Tigers-White Sox, Verlander (26-8) / Quintana (23-9) First 5 Innings, Under 4, -120
Like Cubs-Cards last night, a premier matchup of aces, both
of whom rolled through ST like they never took a break at all. Neither offense
was impressive, especially the Tigers at the front end of their order.
A 95% chance of rain may cancel this ticket but if they do
play and get in the first 5 innings I won’t care about the balance. It is also
going to be cold (about 46) with light cross winds from left to right. None of
that concerns me.
I always wish I knew the home plate umpire but I don’t fear
not knowing that today. In cold, rainy weather the umpire is no more inclined
to work a long day than anyone else. Even a hitter friendly umpire is likely to
have a little wider strike zone today and our two starters may be able to pick
it to death.
BOL
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
4/3/17
1-0, RoR 98%
Twins -109(Santana
23-7) / Duffy (17-9)
Write up posted last night.
Tigers-White Sox, Verlander (26-8) / Quintana (23-9) First 5 Innings, Under 4, -120
Like Cubs-Cards last night, a premier matchup of aces, both
of whom rolled through ST like they never took a break at all. Neither offense
was impressive, especially the Tigers at the front end of their order.
A 95% chance of rain may cancel this ticket but if they do
play and get in the first 5 innings I won’t care about the balance. It is also
going to be cold (about 46) with light cross winds from left to right. None of
that concerns me.
I always wish I knew the home plate umpire but I don’t fear
not knowing that today. In cold, rainy weather the umpire is no more inclined
to work a long day than anyone else. Even a hitter friendly umpire is likely to
have a little wider strike zone today and our two starters may be able to pick
it to death.
Been on covers for a couple years, but I rarely post. Have been an avid follower of your picks since day one. Wanted to say thanks for all the work and looking forward to the season. Guys like you CJM, BirdsOnBat, AMD, and others make these forums what they are.
0
Been on covers for a couple years, but I rarely post. Have been an avid follower of your picks since day one. Wanted to say thanks for all the work and looking forward to the season. Guys like you CJM, BirdsOnBat, AMD, and others make these forums what they are.
Been on covers for a couple years, but I rarely post. Have been an avid follower of your picks since day one. Wanted to say thanks for all the work and looking forward to the season. Guys like you CJM, BirdsOnBat, AMD, and others make these forums what they are.
Thanx, and you should add undermysac to your list of visits!
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
Quote Originally Posted by Kaner:
Been on covers for a couple years, but I rarely post. Have been an avid follower of your picks since day one. Wanted to say thanks for all the work and looking forward to the season. Guys like you CJM, BirdsOnBat, AMD, and others make these forums what they are.
Thanx, and you should add undermysac to your list of visits!
I definitely have read undermysac's posts often. He was included in the others section. Lots of quality people on here. I'm a small unit better in college, but been able to make some money through combining my own insight with everyone on these boards.
0
I definitely have read undermysac's posts often. He was included in the others section. Lots of quality people on here. I'm a small unit better in college, but been able to make some money through combining my own insight with everyone on these boards.
Thanks Key, can you educate me again on your money management, you risk the same amount on each game, juice may affect win amount, at some point in the season you will increase your risk amount, based on bank roll ? thanks always learn a lot from you
0
Thanks Key, can you educate me again on your money management, you risk the same amount on each game, juice may affect win amount, at some point in the season you will increase your risk amount, based on bank roll ? thanks always learn a lot from you
Thanks Key, can you educate me again on your money management, you risk the same amount on each game, juice may affect win amount, at some point in the season you will increase your risk amount, based on bank roll ? thanks always learn a lot from you
Yes, I flat play every pick and may increase/decrease my personal wager size during the season, but I have no plans to track a theoretical bankroll this year. I would much rather focus on return on risk, and hope that eventually more folks will learn how important it is and how some other pickers are using "units" and W/L % to mislead folks regarding their success. Any one believing in that type of thing needs to track their handicapper on an RoR basis to get a true picture of ability.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
Quote Originally Posted by RyanHardy:
Thanks Key, can you educate me again on your money management, you risk the same amount on each game, juice may affect win amount, at some point in the season you will increase your risk amount, based on bank roll ? thanks always learn a lot from you
Yes, I flat play every pick and may increase/decrease my personal wager size during the season, but I have no plans to track a theoretical bankroll this year. I would much rather focus on return on risk, and hope that eventually more folks will learn how important it is and how some other pickers are using "units" and W/L % to mislead folks regarding their success. Any one believing in that type of thing needs to track their handicapper on an RoR basis to get a true picture of ability.
O Key,it is just so hard to try to explain the ways of the world,WE or YOU,these are things they have been trying to understand for eons,some day my friend I Hope.
0
O Key,it is just so hard to try to explain the ways of the world,WE or YOU,these are things they have been trying to understand for eons,some day my friend I Hope.
Yes, I flat play every pick and may increase/decrease my personal wager size during the season, but I have no plans to track a theoretical bankroll this year. I would much rather focus on return on risk, and hope that eventually more folks will learn how important it is and how some other pickers are using "units" and W/L % to mislead folks regarding their success. Any one believing in that type of thing needs to track their handicapper on an RoR basis to get a true picture of ability.
Not trying to argue with you, just bringing up a counterpoint. But, for example say there's 2 games you like and they both have +100 odds. And you've calculated that one of them has a 55% chance of winning and the other has an 80% chance of winning. An extreme example sure, but they're both +ev bets but why wouldn't you want to risk more on the 80% game because of the edge that you think you have?
0
Quote Originally Posted by KeyElement:
Yes, I flat play every pick and may increase/decrease my personal wager size during the season, but I have no plans to track a theoretical bankroll this year. I would much rather focus on return on risk, and hope that eventually more folks will learn how important it is and how some other pickers are using "units" and W/L % to mislead folks regarding their success. Any one believing in that type of thing needs to track their handicapper on an RoR basis to get a true picture of ability.
Not trying to argue with you, just bringing up a counterpoint. But, for example say there's 2 games you like and they both have +100 odds. And you've calculated that one of them has a 55% chance of winning and the other has an 80% chance of winning. An extreme example sure, but they're both +ev bets but why wouldn't you want to risk more on the 80% game because of the edge that you think you have?
Not trying to argue with you, just bringing up a counterpoint. But, for example say there's 2 games you like and they both have +100 odds. And you've calculated that one of them has a 55% chance of winning and the other has an 80% chance of winning. An extreme example sure, but they're both +ev bets but why wouldn't you want to risk more on the 80% game because of the edge that you think you have?
Money management
Message:
Simple enough. A flat play to me means exactly that,
flat, I do not "add the juice" on favorites or short play undedrdogs.
Say
I played 3 teams at -140 (71.43), -120 (83.33) and +128 (128) and lost
only the -120 play. The bankroll would now be 10,099.43. Since I went
2-1 I add .001 to my risk and equate
10,099.43 x .031 = $313.00 per on the next days plays.
Had I
hit all 3 plays on that first day the bankroll would have been
10,282.76 and the new wager (at 3-0) would be 10,272.76 x .033 = $339 on
each of the next days plays.
0
Quote Originally Posted by PokerBTC:
Not trying to argue with you, just bringing up a counterpoint. But, for example say there's 2 games you like and they both have +100 odds. And you've calculated that one of them has a 55% chance of winning and the other has an 80% chance of winning. An extreme example sure, but they're both +ev bets but why wouldn't you want to risk more on the 80% game because of the edge that you think you have?
Money management
Message:
Simple enough. A flat play to me means exactly that,
flat, I do not "add the juice" on favorites or short play undedrdogs.
Say
I played 3 teams at -140 (71.43), -120 (83.33) and +128 (128) and lost
only the -120 play. The bankroll would now be 10,099.43. Since I went
2-1 I add .001 to my risk and equate
10,099.43 x .031 = $313.00 per on the next days plays.
Had I
hit all 3 plays on that first day the bankroll would have been
10,282.76 and the new wager (at 3-0) would be 10,272.76 x .033 = $339 on
each of the next days plays.
Not trying to argue with you, just bringing up a counterpoint. But, for example say there's 2 games you like and they both have +100 odds. And you've calculated that one of them has a 55% chance of winning and the other has an 80% chance of winning. An extreme example sure, but they're both +ev bets but why wouldn't you want to risk more on the 80% game because of the edge that you think you have?
Because any game regardless of projection can win or lose. That is why there are NO locks. Implied EV is exactly that, implied. Tying implied ev to risk is risky business.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
Quote Originally Posted by PokerBTC:
Not trying to argue with you, just bringing up a counterpoint. But, for example say there's 2 games you like and they both have +100 odds. And you've calculated that one of them has a 55% chance of winning and the other has an 80% chance of winning. An extreme example sure, but they're both +ev bets but why wouldn't you want to risk more on the 80% game because of the edge that you think you have?
Because any game regardless of projection can win or lose. That is why there are NO locks. Implied EV is exactly that, implied. Tying implied ev to risk is risky business.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.