_
(Please scroll down for target betting updates for Saturday, July 31, 2010)
Pundits who oppose the entire concept of a betting strategy with long-term profitability are adamant that past and present patterns of wins and losses have almost nothing to tell us about the future.
It therefore follows that any strategy that relies on what has gone before (future data being unavailable to us!) is certain to fail in the long run.
The nay-sayers - the phrase nattering nabobs of negativity comes to mind as the sole legacy of a disgraced Vice-president - concede that the house edge is a reliable element of gambling that applies to upcoming games as much as to existing data.
But they argue that because the short-term effects of negative expectation are random and unpredictable, dependence on the repetition of prior patterns or trends is non-starter.
To put it bluntly, You Can't Win.
In fact, the only beneficiaries of the YCW conventional wisdom are bookies and casinos. And luckily for them, the vast majority of punters subscribe to the point of view that has been spoon-fed to successive generations since gambling began.
That leaves just a handful of us to challenge the status quo by first discovering, and then proving, ways to ensure that the average value of all winning bets exceeds the average value of all losing bets by a percentage sufficient to overcome to house edge.
Such proof, of course, is always dismissed as "anecdotal" because it depends on past outcomes that can never be repeated in the same pattern that resulted in a long-term win.
You just got lucky this time, say the experts, and next time or the time after that, you are sure to crash and burn.
I just wrapped up a preliminary analysis of a betting method sent my way by my old friend and collaborator #@&?#@@#$$, aka "Peter Punter," and the news is not good.
The strategy bets fixed amounts in four categories that are differing percentages of the available bankroll, and the focus is on run-line wagers with a few money-line bets tossed in.
One problem is that average odds are high (+141 for today, +148 yesterday, for example) and over time it is safe to predict that longer odds win less often than shorter ones!
The strategy's greatest weakness (as I told Pete before I started the analysis) is that in a sustained downturn, the bankroll diminishes, meaning that bet values that are tied to it will also shrink as resources evaporate.
So far this month, the system has had four winning days and 12 losing days, and has lost more than half of the $5,000 bankroll I put into it on July 5.
Bet values that get smaller with each losing day mean that even when the sustained losing streak lets up, as it invariably will, at least for a while, recovery becomes less and less likely.
Pete was not suggesting that the strategy had long-term legs: He just wanted me to take a look at it, and in passing sent me a link to an interesting news item that suggests that InvestaPick and other sports-related "funds" will soon have some powerful competition.
A European consortium is so confident that sports books can be consistently beaten that it has launched a plan to raise more than $65,000,000 in $125,000 buy-ins from investors who have reportedly already kicked in more than $20,000,000 in seed money.
Pete and I first started talking in August of 2009 about the viability of such a venture, and the idea has been the focus of my research ever since.
According to the gambling experts, remember, there's no sense in studying the past for clues to the future, even though scientists, economists, mathematicians and other very smart people are doing it somewhere in the world every second of every day.
Sports "trading" has been around for a while, but it will take the reported Euro-venture or something on a similar scale to make it respectable, probably.
Pete's request prompted me to take a fresh look at baseball statistics, broadening my attention beyond the underdogs that I have been concentrating on since last November 1 to take in run-line bets on favorites as well.
One thing I have learned (and believe me, there are many!) is that bookies know a whole lot more than anyone else about who's likely to win or lose a given game in any sport.
Duhhhhhhh...?
Not so much, because there are thousands of handicappers in business to sell "inside" information to tens of thousands of eager punters, and countless thousands more bettors who spend hours each day poring over historical data in search of their own special edge.
In my 7-dog trial, I have limited bets to a fairly wide range (+100 to +180), so I took all games from the 2009 MLB season and about half as many more from the current season, and queried the database for results in that range.
I should add that I learned just a few weeks in to the 7DT that the range was a tad wide, but I promised myself and my readers that I would not change the rules in mid-trial.
What I got from 2009 was a 44.15% dog win rate (DWR) at the 7DT range, with a 48.36% win rate for run-line bets in the same odds range on favorites (FRL) that did not clash with the dog picks for the same day. The overall 2009 DWR was 43.2%.
So far this season, the equivalent numbers are 41.02%, 41.37% and 42.2%.
Narrowing the range gets me 44.16% and 47.86% for 2010 so far, with the DWR unaffected at 42.2%, and 45.38% and 43.99% for 2009 (DWR 43.2%).
Anecdotal? Irrelevant?
To some, for sure.
But bookies are just like you and me in relying on the past to predict the future to a helpful degree.
And because their resources and knowledge are far greater than mine, I am happy to rely on bookies in turn.
The strategy that Pete introduced me to a couple of weeks back depends heavily, as I said before, on long shots that fall into the "in your dreams" category. And that just does not make good betting sense.
If the book is willing to give you +180 on a run-line bet (or a bet of any other stripe, come to that) you'd better hope for divine intervention.
Instead, look for a middle ground that recognizes that too narrow a range will not win enough to overcome the house edge, and that going too wide will greatly increase the overall number of losers, increasing the house edge and making your goal ever harder to achieve.
Assuming that you never place a bet at less than even money, just keep in mind that a DWR of 45% would require average winning payouts at (55/45)*100 = +123 at a fixed or flat betting rate to overcome negative expectation.
At the above-quoted WR of 47.86%, the flat-bet payback target would drop to +109.
And, of course, target betting is about as far from flat betting as you can get.
Negative expectation - the house advantage - is a fact of life and a pain in the ass to boot.
But it is NOT unbeatable!
Here's some more anecdotal information (I'm still playing one-thumb blackjack on my iPod, usually while sitting on the can, and I'm hoping to get back to the half-mill in funny-munny profits that I achieved before my last gizmo was stolen!):
Stats like those you see here, with a house edge of more than eight times the expectation for single-deck blackjack, make a crushing long-term loss inevitable, according to all those "experts" I refer to deferentially from time to time.
They also indicate either that I am a very bad basic strategy player with serious death-wish (I'm not), or that something is still seriously out of whack with MobilityWare's iPod blackjack app (it is).
I shoulda lost a bundle, but instead...
The BJ app allows bets from $5 to $5,000, which is a spread I can live with.
It starts a new player off with $1,000 in the bank, then allows markers of $500 each time the cash runs out.
Given the house edge you see above, there's no way in hell I could hope to "win" the amount I am ahead by busting out, and then playing 'til my thumb caught fire, waiting for 23 successive wins!!! to boost my bankroll into six figures.
Do the math, folks: +$500, +$1,000, +$2,000, +$4,000, +($5,000 x 19) is what it would take to cheat the game and achieve an overall win like the one you see above.
Then again, another way to go would be...target betting!
Here are 7DT bets for today, augmented by slim pickings to include some FRL bets as indicated:
1005 951 St. Louis +120 ML 12 (betting closed, game going very badly for my guys as I type this!)
1310 954 Philly Phillies +140 ML 8.5
1610 961 Wash Nats +115 ML 10
1605 972 Baltimore +115 ML 9
1605 971 Minnesota +125 RL (9)
1605 975 Toronto +145 RL (8.5)
1610 963 Atlanta +150 RL (8.5)
Next time, I will post anecdotal data derived from running target betting rules against the 2009 and 2010 bets.
The bets themselves, and their order, are completely out of my control, and are in essence selected by the bookies, since I apply a relatively tight odds range and could not care less which teams I'm backing or who they have to beat.
The more that emotion creeps into the business of gambling, whether it's through subjective selection of bets or that common enemy called greed, the more likely it is that the house will pocket your bankroll.
And who wants that?
Sunday, July 25 at 10:20am
I am racing against the clock, as I am most Sunday mornings, so here are dog picks for today, all of them money-line bets...
1010 903 Florida Marlins +120 8.5
1035 906 Pittsburgh Pirates +140 8.5
1110 909 Washington Nats +120 9.5
1310 914 Arizona D'backs +130 8.5
1310 915 NY Mets +140 7
1005 920 Cleveland Indians +135 9
1035 924 Baltimore Orioles +110 9.5
Placing run-line bets on favorites had me breaking new ground yesterday and making a couple of dumb mistakes. I'll get the hang of it eventually, I'm sure.
Naturally, it would be odd if I did not keep touting target betting as the only sure way to recover from a prolonged downturn, but I have done exhaustive research into this challenge, and no other approach comes close.
Betting a fixed percentage of a shrinking bankroll, for example, is a guaranteed disaster, but that does not stop several online system salesmen from promoting it as the silver bullet.
More about that later!
Tuesday, July 27 at 8:35am
Today's 7DT picks:
1605 903 Atlanta Braves +120 6.5
1610 906 NY Mets +130 7
1710 909 Cincinnati Reds +115 7.5
1740 911 Pittsburgh Pirates +165 9.5
1710 926 KC Royals +115 9
1905 929 Boston Red Sox +115 8
And because I was short a 7th "dog" for today, a run-line pick...
1705 907 Chicago Cubs -1.5 +150 7
Wednesday, July 28 at 12:10pm
A couple of early games slipped by me today (the bets were placed at the crack of dawn as usual, and they should have been posted well before now).
Anyone who imagines that there's some advantage to delaying bets until an hour into a game obviously has not been paying attention!
The recent article about the new European sports book hedge fund that is in the pre-launch phase said the idea will be to bet and cash out at different times during hundreds of games in play all around the world, much as brokers in stocks and foreign exchange buy and sell continuously.
But that's all way too headache-y for me! I don't even pay attention to team names beyond what's needed to place a bet, and who's up, who's down, who's in and who's out is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned.
All I care about is numbers: If the book puts a prospect on the board at odds I can live with, I'm in. Too much personal involvement is death!
Yesterday was the first time in weeks that we managed five right 7DT picks out of seven. Hallelujah!
Today's 7DT picks:
1105 MLB 952 Houston Astros 115 8
1110 954 Milwaukee Brewers 100 8.5
1605 956 Washington Nats 115 7.5
1605 957 Florida Marlins 115 8
1610 961 St. Louis Cardinals 105 6.5
1905 966 San Diego Padres 190 6.5
1110 968 KC Royals 105 9.5
Thursday, July 29 at 10:20am
These crack-of-dawn games really are a pain!
I'm late with a couple of today's picks, but since when I checked a moment ago, the Cards were getting thrashed 3 to zip, I don't think anyone can accuse me of sleight of hand!
Yesterday gave the w-i-d-e spread column in the 7-dog trial a huge boost, bumping it back to 98% of its best win to date.
If it can set a new high between now and the last day of the month, I think I will end the experiment after a neat-and-tidy 9-month gestation.
If not...well, I will probably pull the plug anyway, and be thankful that along the way, the need for a very wide betting spread was once again resoundingly confirmed.
I started out tracking at spreads of 1 to 5 and 1 to 50, as regular readers will know, and neither of those were able to survive a very weak start to the season for MLB underdogs.
The super-wide spread of 1 to 1,000 (about a fifth of what's recommended for casino house games) soared until July 5, then wobbled dramatically for a while before yesterday's lifeline almost pulled it out of the hole.
Selections are being presented somewhat differently today:
The information is all there, as you can see, with the 7DT selections on the right.
On the left is today's betting lineup for a new tracking sheet I started when my pal "Peter Punter" alerted me to a strategy he has been trying since the beginning of July.
More detail later, but for now, know that Pete's new method has so far achieved part of target betting's primary objective, which is to ensure that the average overall value of all winning bets (AWV) exceeds the average value of all losses (ALV) by a substantial percentage.
The method's $W/$L number to date is 123%.
Unfortunately, the L/W number (117/74) since July 5 stands at 158%, resulting in the method losing more than 55% of its opening bankroll in less than a month.
Pete did me a big favor, though: a prolonged slump for underdogs has made the 2010 MLB season tough going for target betting, and run-line wagers on favorites are looking more and more like a promising means of cushioning the fall until "the math" inevitably bounces back in the next few weeks.
Friday, July 30 at 3:30pm
The latest wave of visiting family headed home early Thursday, and I have been busy since then collecting yet more data about the 2009 and 2010 baseball seasons for presentation here in what I hope will be a comprehensive and comprehensible format.
These things always take forever, and it will probably be mid-week before I'm ready to rock the world with verifiable proof that the odds in the book's favor can be vanquished consistently, safely and effectively.
What I don't want is a set of numbers that look anything like the 2009 MLB summary offered as "proof" of the strategy that "Peter Punter" asked me to take a look at.
It shows breathtaking profits for last season, then wimps out on proving that the same method does as well or better for the current half-season.
It is a critical axiom for all system "debunkers" that odds-busting formulas are always developed by tweaking various tricks against existing data until an imaginary big win is seen, with no hope of repeating the performance against future random numbers.
Verifiable baseball results from more than 4,000 games in 10+ months have proved yet again that target betting is a viable, unique way to consistently beat odds that are far worse than anything found at casino table games.
The reason that the strategy stays so successfully in the game in the long run is that while wins are harder to come by, paybacks are almost invariably much better than even money.
It works just fine with money-line bets, but the run-line option, always backing favorites as long as the price is right, adds an interesting new dimension that I will talk about at length when I finally get all my ducks in a row.
Mix the two non-conflicting approaches by opting for RL bets only when a given game does not offer an attractive ML payback, and many of the slumps that occur when underdogs suddenly can't get arrested are made dramatically less costly.
Below are today's picks, in a summary that shows how the 7DT's fortunes have been greatly improved this week, followed by sneak peaks at ML+RL data that I will explain later.
The way target betting is applied in a sports-book setting is much as I predicted it should be when Peter Punter and I first talked about the change of focus almost a year ago.
Multiple bets are placed every day, and their values have no relationship to one another.
Instead, bets are tracked in series, so that the result of bet #1 on the first day determines the value of bet #1 next day, #2 is linked to #2 day after day, and so on.
The MLB data sets for both the 2009 and (part) 2010 seasons require as may as 16 bets a day, and I admit that a month ago I would have said that that much skin in that many games was madness.
I have had to eat some crow over that, although as much in fear of unmanageable paperwork as anything else, I have run tests that reduce the workload by imposing variable odds ranges.
In the 7-dog trial, my range was from +100 to +180.
On the one hand, I was frustrated by the need to stick to seven bets a day, which required me to apply a certain amount of subjective judgment to the task of making selections.
On the other, I got a big kick out of seeing wins that paid as much as $1.80 on the dollar - good news in the era of 6-5 payouts at blackjack!
I have had to build a whole new spreadsheet template to handle up to 16 bets a day in real time, and I decided to do it in the newest version of Excel rather than sticking with my old faithful (QuattroPro in a version so old that it might even pre-date the advent of computers!).
Excel is a marvel, for sure. I have used it to a limited extent for years, but now my demands on it are such that I am having to learn a whole new language.
Getting everything right will take me a while.
One interesting development: target betting is (just!) ahead in the ML+RL trial after six betting days, while Pete's "bookie-busting" method (the salesman's claim, not Pete's) is in the middle of a long slide.
Slumps happen to even the smartest of bettors, but I cannot see how a strategy that values bets at fixed percentages of a diminishing bankroll can ever get out of the hole.
Saturday, July 31 at 7:15am
I have plenty to say about the updates below, but no time to say it (today's a play day for me and the missus!).
So, here are today's picks, in a new format, plus the last 7DT wrap-up:
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this._
Thứ Bảy, 24 tháng 7, 2010
It's not about whether you win or lose, it's how you bet the game . Especially if the odds are that you will lose more games than you win!
Post on 08:56
Be The First To Comment
Thứ Ba, 20 tháng 7, 2010
As every gambler nows, timing is (almost) everything. And just lately, my timing has seriously sucked...
Post on 10:11
Be The First To Comment
_
(Please scroll down for dog picks for Friday, July 23)
Why, oh why, did I choose Sunday and Monday to sit out betting on major league baseball!
Sunday, dogs won 7 out of 15 games, and yesterday they thrashed favorites in 7 of 13 games.
But there's no use crying over un-won bets...the way things have been going for my 7-dog trial in recent weeks, if I'd put money down, I would have jinxed all those "dogs" and the story would have been very different.
OK, I'm kidding - my three readers and the parrot that poops on a printout of this blog probably do not include people with enough influence to change a game's result just to piss me off!
I may not have placed any bets in the last two days, but I don't consider my time to have been wasted.
Peter Punter's new betting method had two dismal days while I was keeping my money in my pocket (it has had just two winning days in 12 outings since July 5), but by golly, it looks promising!
I can't go into details because that would not be fair to the creator of the betting plan, but I can see from my preliminary analysis that playing the same selections with target betting applied woulda told a very different story for the year to date.
More losing bets than winning ones is not a problem for target betting - in fact, that's precisely the scenario it was created to handle. But a house edge much wider than 10% sustained for a long period stretches it to the limit.
Target betting is a child of casino table games, remember, and even the toughest house game (roulette at -5.26%) does not come close to a 10% rake in the long run.
What I like about Pete's new baby is that while it's deeply in the hole in bet value terms, the frequency of wins, along with their tendency to bunch more consistently than dogs have been able to lately, makes the method a potentially terrific target for...er, target!
Here's a fuzzy screen shot from Monday's MLB schedule, with grateful thanks to ScoresandOdds.com.
From a flat bet standpoint, the betting choices and their combined outcome are unremarkable. But target betting changes the picture quite dramatically in a way that I can't easily detail here without giving away Pete's proprietary method.
Maybe sometime down the road...
Here are today's bets, plus information about the bets I coulda woulda shoulda profited from but didn't.
A reminder about color-coding: blue highlights indicate all underdogs within the +100 to +180 range that I have maintained for the 7-dog trial that began last November 1; bold entries show bets I have actually placed; green and red entries in the run-line columns are new and hopefully self-explanatory!
The 7DT selections for today are clearly indicated, along with no less than TEN promising run-line candidates.
In the last eight-and-a-half months, I have found that managing just seven picks a day is a major chore, and adding ten more doesn't thrill me. I suspect, however, that I won't mind the added drudgery if it proves profitable.
Then again, I'm not expecting a miracle anytime soon.
I have always been a supporter of the caveat that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is, and one of the underpinnings of my pal Pete's new strategy provides a useful case in point.
The method uses a mix of run-line and money line bets, but the emphasis is on the run proposition, and that is not as reliable as it might seem at first glance.
True, favorites will beat the run line more than 70% of the time overall, making the bet sound like a slam dunk (OK, a home run, if you'd rather I didn't mix sports similes).
We know that overall, dogs do well to achieve a 45% DWR, which gives favorites a 55% win rate in the long run.
Once you multiply 55% by 70%, you get a better idea of what you are up against with run line bets: a win rate of less than 40% vs. maybe 45% backing underdogs all the way.
Damn, these bookies are smart cookies...no wonder they drive Ferraris while the rest of us pump gas into comparative clunkers!
The aim with any betting strategy is to make game selection as objective as possible, a matter of math rather than choice.
And that, of course, is where winning consistently week after week, season after season, gets hard. Unless you happen to be making book?
Wednesday, July 21 at 4:05pm
Just squeaking today's dog picks in before game times, with apologies to anyone affected by my tardiness.
My trouble is that I am having too much fun evaluating Peter Punter's new method, which I should perhaps once more explain was not developed by him, but has him quite excited, based upon prior results from the 2009 MLB season.
As I have said many times, past results are all we have going for us when we seek to create a consistently successful betting strategy, because even the bookies do not have access to the outcome of games as yet unplayed!
The problem is that in many ways, present and future data differ from precedent, the good news being that in some ways, they don't.
History may not repeat itself, but sometimes it's awful similar, in other words (it "rhymes" was how Mark Twain put it).
Sorting the wheat from the chaff is a painstaking task, but worth the effort, I believe.
The inventors of Pete's new strategy claim a 2009 MLB win of more than $400,000 on a $2,000 stake, but the 2010 season to date tells a very different story, and since July 5, the method has seen just three winning days in 13 (some days were skipped, apparently).
Believe me, I want every other strategist out there to come up with a surefire winning method. Until someone does, I am sticking with target betting.
Today's dog picks:
1605 904 Pittsburgh Pirates +105 8.5
1610 905 San Diego Padres +135 8
1610 910 Cincinnati Reds +105 7
1715 911 Philly Phillies +130 8.5
1840 913 NY Mets +105 8.5
1910 915 SF Giants +115 7.5
1910 929 Chicago White Sox +120 6.5
Friday, July 23 at 11:10pm
I had planned to post an exhaustive evaluation of Pete's recently-adopted betting method today but was foiled by an early game on the MLB schedule.
So, words of wit and wisdom next time, but for now, today's 7DT picks:-
1120 MLB 901 St. Louis Cardinals +135 11.5
1705 910 Houston Astros +135 8
1710 911 Washington Nats +110 9.5
1705 920 Baltimore Orioles +110 9
1705 922 Cleveland Indians +130 8
1705 925 LA Angels +170 10
1905 927 Chicago White Sox +115 7
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this._
(Please scroll down for dog picks for Friday, July 23)
Why, oh why, did I choose Sunday and Monday to sit out betting on major league baseball!
Sunday, dogs won 7 out of 15 games, and yesterday they thrashed favorites in 7 of 13 games.
But there's no use crying over un-won bets...the way things have been going for my 7-dog trial in recent weeks, if I'd put money down, I would have jinxed all those "dogs" and the story would have been very different.
OK, I'm kidding - my three readers and the parrot that poops on a printout of this blog probably do not include people with enough influence to change a game's result just to piss me off!
I may not have placed any bets in the last two days, but I don't consider my time to have been wasted.
Peter Punter's new betting method had two dismal days while I was keeping my money in my pocket (it has had just two winning days in 12 outings since July 5), but by golly, it looks promising!
I can't go into details because that would not be fair to the creator of the betting plan, but I can see from my preliminary analysis that playing the same selections with target betting applied woulda told a very different story for the year to date.
More losing bets than winning ones is not a problem for target betting - in fact, that's precisely the scenario it was created to handle. But a house edge much wider than 10% sustained for a long period stretches it to the limit.
Target betting is a child of casino table games, remember, and even the toughest house game (roulette at -5.26%) does not come close to a 10% rake in the long run.
What I like about Pete's new baby is that while it's deeply in the hole in bet value terms, the frequency of wins, along with their tendency to bunch more consistently than dogs have been able to lately, makes the method a potentially terrific target for...er, target!
Here's a fuzzy screen shot from Monday's MLB schedule, with grateful thanks to ScoresandOdds.com.
From a flat bet standpoint, the betting choices and their combined outcome are unremarkable. But target betting changes the picture quite dramatically in a way that I can't easily detail here without giving away Pete's proprietary method.
Maybe sometime down the road...
Here are today's bets, plus information about the bets I coulda woulda shoulda profited from but didn't.
A reminder about color-coding: blue highlights indicate all underdogs within the +100 to +180 range that I have maintained for the 7-dog trial that began last November 1; bold entries show bets I have actually placed; green and red entries in the run-line columns are new and hopefully self-explanatory!
The 7DT selections for today are clearly indicated, along with no less than TEN promising run-line candidates.
In the last eight-and-a-half months, I have found that managing just seven picks a day is a major chore, and adding ten more doesn't thrill me. I suspect, however, that I won't mind the added drudgery if it proves profitable.
Then again, I'm not expecting a miracle anytime soon.
I have always been a supporter of the caveat that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is, and one of the underpinnings of my pal Pete's new strategy provides a useful case in point.
The method uses a mix of run-line and money line bets, but the emphasis is on the run proposition, and that is not as reliable as it might seem at first glance.
True, favorites will beat the run line more than 70% of the time overall, making the bet sound like a slam dunk (OK, a home run, if you'd rather I didn't mix sports similes).
We know that overall, dogs do well to achieve a 45% DWR, which gives favorites a 55% win rate in the long run.
Once you multiply 55% by 70%, you get a better idea of what you are up against with run line bets: a win rate of less than 40% vs. maybe 45% backing underdogs all the way.
Damn, these bookies are smart cookies...no wonder they drive Ferraris while the rest of us pump gas into comparative clunkers!
The aim with any betting strategy is to make game selection as objective as possible, a matter of math rather than choice.
And that, of course, is where winning consistently week after week, season after season, gets hard. Unless you happen to be making book?
Wednesday, July 21 at 4:05pm
Just squeaking today's dog picks in before game times, with apologies to anyone affected by my tardiness.
My trouble is that I am having too much fun evaluating Peter Punter's new method, which I should perhaps once more explain was not developed by him, but has him quite excited, based upon prior results from the 2009 MLB season.
As I have said many times, past results are all we have going for us when we seek to create a consistently successful betting strategy, because even the bookies do not have access to the outcome of games as yet unplayed!
The problem is that in many ways, present and future data differ from precedent, the good news being that in some ways, they don't.
History may not repeat itself, but sometimes it's awful similar, in other words (it "rhymes" was how Mark Twain put it).
Sorting the wheat from the chaff is a painstaking task, but worth the effort, I believe.
The inventors of Pete's new strategy claim a 2009 MLB win of more than $400,000 on a $2,000 stake, but the 2010 season to date tells a very different story, and since July 5, the method has seen just three winning days in 13 (some days were skipped, apparently).
Believe me, I want every other strategist out there to come up with a surefire winning method. Until someone does, I am sticking with target betting.
Today's dog picks:
1605 904 Pittsburgh Pirates +105 8.5
1610 905 San Diego Padres +135 8
1610 910 Cincinnati Reds +105 7
1715 911 Philly Phillies +130 8.5
1840 913 NY Mets +105 8.5
1910 915 SF Giants +115 7.5
1910 929 Chicago White Sox +120 6.5
Friday, July 23 at 11:10pm
I had planned to post an exhaustive evaluation of Pete's recently-adopted betting method today but was foiled by an early game on the MLB schedule.
So, words of wit and wisdom next time, but for now, today's 7DT picks:-
1120 MLB 901 St. Louis Cardinals +135 11.5
1705 910 Houston Astros +135 8
1710 911 Washington Nats +110 9.5
1705 920 Baltimore Orioles +110 9
1705 922 Cleveland Indians +130 8
1705 925 LA Angels +170 10
1905 927 Chicago White Sox +115 7
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this._
Thứ Bảy, 17 tháng 7, 2010
Funny: I bust a gut every day to get my picks posted before game time, then InvestaPick comes along with 11 weeks of retroactive picks and scores!
Post on 13:42
Be The First To Comment
_
(No picks for Monday, July 19, but please scroll down for a few more thoughts!)
I guess it's up to potential InvestaPick subscribers to determine whether or not results made public long after the finals were in have any real credibility.
I am, however, amazed that an investment firm that presumably lives or dies by its reputation would pull a stunt like this.
In the end, all I was interested in when IP suddenly showed a pulse after two and a half months in a cryogenic freeze was how their results compared with what woulda been achieved with target betting rather than a Martingale.
First off, all three "funds" made money while we weren't looking, for a combined added total of $1,607, reduced to $1,157 by commission fees.
That's a whole lot better than the 5x or 50x 7-dog trials, which of course did not have the advantage of posting selections after the finals were known.
The super-wide spread model, however, was $42,000 ahead after five right picks out of seven on IP's last day, April 27, and has won an additional $35,700 since then.
InvestaPick's bet value methodology remains a bit of a mystery to me, but in essence it's a Martingale that is still handicapped by a failure to recover all prior losses before reverting to a minimum bet.
This might help smarter folk than I am make heads or tails of IP's "C" results since April 27, 2010:
On April 27, the target betting win to date (since January 1, 2009) was $6,141 and that number would have increased during IP's long nap to +$6,991, or +14%.
IP's "E" fund stood at +$996 on April 27, and was at +$1,619 on July 15. The matching numbers for target betting on the same selections are $7,681 and $8,708.
The gross win for IP "W" was +$3,319 on April 27 and $3,680 right now, vs. $7,403 and $8,177 for target betting.
This is all anecdotal data, blah blah blah, but it does indicate that in spite of its flaws (and assuming complete honesty), InvestaPick's methods are successful, and could do even better with target betting in play!
I admit that when I see that more than 90% of all IP's winning picks paid less than even money, my confidence in my policy of making +100 the worst odds I will accept wavers a little!
IP's win rate from January 1 last year to July 15 was a hair less than 50% (448/898) and if I had achieved that in my 7-dog trial, I would be delirious, and richer to boot.
The target betting adaptation for the IP experiment requires that any prior losses outstanding after a win must be "mopped up" before the bet falls back to the minimum, and that accounts for most of the difference between IP's overall win to date ($8,105 before fees) and mine ($23,876).
It also accounts for the fact that target betting required more action ($152,000 overall vs. $70,535), a higher maximum bet ($3,200 vs. $1,040) and greater exposure ($1,707 vs. $297) - but, hell, isn't a 145% return on an investment better than 68% (IP's percentage, in case there's any confusion!)?
Time is running out for today, so here are my 7DT picks for today, Saturday, July 17. (Please note, InvestaPick, that none of the games has started yet!).
1605 905 Houston Astros +105 8
1610 909 Colorado Rockies +105 8.5
1805 915 NY Mets +135 7
1605 920 Baltimore Orioles +120 9
1605 922 Cleveland Indians +105 9.5
1610 924 KC Royals +105 8.5
1610 928 Boston Red Sox +135 9
Sunday, July 18 at 11:35am
Slim pickings today, and getting selections posted in time for those early starts is harder some Sundays than others!
Things have been going so badly lately that I am glad of another short break.
I peaked on July 2 and have lost more than $6,000 since then, only rarely doing better than two right picks out of seven on any given day.
At that level of performance, I'd be much better off reversing my choices and backing favorites, off-setting short odds with five right picks in seven day after day!
My old pal Peter Punter resurfaced last week with a new sports book betting method that is proprietary so cannot be detailed here.
The gist of it is separating selections into four classes, betting different percentages of the available bankroll in each class, and focusing on the ability of favorites to beat the runline.
Since bets get smaller when a losing streak eats into the bankroll, I am dubious about the concept in theory, but have to bow to data that claims great success for the 2009 and 2010 (to date) MLB seasons.
Naurally, I accept that the season summaries are totally honest!
My weakness is certainly the selections I make because that is the one part of the strategy that is subjective.
Underdogs have not been doing well in major league baseball lately, but my DWR has been consistently below the overall percentage day after day.
I know the numbers will bounce back eventually, but just lately, waiting has become an expensive game!
Looking at Pete's figures, I guess there's come consolation in the fact that 2010 has been a tough season for his new method, too.
By June 1 last year, two months in, he was up $8,850 on a $2,000 investment.
This year's STLY number is +$1,316 or 15% of 2009's profits. I know the feeling...
Monday, July 19 at 4:45pm
Today's MLB lineup didn't generate enough steam for me, so I decided to sit out for another day.
That gave me a chance to take a closer look at the method Peter Punter has been trying for a while now.
Me, I've had a lot more misses than hits just lately, so I am not about to criticize anyone else for falling foul of a losing streak - the best sports bettor in the world (and I don't know who or where he is, unfortunately) has to suffer a little bad luck now and then.
All I can say at this stage is that the ongoing 7-dog trial has taught me that too many bets a day are a major pain in the underpants, and this new method sometimes calls for not just seven but as many as 14 bets from one schedule.
It takes a miracle to make a profit from that many bets, and I am not about to endorse a strategy that spreads me that thin.
Not until a very dramatic change in its performance proves me wrong, at least!
I confess I love the idea of backing the favorite at odds that pay better than even money, and the best way to do that is to bet the runline, meaning that the favorite doesn't just have to win the game but must beat the other guys by at least two runs.
There are some great odds to be had, for sure, which is precisely why the proposition is a tough one to turn a profit on (and to hell with misplaced prepositions!).
You know when you place a bet at +165 (or even +100!) that the bookie counts your hard-earned money as a boost for his coffers before the game is even played, so chasing long odds on bet after bet is a sure path to heartache.
Believe me, I want to be wrong about this, but so far Pete's new cappers don't seem to be any better at finding winners than I am.
Oh, well...
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this._
(No picks for Monday, July 19, but please scroll down for a few more thoughts!)
I guess it's up to potential InvestaPick subscribers to determine whether or not results made public long after the finals were in have any real credibility.
I am, however, amazed that an investment firm that presumably lives or dies by its reputation would pull a stunt like this.
In the end, all I was interested in when IP suddenly showed a pulse after two and a half months in a cryogenic freeze was how their results compared with what woulda been achieved with target betting rather than a Martingale.
First off, all three "funds" made money while we weren't looking, for a combined added total of $1,607, reduced to $1,157 by commission fees.
That's a whole lot better than the 5x or 50x 7-dog trials, which of course did not have the advantage of posting selections after the finals were known.
The super-wide spread model, however, was $42,000 ahead after five right picks out of seven on IP's last day, April 27, and has won an additional $35,700 since then.
InvestaPick's bet value methodology remains a bit of a mystery to me, but in essence it's a Martingale that is still handicapped by a failure to recover all prior losses before reverting to a minimum bet.
This might help smarter folk than I am make heads or tails of IP's "C" results since April 27, 2010:
On April 27, the target betting win to date (since January 1, 2009) was $6,141 and that number would have increased during IP's long nap to +$6,991, or +14%.
IP's "E" fund stood at +$996 on April 27, and was at +$1,619 on July 15. The matching numbers for target betting on the same selections are $7,681 and $8,708.
The gross win for IP "W" was +$3,319 on April 27 and $3,680 right now, vs. $7,403 and $8,177 for target betting.
This is all anecdotal data, blah blah blah, but it does indicate that in spite of its flaws (and assuming complete honesty), InvestaPick's methods are successful, and could do even better with target betting in play!
I admit that when I see that more than 90% of all IP's winning picks paid less than even money, my confidence in my policy of making +100 the worst odds I will accept wavers a little!
IP's win rate from January 1 last year to July 15 was a hair less than 50% (448/898) and if I had achieved that in my 7-dog trial, I would be delirious, and richer to boot.
The target betting adaptation for the IP experiment requires that any prior losses outstanding after a win must be "mopped up" before the bet falls back to the minimum, and that accounts for most of the difference between IP's overall win to date ($8,105 before fees) and mine ($23,876).
It also accounts for the fact that target betting required more action ($152,000 overall vs. $70,535), a higher maximum bet ($3,200 vs. $1,040) and greater exposure ($1,707 vs. $297) - but, hell, isn't a 145% return on an investment better than 68% (IP's percentage, in case there's any confusion!)?
Time is running out for today, so here are my 7DT picks for today, Saturday, July 17. (Please note, InvestaPick, that none of the games has started yet!).
1605 905 Houston Astros +105 8
1610 909 Colorado Rockies +105 8.5
1805 915 NY Mets +135 7
1605 920 Baltimore Orioles +120 9
1605 922 Cleveland Indians +105 9.5
1610 924 KC Royals +105 8.5
1610 928 Boston Red Sox +135 9
Sunday, July 18 at 11:35am
Slim pickings today, and getting selections posted in time for those early starts is harder some Sundays than others!
Things have been going so badly lately that I am glad of another short break.
I peaked on July 2 and have lost more than $6,000 since then, only rarely doing better than two right picks out of seven on any given day.
At that level of performance, I'd be much better off reversing my choices and backing favorites, off-setting short odds with five right picks in seven day after day!
My old pal Peter Punter resurfaced last week with a new sports book betting method that is proprietary so cannot be detailed here.
The gist of it is separating selections into four classes, betting different percentages of the available bankroll in each class, and focusing on the ability of favorites to beat the runline.
Since bets get smaller when a losing streak eats into the bankroll, I am dubious about the concept in theory, but have to bow to data that claims great success for the 2009 and 2010 (to date) MLB seasons.
Naurally, I accept that the season summaries are totally honest!
My weakness is certainly the selections I make because that is the one part of the strategy that is subjective.
Underdogs have not been doing well in major league baseball lately, but my DWR has been consistently below the overall percentage day after day.
I know the numbers will bounce back eventually, but just lately, waiting has become an expensive game!
Looking at Pete's figures, I guess there's come consolation in the fact that 2010 has been a tough season for his new method, too.
By June 1 last year, two months in, he was up $8,850 on a $2,000 investment.
This year's STLY number is +$1,316 or 15% of 2009's profits. I know the feeling...
Monday, July 19 at 4:45pm
Today's MLB lineup didn't generate enough steam for me, so I decided to sit out for another day.
That gave me a chance to take a closer look at the method Peter Punter has been trying for a while now.
Me, I've had a lot more misses than hits just lately, so I am not about to criticize anyone else for falling foul of a losing streak - the best sports bettor in the world (and I don't know who or where he is, unfortunately) has to suffer a little bad luck now and then.
All I can say at this stage is that the ongoing 7-dog trial has taught me that too many bets a day are a major pain in the underpants, and this new method sometimes calls for not just seven but as many as 14 bets from one schedule.
It takes a miracle to make a profit from that many bets, and I am not about to endorse a strategy that spreads me that thin.
Not until a very dramatic change in its performance proves me wrong, at least!
I confess I love the idea of backing the favorite at odds that pay better than even money, and the best way to do that is to bet the runline, meaning that the favorite doesn't just have to win the game but must beat the other guys by at least two runs.
There are some great odds to be had, for sure, which is precisely why the proposition is a tough one to turn a profit on (and to hell with misplaced prepositions!).
You know when you place a bet at +165 (or even +100!) that the bookie counts your hard-earned money as a boost for his coffers before the game is even played, so chasing long odds on bet after bet is a sure path to heartache.
Believe me, I want to be wrong about this, but so far Pete's new cappers don't seem to be any better at finding winners than I am.
Oh, well...
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this._
Thứ Ba, 6 tháng 7, 2010
Target betting recognizes and exploits the simple fact that in all of gambling, how much we bet is the only thing we can control.
Post on 07:57
Be The First To Comment
_
(Please scroll down for an update for Monday, July 12)
I am still recovering from the hard drive crash that made cheap junk out of my Toshiba laptop more than two weeks ago, and it is going to be a while before I am fully recovered.
I will also have more to say about Best Buy and Carbonite when I'm done reassembling the jigsaw!
For now, I'll try to supply an update on the 7-dog trial's state of play (and losses) with more to come as the dust settles.
June certainly proved to be a deadly month for underdogs, and I'm beginning to wonder if the brains behind InvestaPick's three sports funds did not have the benefit of foresight when they pulled the plug on all bets at the end of April!
The one thing I have remained sure of is that eventually, June's extended slump would have to come to an end, and in the last few days, that has proved to be so.
Remember, the bookies need dogs to win to boost the profits they make from a rake off both sides in each game, so the dominance of MLB favorites since late May has been bad news for them too.
They know, as we do, that aberrations never last forever (they can't, or we'd have to call them something else!) and that the math must always win out in the end.
I have been saying all along that a w-i-d-e spread is the key to success at all games, and throughout the 7-dog trial that began on November 1, I have tracked a 1-5 spread and a 1-50 spread, knowing that wider is better.
The piddling spread (1-5) that most gamblers cling to peaked at a profit of $6,000 in mid-January after two and a half months of ups and downs.
Since then, it has been in a painful tailspin that may never end, racking up more than $37,000 in losses to date. Ouch!
A 1-50 spread did much better, peaking three weeks later (on February 10) before sliding.
A spread of 1-500 did dramatically better yet, overcoming a succession of ups and downs until June's dog slump took hold.
Spreading 1 to 1000 pretty much mirrored 1-500 until baseball dogs started winning again as June wound down.
The point of all of this is that we cannot hope to overcome the bookies' edge unless underdogs meet a win rate expectation that lies somewhere between 43% and 45% overall.
History tells us that 43-45 is a perfectly rational expectation, but that once in a while, that target will not be met for extended periods...hence the need for a wide betting spread.
It's worth noting that at tighter spreads, average bets are higher, along with overall losses.
More about this next time.
Bets for today, Tuesday, July 6th, are:
903 (1605) Atlanta Braves +110 8.5
905 (1610) Cin Reds +125 7.5
907 (1710) Pittsburgh Pirates +115 8
909 (1710) SF Giants +125 9
911 (1740) St Louis Cards +115 9.5
915 (1910) FL Marlins +135 8.5
928 (1905) Oakland As +130 7.5
Here are charts at different spreads. The numbers speak for themselves!
Thursday, July 8 at 3:55pm
Another late post with one game already under way, but I'm still struggling with the aftermath of my system crash and everything seems to be taking twice as long as it used to.
Next week, we're free of summer visitors until the next wave sweeps in on the 20th, so maybe I'll get caught up.
I am intrigued by comments I have been getting about the absurdity (one of the more polite words) of my contention that bookies need underdogs to win on a reliable, regular basis in order to boost their bottom line.
The MLB results for last Sunday, July 4th, serve to illustrate my point.
I know the day's game finals, obviously, and the odds applicable to each team, but I can only speculate as to how much money was actually in play that day.
If we assume a million bucks per game, and assume furthermore than about 74% of all punters put their money on favorites (SOP for the wagering masses) the EIGHT dog wins on Independence Day would have given "the book" (the easiest way to describe bookies en masse) a profit of about $1.56 million on the day.
Not too shabby.
Had all the favorites won their games, instead of just SEVEN of them that day, the bottom line would have looked very different: a LOSS of more than $4 million on action of $15 million. Sad...
Had underdogs won all 15 games, instead of just 8 of them, the book would have profited to the tune of $6.25 million, raking in more than 40% of total action.
It is a fact that far more people back favorites than back underdogs, hence the terms "favorites" and "underdogs"!
Last Sunday, if an equal number of punters had backed favorites and underdogs in all 15 MLB games, the book would have kept just 1.7% of all action, based upon a cool million in total wagers per game x 15.
At 74% on faves, which happens to be the Sportsandodds.com estimate for today, July 8th, the "hold" of all action last Sunday fattens greatly to 10.4%.
Q E D!
Today's dog picks are:
(1210) 905 St. Louis Cards +120 7
(1605) 908 Washington Nats +110 7.5
(1910) 913 Chicago Cubs +160 7
(1105) 915 L.A. Angels +120 8.5
(1605) 917 Minnesota Twins +100 9
(1910) 924 Seattle Mariners +135 7.5
(1700) 603 SA Silver Stats (WNBA) 153/2.5
Wednesday brought just two right picks out of seven, so the MLB is back in a dog slump. Frustrating!
More and more I suspect that the brains behind InvestaPick know something I don't...
Friday, July 9 at 9:25am
I'm a little better organized today!
Thursday was a dismal disaster, the second skunking in a matter of weeks.
Until the 2010 baseball season got under way, I very rarely had days when I couldn't manage at least one right pick out of seven.
All of a sudden, it's bordering on the commonplace! I had no winners on June 2, and again on July 8.
Today's schedule could be interpreted as a classic setup for the bookies if I were the paranoid type (although paranoid is probably the wrong word, since when underdogs do well, the book does well, and when the bookies win on a dog day, I win!).
As soon as I can, I will post detailed numbers from the analysis I referred to yesterday.
Meantime, today's dog picks:
1605 951 SF Giants +120 6.5
1710 959 Pittsburgh Ps +125 9
1810 961 SD Padres +140 9.5
1840 963 Fla Marlins +110 9
1910 965 Chicago Cubs +120 7
1605 968 Toronto BJs +105 7.5
1710 975 KC Royals +130 9
My apologies to one and all for the inconsistencies in the format when I list selections here: I'm going to try to stick with what you see above from now on!
Online odds will generally be marginally better than the ones I quote and it's pretty much standard for scoresandodds.com to disagree with competing services such as donbest.com or Doc's Sports Service.
Doesn't matter much: All that counts is the price you get when you place your bet.
For my purposes, it's best to go with tighter odds for the growing all-sports database, for all the obvious reasons.
Saturday, July 10 at 8:30am
It would be nice to report that Friday was a day when dogs made a comeback...but it didn't happen.
I managed only one right pick out of seven, and the overall baseball DWR was not much better at 33%.
Well, OK, it was a lot better! But I flatly refuse to back dogs paying less than even money, so two of yesterday's winners were not on my list for that reason alone.
Today's bets:
1310 903 Chicago Cubs +130 8
1610 911 Pittsburgh Pirates +160 9
1710 913 SD Padres +130 9.5
1710 915 Fla Marlins +115 10
1310 919 Min Twins +120 9.5
1605 921 KC Royals +160 9
1805 927 L.A. Angels +100 8.5
Right now the DWR for the 2010 baseball season stands at less than 42%. Bummer...
Sunday, July 11 at 9:20am
About the only good news I have had since I hit a new high with the widest spread on July 2 is that major league baseball is set for a mid-season break after today!
I am as confident as ever that the dog numbers will bounce back in time to boost my bankroll to a new max, but after two successive days with only one right pick in seven, I will be happy to suspend betting until the season resumes on Friday.
It may be that I will have to review my ban on underdogs paying less than even money, but I am going to resist that concession for as long as possible.
By Friday, I will have brought all my databases up to date and will be ready to get back in the game with useful current data to back my play.
Here are today's bets:-
1010 951 Atlanta Braves +130 7
1035 953 SF Giants +100 8.5
1035 955 Cincinnati Reds +150 9
1210 961 San Diego Padres +110 9
1705 965 Chicago Cubs +120 7.5
1005 968 Detroit Tigers +105 9
1010 970 Toronto BJs +110 9.5
It would be great if last Sunday's 5/7 performance could be repeated before the break...but this concept doesn't need miracles (however welcome they may be!).
Monday, July 12 at 10:50am
Looking back through the 2010 MLB season to date, I really don't have a whole lot to complain about.
The two tight-spread models sank deeper into red ink, it's true, but since I have always advocated as wide a spread as possible between the minimum and maximum bet values, that comes as no surprise to me or to regular followers of this online soapbox!
The season-to-date DWR stands at 41.32% for my picks versus 42.73% overall, with the deficit easily explained by my policy of ignoring any underdogs paying less than even money.
Spreading super-wide currently stands at 97% of its best win to date, which was $69,400 achieved on July 2.
An important fact: the average bet value to date (since November 1, 2009) is $242, which ain't small potatoes but has been recovered more than 275 times over with the current win of $67,000.
Better yet, the profit to date represents a "hold" of almost 18% of the total action, a margin that would have a bookie salivating. And the maximum strain on the bankroll - risk, or exposure, if you prefer - was less than $3,000.
I realized within a few weeks of the start of the 7-dog trial that the basic target betting rules applied in the model were probably too aggressive, which in this context is a euphemism for risky.
I also knew that changing the strategy after the start date would bring all manner of smart-alecks out of the long grass, so I have left the rules alone.
I cannot say often enough (meaning that this won't be the last time!) that aside from the obvious to bet or not to bet decision, bet values are the only aspect of gambling that are within a player's control.
Target betting requires you to hand over that control to a predetermined strategy or set of rules.
But since that strategy consistently and demonstrably enables you to win more when you win than you lose when you lose, reversing the negative effect of losing more bets than you win, the sacrifice is at least a profitable one!
My hard-drive wipeout came on the heels of my loss of my often used and much loved iPod Touch, and with it went details of the $500,000-plus in "funny money" that I had won against the blackjack app.
I had to start all over again when my new Touch arrived (a 32GB update), and while I don't see a need to reach six or seven figures again, I think my current results are worth noting.
The stats report here shows a house edge of 3.7%, a huge number after more than 1,000 rounds against a single deck.
I am a slave to the basic playing strategy, so dumb moves are not the reason for the preposterous house advantage.
Never mind: what matters is that I won 522 rounds and lost 562, and the -3.7% expectation indicated by those numbers would, according to most gambling "experts," result in a loss of a similar percentage of total action.
Didn't happen.
If there's a way of fiddling the iPod blackjack app to rack up spurious profits, I am sorry to say I'm not smart enough to have figured it out.
The game starts a player off with a pretty decent bankroll, and allows top-ups of $500 which are automatic when the money's all gone but can't be grabbed in multiples.
If you don't have enough dough left to make your next bet, you get a $500 boost, and won't see another until you are broke again, in other words.
Meanwhile: InvestaPick seems to have shut down its website...a big surprise, since all three sports "funds" were well ahead when betting was halted across the board on April 27th.
I'd really like to know what the skinny is on the apparent collapse of what seemed like a very promising "investment opportunity" so if a reader out there has some inside dope, please pass it along!
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this._
(Please scroll down for an update for Monday, July 12)
I am still recovering from the hard drive crash that made cheap junk out of my Toshiba laptop more than two weeks ago, and it is going to be a while before I am fully recovered.
I will also have more to say about Best Buy and Carbonite when I'm done reassembling the jigsaw!
For now, I'll try to supply an update on the 7-dog trial's state of play (and losses) with more to come as the dust settles.
June certainly proved to be a deadly month for underdogs, and I'm beginning to wonder if the brains behind InvestaPick's three sports funds did not have the benefit of foresight when they pulled the plug on all bets at the end of April!
The one thing I have remained sure of is that eventually, June's extended slump would have to come to an end, and in the last few days, that has proved to be so.
Remember, the bookies need dogs to win to boost the profits they make from a rake off both sides in each game, so the dominance of MLB favorites since late May has been bad news for them too.
They know, as we do, that aberrations never last forever (they can't, or we'd have to call them something else!) and that the math must always win out in the end.
I have been saying all along that a w-i-d-e spread is the key to success at all games, and throughout the 7-dog trial that began on November 1, I have tracked a 1-5 spread and a 1-50 spread, knowing that wider is better.
The piddling spread (1-5) that most gamblers cling to peaked at a profit of $6,000 in mid-January after two and a half months of ups and downs.
Since then, it has been in a painful tailspin that may never end, racking up more than $37,000 in losses to date. Ouch!
A 1-50 spread did much better, peaking three weeks later (on February 10) before sliding.
A spread of 1-500 did dramatically better yet, overcoming a succession of ups and downs until June's dog slump took hold.
Spreading 1 to 1000 pretty much mirrored 1-500 until baseball dogs started winning again as June wound down.
The point of all of this is that we cannot hope to overcome the bookies' edge unless underdogs meet a win rate expectation that lies somewhere between 43% and 45% overall.
History tells us that 43-45 is a perfectly rational expectation, but that once in a while, that target will not be met for extended periods...hence the need for a wide betting spread.
It's worth noting that at tighter spreads, average bets are higher, along with overall losses.
More about this next time.
Bets for today, Tuesday, July 6th, are:
903 (1605) Atlanta Braves +110 8.5
905 (1610) Cin Reds +125 7.5
907 (1710) Pittsburgh Pirates +115 8
909 (1710) SF Giants +125 9
911 (1740) St Louis Cards +115 9.5
915 (1910) FL Marlins +135 8.5
928 (1905) Oakland As +130 7.5
Here are charts at different spreads. The numbers speak for themselves!
Thursday, July 8 at 3:55pm
Another late post with one game already under way, but I'm still struggling with the aftermath of my system crash and everything seems to be taking twice as long as it used to.
Next week, we're free of summer visitors until the next wave sweeps in on the 20th, so maybe I'll get caught up.
I am intrigued by comments I have been getting about the absurdity (one of the more polite words) of my contention that bookies need underdogs to win on a reliable, regular basis in order to boost their bottom line.
The MLB results for last Sunday, July 4th, serve to illustrate my point.
I know the day's game finals, obviously, and the odds applicable to each team, but I can only speculate as to how much money was actually in play that day.
If we assume a million bucks per game, and assume furthermore than about 74% of all punters put their money on favorites (SOP for the wagering masses) the EIGHT dog wins on Independence Day would have given "the book" (the easiest way to describe bookies en masse) a profit of about $1.56 million on the day.
Not too shabby.
Had all the favorites won their games, instead of just SEVEN of them that day, the bottom line would have looked very different: a LOSS of more than $4 million on action of $15 million. Sad...
Had underdogs won all 15 games, instead of just 8 of them, the book would have profited to the tune of $6.25 million, raking in more than 40% of total action.
It is a fact that far more people back favorites than back underdogs, hence the terms "favorites" and "underdogs"!
Last Sunday, if an equal number of punters had backed favorites and underdogs in all 15 MLB games, the book would have kept just 1.7% of all action, based upon a cool million in total wagers per game x 15.
At 74% on faves, which happens to be the Sportsandodds.com estimate for today, July 8th, the "hold" of all action last Sunday fattens greatly to 10.4%.
Q E D!
Today's dog picks are:
(1210) 905 St. Louis Cards +120 7
(1605) 908 Washington Nats +110 7.5
(1910) 913 Chicago Cubs +160 7
(1105) 915 L.A. Angels +120 8.5
(1605) 917 Minnesota Twins +100 9
(1910) 924 Seattle Mariners +135 7.5
(1700) 603 SA Silver Stats (WNBA) 153/2.5
Wednesday brought just two right picks out of seven, so the MLB is back in a dog slump. Frustrating!
More and more I suspect that the brains behind InvestaPick know something I don't...
Friday, July 9 at 9:25am
I'm a little better organized today!
Thursday was a dismal disaster, the second skunking in a matter of weeks.
Until the 2010 baseball season got under way, I very rarely had days when I couldn't manage at least one right pick out of seven.
All of a sudden, it's bordering on the commonplace! I had no winners on June 2, and again on July 8.
Today's schedule could be interpreted as a classic setup for the bookies if I were the paranoid type (although paranoid is probably the wrong word, since when underdogs do well, the book does well, and when the bookies win on a dog day, I win!).
As soon as I can, I will post detailed numbers from the analysis I referred to yesterday.
Meantime, today's dog picks:
1605 951 SF Giants +120 6.5
1710 959 Pittsburgh Ps +125 9
1810 961 SD Padres +140 9.5
1840 963 Fla Marlins +110 9
1910 965 Chicago Cubs +120 7
1605 968 Toronto BJs +105 7.5
1710 975 KC Royals +130 9
My apologies to one and all for the inconsistencies in the format when I list selections here: I'm going to try to stick with what you see above from now on!
Online odds will generally be marginally better than the ones I quote and it's pretty much standard for scoresandodds.com to disagree with competing services such as donbest.com or Doc's Sports Service.
Doesn't matter much: All that counts is the price you get when you place your bet.
For my purposes, it's best to go with tighter odds for the growing all-sports database, for all the obvious reasons.
Saturday, July 10 at 8:30am
It would be nice to report that Friday was a day when dogs made a comeback...but it didn't happen.
I managed only one right pick out of seven, and the overall baseball DWR was not much better at 33%.
Well, OK, it was a lot better! But I flatly refuse to back dogs paying less than even money, so two of yesterday's winners were not on my list for that reason alone.
Today's bets:
1310 903 Chicago Cubs +130 8
1610 911 Pittsburgh Pirates +160 9
1710 913 SD Padres +130 9.5
1710 915 Fla Marlins +115 10
1310 919 Min Twins +120 9.5
1605 921 KC Royals +160 9
1805 927 L.A. Angels +100 8.5
Right now the DWR for the 2010 baseball season stands at less than 42%. Bummer...
Sunday, July 11 at 9:20am
About the only good news I have had since I hit a new high with the widest spread on July 2 is that major league baseball is set for a mid-season break after today!
I am as confident as ever that the dog numbers will bounce back in time to boost my bankroll to a new max, but after two successive days with only one right pick in seven, I will be happy to suspend betting until the season resumes on Friday.
It may be that I will have to review my ban on underdogs paying less than even money, but I am going to resist that concession for as long as possible.
By Friday, I will have brought all my databases up to date and will be ready to get back in the game with useful current data to back my play.
Here are today's bets:-
1010 951 Atlanta Braves +130 7
1035 953 SF Giants +100 8.5
1035 955 Cincinnati Reds +150 9
1210 961 San Diego Padres +110 9
1705 965 Chicago Cubs +120 7.5
1005 968 Detroit Tigers +105 9
1010 970 Toronto BJs +110 9.5
It would be great if last Sunday's 5/7 performance could be repeated before the break...but this concept doesn't need miracles (however welcome they may be!).
Monday, July 12 at 10:50am
Looking back through the 2010 MLB season to date, I really don't have a whole lot to complain about.
The two tight-spread models sank deeper into red ink, it's true, but since I have always advocated as wide a spread as possible between the minimum and maximum bet values, that comes as no surprise to me or to regular followers of this online soapbox!
The season-to-date DWR stands at 41.32% for my picks versus 42.73% overall, with the deficit easily explained by my policy of ignoring any underdogs paying less than even money.
Spreading super-wide currently stands at 97% of its best win to date, which was $69,400 achieved on July 2.
An important fact: the average bet value to date (since November 1, 2009) is $242, which ain't small potatoes but has been recovered more than 275 times over with the current win of $67,000.
Better yet, the profit to date represents a "hold" of almost 18% of the total action, a margin that would have a bookie salivating. And the maximum strain on the bankroll - risk, or exposure, if you prefer - was less than $3,000.
I realized within a few weeks of the start of the 7-dog trial that the basic target betting rules applied in the model were probably too aggressive, which in this context is a euphemism for risky.
I also knew that changing the strategy after the start date would bring all manner of smart-alecks out of the long grass, so I have left the rules alone.
I cannot say often enough (meaning that this won't be the last time!) that aside from the obvious to bet or not to bet decision, bet values are the only aspect of gambling that are within a player's control.
Target betting requires you to hand over that control to a predetermined strategy or set of rules.
But since that strategy consistently and demonstrably enables you to win more when you win than you lose when you lose, reversing the negative effect of losing more bets than you win, the sacrifice is at least a profitable one!
My hard-drive wipeout came on the heels of my loss of my often used and much loved iPod Touch, and with it went details of the $500,000-plus in "funny money" that I had won against the blackjack app.
I had to start all over again when my new Touch arrived (a 32GB update), and while I don't see a need to reach six or seven figures again, I think my current results are worth noting.
The stats report here shows a house edge of 3.7%, a huge number after more than 1,000 rounds against a single deck.
I am a slave to the basic playing strategy, so dumb moves are not the reason for the preposterous house advantage.
Never mind: what matters is that I won 522 rounds and lost 562, and the -3.7% expectation indicated by those numbers would, according to most gambling "experts," result in a loss of a similar percentage of total action.
Didn't happen.
If there's a way of fiddling the iPod blackjack app to rack up spurious profits, I am sorry to say I'm not smart enough to have figured it out.
The game starts a player off with a pretty decent bankroll, and allows top-ups of $500 which are automatic when the money's all gone but can't be grabbed in multiples.
If you don't have enough dough left to make your next bet, you get a $500 boost, and won't see another until you are broke again, in other words.
Meanwhile: InvestaPick seems to have shut down its website...a big surprise, since all three sports "funds" were well ahead when betting was halted across the board on April 27th.
I'd really like to know what the skinny is on the apparent collapse of what seemed like a very promising "investment opportunity" so if a reader out there has some inside dope, please pass it along!
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this._
Đăng ký:
Bài đăng (Atom)