|
|
_
(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._
0 nhận xét:
Đăng nhận xét