Baseball Betting Philosophies and Strategies Reposted

I have received many emails and inquiries about a piece I wrote last March for baseball. I posted this in someone else's thread last month but I thought I would post it in a separate thread so it is easier to find for the people that have been asking. For those who have read it previously, I am sorry for the redundancy. I added one new part at the bottom and noted that it was revised in 2009. Best of luck to everyone this baseball season.

 

Written in March 2008

 

WHY BETTING UNDERDOGS IN BASEBALL IS DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER SPORT.
 
There are several different approaches and strategies to handicapping baseball, but the most fundamental and obvious starting point is one that is taken completely for granted. Baseball is quite unique when it comes to betting because the gaps between the best and worst teams are far closer than in any other sport. Let's look at the other major betting sports.
 
In the NFL, the New England Patriots were 16-0 winning 100% of their games. The worst 3 teams in the NFL this past season were 3-13 winning just 18.8% of their games.
 
In the NBA this season, Boston is currently 54-13 winning 80.6% of their games and Detroit is 49-19 winning 72.1% of their games. The worst teams in the NBA are Miami winning 17.9%, and Seattle at 23.5%.
 
In NCAA Basketball this season, Memphis compiled a 33-1 record winning at an amazing 97.1% while North Carolina is 32-2 winning at 94.1%. The worst teams in the country were Rice at 3-27 winning 10% of their games, Sacramento State at 4-24 (14.3%) and Oregon State at 6-25 (19.4%).
 
In NCAA Football, Kansas and Hawaii both compiled records of 12-1 winning 92.3% while five Division 1 teams ended their seasons at 1-11 (8.3%).
 
Meanwhile, the 2007 baseball season was not that much different than any other baseball season.
 
The Boston Red Sox and Cleveland Indians tied for the best record in the majors at 96-66 (59.3%). The two worst teams in the majors were the Tampa Bay Rays at 66-96 (40.7%) and the Pittsburgh Pirates at 68-94 (42%). These records are nowhere close to the best and worst records of any other major betting sport.
 

So there you have it:
 
Sport        Best             Worst
NFL         100%            18.8%
NBA          80%            16.9%
NCAAB      97%            10%
NCAAF      95%             8.3%
MLB         59.3%           40.7%

 

While it seems like an obvious point, it is often overlooked that the worst team in baseball still wins at a percentage well in excess of at least double the worst team in any sport. Taking it a step further, based on last season's numbers, the worst team in baseball won slightly more than 2 out of every 5 games, while the best team in baseball won slightly less than 3 out of every 5 games. Let's face it, in NCAAB, if you put Memphis up against Rice 100 times this season, Memphis would easily win 90% of the time and probably more. If the Patriots played the Dolphins 10 times, they'd easily win 9 on average. It's nothing like that in baseball.
 
In 2007, the Pittsburgh Pirates (the team with the worst record in the NL at 42%) beat the Arizona Diamondbacks (the best record in the NL) 4 out of 9 times (44.4%). Tampa Bay with the worst record in the AL was 8-10 (44.4%) against the New York Yankees who had the 3rd best record in baseball. In both of these situations, as long as the Pirates and Rays were an average of +125 in those winning games (which I assure you they were) they showed a profit against their mightier foe.
 
If you want a more compelling argument, the Florida Marlins with the 2nd worst record in the NL swept the Cubs who won the Central Division 6 games to zero.
 
The point can also be highlighted by looking at pitchers. Hardly anyone could tell me who the most profitable pitcher in baseball was last season. It was Aaron Harang at +13 units. Compare that to probably the best pitcher in the MLB, Johan Santana who was -11.1 units. The average bettor certainly feels more secure backing Johan Santana but if you bet $100 on every Aaron Harang start you would have won $1,300 last year and if you bet $100 on every Johan Santana start last season you would have lost $1,110; a $2,410 difference.
 
To put things into perspective, try and think about the biggest one game baseball mismatch of the season. My guess is last season it was close to -400 maybe in a game like Johan Santana at home against Edwin Jackson. How big of a mismatch is it really? We see some really big mismatches in other sports. In the first round of the NCAA tournament this week, UCLA is a 32-33 point favorite over Mississippi Valley State. Now that's a mismatch. It's such a huge mismatch, you probably can't even find a moneyline anywhere on the game. The highest moneyline I see posted is Kansas versus Texas Arlington where Kansas is -7000. So is the biggest mismatch of the season in baseball really that much of a mismatch when you compare it to other sports? To put things into perspective, the biggest baseball mismatch of the season is the equivalent of the NCAA tournament game in Round 1 of Xavier-Georgia where Xavier is an 8-8.5 point favorite. Georgia's victory Sunday over Arkansas in the SEC Championship game as a 9.5 point dog was far greater than any upset we will see in baseball this season.
 
To sum it up, too many baseball bettors shy away from dogs like they can't win when it is clear that any given underdog can beat any favorite on any given day at a rate unlike every other sport. Until people get comfortable in baseball playing underdogs on a regular basis and seeking out value, there is no chance to win betting baseball in the long run.

 

It is similar to counting cards in blackjack. All you are looking to do is swing the percentages in your favor. A good card counter swings the advantage towards himself and instead of the house having a 51/49 or 52/58 advantage, to somewhere around 52/48 in his favor. By doing so, the card counter wins thousands over time. That is exactly what I am trying to do in baseball.

 

I have no set formula for my handicapping and each day I am not sure where my research and thoughts will lead me. I like looking deep into the numbers and for angles that I think give me a better advantage than the current line. Take for example on my recent write-up on the Cubs starting pitching this season. I have certain mental notes that I want to look closely at as the season progresses. This is just one example of the kind of things I look at:

 

Ted Lilly - A noted fly-ball pitcher. Vulnerable to the long ball. Look to fade against power hitting teams and especially when the wind blows out at Wrigley. Remember not to give him an edge against teams with strong left handed hitters, but an edge against predominantly right handed hitting lineups as ironically he is tougher against righties.

 

Carlos Zambrano - Tougher on lefties. Look to fade in day games as the last three seasons he has allowed more than 1.5 earned runs per start during the day. Streaky and has faded in August the past two years. Don't fade him when he is hot and fade him when he begins to show two consecutive bad outings.

 

Rich Harden - With injury concerns, Piniella will baby him. Look to fade Harden, at high prices in situations where the Cubs' bullpen is coming off of heavy recent use, as Harden will typically go 5-6 innings at best and will need to rely on the bullpen for 3-4 innings to close things out.

 

Aaron Heilman - Struggles with lefties. Look to fade him against teams stacked with strong lefties like the Phillies but play him against teams with heavy right handed lineups.

 

Sean Marshall - Road ERA is 1.25 runs better on than at home. He actually struggles against left handed hitters so look closely at opposing teams lineups.

 

Another thing I look to do is analyze the home plate umpires after the first game of a series (in the first game of the series they aren't announced until about 30 minutes before the game but after the first game, just look who the first base umpire was the day before, as he will be behind the plate the next day) and figure out their style and trends in relation to the starting pitchers trends. There are all kinds of umpire statistics readily available and many umpires will show generous strike zones or stingy strike zones. A stingy umpire matched with a pitcher with control issues or a pitcher that likes to nibble the corners can be a recipe for disaster while a generous umpire can be a recipe for success.

 

I incorporate countless other factors into my handicapping which would take hours and hours to try and explain and it might not even make total sense. Regardless of the factors you utilize as a handicapper, look for factors that are relevant to you which make you feel a team is being undervalued by the general public and linemakers. In your mind, never say, I love the Tigers tomorrow without knowing the line. If you love the Tigers that day, love them because you feel there are factors important to you that provide value in your investment and not just because you think the Tigers will win. When you look for value instead of just who will win, you will become a much better baseball handicapper.

That is great stuff Game

Awesome...just copied and pasted this and am going to read it, and read it again.

 

 

Here's my dilemma...being in the U.S. makes it hard to find reduced juice books. I currently use BetUs which has 20 cent baseball lines and 30 cent golf lines (f'in crooks). I know, I know this really blows. I'm hitting golf at a 56% clip right now, but the juice is horrible.

 

Any suggestions to a good book for baseball, and golf for that matter, that allows U.S. customers?

 

Thanks in advance   

browsed around Matchbook a little...so they offer you 3 betting options?

 

ex: Sea +108, Oak -109

Sea +107, Oak -110

Sea +104, Oak -113

 

so you choose which one you want? SWEET

 

I may open an account today!

No doubt you are a competent capper and im not dissin, but back to your TOR  46% +118 example for a sec....You mention a number of factors that go into your process then you go on to say " I incorporate countless other factors into my handicapping which would take hours and hours to try and explain ..." which is no doubt true. You somehow can synthesize(i cant spell for shit) all of these factors together for 2 teams and determine that Tor has a 46% +118 chance of winning  and if the linesmaker says they have a 45% +123 then you will buy them. Thats a 1 % difference in opinion . Thats cuttin it pretty thin dont you think? I mean in the most random of all sports where inches really make the difference between winning and losing every night, thinking you have a bankable 1% advantage is kinda silly. You mention BlackJack where a pro can determine w/ mathmatical certainty that they have that 1% advantage and then bet into it over and over  again, capping a sport like baseball offers no such certainty.I guess my point is that you should only play TOR at much more inflated price vs what your perception of that price should be, maybe like a 10%.

 

I dont remember who said this when asked what pornography was " i know it when i see it..." thats kinda how i  feel about value in  betting  baseball and horse racing. I dont try to cut it sooo thin i kinda want the value to jump off the page at me.