Its pure logic to understand the higher the price the less room for error over the long haul.

Unfortunately the arguement is way to simple why high chalk is bad. Its beyond ridiculous to limit yourself to a price range. Your lacking something if a certain price range makes it difficult to cap a game and its not money. Its absolutely incorrect to say that -300 never has value. Value is determined not by the actual price but the discount you receive. Saying favs above -200 present no value is inaccurate. Perfect example is Hudson vs Chico that game opened probably a good 100 bux then it should have. Your never going to buy a BMW for 10K but if someone offered you won for 35K when the sticker(ie:true value) was 55K then isnt that value?? YES , it is. Thats what you got that day....Hudson throwing his best ball in awhile vs a team who doesnt hit....you may struggle with how many runs are score but its safe to suggest that Was would not score more then 3 times that day so how confident would you be the Braves get at least 4 off Chico in the present situation??

The key is selectivity in making these big plays...remember all the screaming about Santana in Chicago last Sunday...its to much , its to high and then he shut them down....

I think your point should be you just cant blindly fade WASH when its -250. Then your arguement has relevance. The reason why WASH was attractive tonite had more to do with the fact that they are trying to avoid being swept by ATL for the 2nd Consecutive series, Manny Acta held his 1st close door meeting after WEDs loss, Bergmann had a high quality start last season vs ATL so why not again , etc...rather then price...why would anyone who was backing ATL the past 2 games play ATL again...u have noting to gain....THINK ABOUT THAT ANGLE...there were fundamental reasons outside of price. The Nats are a bad example cause perception wise people didnt realize how bad they were to start the season. I said preseason if your playing one future it should be the Nats team UNDER. No depth , no youngsters on the rise just what you see is what you get and if that doesnt work well oh shit!

So the moral is NEVER blindly fade any team. Do your Due Diligence and understand what makes any team valuable....

Is Johan Santana value tmrw? Look at context...he is at home with his huge winning streak reg season facing a team who had 20 wins last year away and 47 past 2 years....they have there best SP on the hill...now how many games did he win away....?? cant assume Kazmir is value just cause of price....and you cant assume a team at home laying -120 is cheap it can be rather expensive....its all relative. Mistakes with higher chalk cant be toleratted though and the other losses can be bankroll friendly. Doesnt mean they arent as damaging though...its more then price......:shake:
 
35K when the sticker(ie:true value) was 55K then isnt that value?? YES , it is.

im oppo here. i would think that there is something wrong with the car (reverse odds analysis).
 
You make many valid points in your post , nut. i am not saying that there is never value in laying some chalk. i am saying there is never a value play at minus 300. And when i said laying 200 is for losing players , i think i said or atleast hope i said ... people who ROUTINELY lay heavy chalk. you make valid points ... certainly every situation is different and needs to be evaluated on its own merits. It is less of a mistake to lay 300 with smoltz on the mound at home versus the lowly nationals than it would be to lay 300 with davies on the mound at home versus the lowly nationals. i personally have NEVER found a major league baseball game that merits laying 300, thats all i am saying. In your post regarding hudson/chico there may be value in laying 200. I am just saying that in most situations there is more value opportunities on the dogs than the huge favorites and that those people who ROUTINELY lay big numbers will find long term profitability difficult. There are spots to play those games however, as you stated. So while it is more than price... much more . you are dead on right about that ..... I have yet to see the game where minus 300 is a value. Again, if i didnt say it right the first time , i meant to say that baseball gamblers who routinely lay prices over 200 will lose in the long term. you are absolutely correct in that there are many situations over the course of the year where there is a value at this heavy chalk. good luck on your investments friday.
 
When i was in college i took a statistics course. a question on a test asked this ... summarized...

"a man tosses a two sided coin in the air 100 times and it comes up heads 100 times. what are the odds of it coming up heads on the next toss?"

the answer he wanted was 50 percent.

i answered summarized...

"if the coin is true , fifty percent. But if i had to bet ... i'll take heads.":spank:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2daBank
Rest of mlb reg season discussion
2 3 4 5
Replies
232
Views
1K
bulldogs
B
Wiretowire
MLB Tuesday 10/1
Replies
12
Views
165
Paul Patrol
P
Wiretowire
MLB Saturday 10/5
Replies
7
Views
136
cashflowmatters
cashflowmatters
Wiretowire
MLB Sunday 10/13
Replies
3
Views
81
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
Wiretowire
MLB Tuesday 9/10
Replies
6
Views
144
wiseplayer
wiseplayer
Back
Top