I still think it's a little early to be using this system since there is little home/away data or L10 game data. I thing I will wait until each team has at least played 10 games at home and 10 games away. This means no action until close to the end of the month. If I was strictly looking at streaks, vs opponent L10, and vs opponent in home awa scenerios, however, I would look at these series for today....
BOS +156 at TOR - BOS is on a 1 game losing streak and TOR is on a 2 game losing streak - in the L10 meetings overall BOS is 7-3 Vs TOR - BOS is currently 5-2 when visiting TOR
NYY+111 at DET - NYY and DET are each on a 2 game winning streak - in the L10 meetings NYY are 6-4 vs DET - NYY are currently 4-3 when playing at DET
Again, I would not bet on these yet but just observe for now. BOS or NYY may be a favorite in games 2 and 3 and then what do you do?
0
I still think it's a little early to be using this system since there is little home/away data or L10 game data. I thing I will wait until each team has at least played 10 games at home and 10 games away. This means no action until close to the end of the month. If I was strictly looking at streaks, vs opponent L10, and vs opponent in home awa scenerios, however, I would look at these series for today....
BOS +156 at TOR - BOS is on a 1 game losing streak and TOR is on a 2 game losing streak - in the L10 meetings overall BOS is 7-3 Vs TOR - BOS is currently 5-2 when visiting TOR
NYY+111 at DET - NYY and DET are each on a 2 game winning streak - in the L10 meetings NYY are 6-4 vs DET - NYY are currently 4-3 when playing at DET
Again, I would not bet on these yet but just observe for now. BOS or NYY may be a favorite in games 2 and 3 and then what do you do?
I still think it's a little early to be using this system since there is little home/away data or L10 game data. I thing I will wait until each team has at least played 10 games at home and 10 games away. This means no action until close to the end of the month. If I was strictly looking at streaks, vs opponent L10, and vs opponent in home awa scenerios, however, I would look at these series for today....
BOS +156 at TOR - BOS is on a 1 game losing streak and TOR is on a 2 game losing streak - in the L10 meetings overall BOS is 7-3 Vs TOR - BOS is currently 5-2 when visiting TOR
NYY+111 at DET - NYY and DET are each on a 2 game winning streak - in the L10 meetings NYY are 6-4 vs DET - NYY are currently 4-3 when playing at DET
Again, I would not bet on these yet but just observe for now. BOS or NYY may be a favorite in games 2 and 3 and then what do you do?
I was considering Boston, but they could throw Price in over the next two games so I decided against it. Same reasoning for NYY, I thought it's possible they could be favored one game during their series.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Sask:
I still think it's a little early to be using this system since there is little home/away data or L10 game data. I thing I will wait until each team has at least played 10 games at home and 10 games away. This means no action until close to the end of the month. If I was strictly looking at streaks, vs opponent L10, and vs opponent in home awa scenerios, however, I would look at these series for today....
BOS +156 at TOR - BOS is on a 1 game losing streak and TOR is on a 2 game losing streak - in the L10 meetings overall BOS is 7-3 Vs TOR - BOS is currently 5-2 when visiting TOR
NYY+111 at DET - NYY and DET are each on a 2 game winning streak - in the L10 meetings NYY are 6-4 vs DET - NYY are currently 4-3 when playing at DET
Again, I would not bet on these yet but just observe for now. BOS or NYY may be a favorite in games 2 and 3 and then what do you do?
I was considering Boston, but they could throw Price in over the next two games so I decided against it. Same reasoning for NYY, I thought it's possible they could be favored one game during their series.
Not easy to predict 3 games in a row in which a team will be a dog. But here's the outlook I see for this week. All three of these start Tuesday:
- Arizona at LA Dodgers - San Francisco at Colorado - NY Yankees at Toronto (but not sure about game 2 on Wednesday)
Let me know if you guys think they would qualify according to the chase system.
Like Arizona (+145) in G1 Win but (If loss) Could be a favorite in G2 ~ (-120) or (If G2 loss) Could be ~ (-145) Favorite in G3. No way of knowing for sure but Arizona has a decent head to head record with the LAD.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Nuscas:
Not easy to predict 3 games in a row in which a team will be a dog. But here's the outlook I see for this week. All three of these start Tuesday:
- Arizona at LA Dodgers - San Francisco at Colorado - NY Yankees at Toronto (but not sure about game 2 on Wednesday)
Let me know if you guys think they would qualify according to the chase system.
Like Arizona (+145) in G1 Win but (If loss) Could be a favorite in G2 ~ (-120) or (If G2 loss) Could be ~ (-145) Favorite in G3. No way of knowing for sure but Arizona has a decent head to head record with the LAD.
i would be glad to help ! i found that thread 2 years ago and was really curious about it and IT still alive ! ( don't mind my Join date i was watching Covers threads way before register on it :) )
BTW Coolspot are you still using you system for over / under in MLB ??
0
i would be glad to help ! i found that thread 2 years ago and was really curious about it and IT still alive ! ( don't mind my Join date i was watching Covers threads way before register on it :) )
BTW Coolspot are you still using you system for over / under in MLB ??
Per the chase system it would go: 1unit --> 2unit --> 4unit.
Note: I've been playing a lot of series so far and not following all the criteria per say (e.g. sometimes skipping game one and starting on game 2, and playing on some teams who may not qualify). Anyhow here are my results up until today.
1. LA Dodgers vs. San Diego: Lost all 3 games (-7 units) 2. Colorado vs. Arizona: Won game 1 +174 (+1.74 units) 3. San Francisco vs. Milwaukee: Skipped game 1; lost game 2 (-2 units); won game 3 +115 (+4.6 units) 4. Minnesota vs. Baltimore: Skipped game 1; lost game 2 (-2 units); lost game 3 (-4 units) 5. Miami vs. St. Louis: Won game 1 +124 (+1.24 units) 6. Milwaukee vs. St. Louis: Lost game 1 (-1 unit); won game 2 +143 (+2.86 units) 7. Miami vs. NY Mets: Won game 1 +146 (+1.46 units) 8. Texas vs. Seattle: Won game 1 +156 (+1.56 units) 9. Arizona vs. LA Dodgers: Won game 1 +147 (+1.47 units) 10. Kansas City vs. Houston: Skipped game 1; won game 2 +120 (+2.4 units) 11. San Francisco vs. Colorado: Lost game 1 (-1 unit); won game 2 +100 (+2 units) 12. Cinci vs. Chicago: Lost game 1 & 2 (-3 units); pending bet on game 3
Not counting my pending series (#12), my total thus far is: +2.33 units
0
Season to date recap...
Per the chase system it would go: 1unit --> 2unit --> 4unit.
Note: I've been playing a lot of series so far and not following all the criteria per say (e.g. sometimes skipping game one and starting on game 2, and playing on some teams who may not qualify). Anyhow here are my results up until today.
1. LA Dodgers vs. San Diego: Lost all 3 games (-7 units) 2. Colorado vs. Arizona: Won game 1 +174 (+1.74 units) 3. San Francisco vs. Milwaukee: Skipped game 1; lost game 2 (-2 units); won game 3 +115 (+4.6 units) 4. Minnesota vs. Baltimore: Skipped game 1; lost game 2 (-2 units); lost game 3 (-4 units) 5. Miami vs. St. Louis: Won game 1 +124 (+1.24 units) 6. Milwaukee vs. St. Louis: Lost game 1 (-1 unit); won game 2 +143 (+2.86 units) 7. Miami vs. NY Mets: Won game 1 +146 (+1.46 units) 8. Texas vs. Seattle: Won game 1 +156 (+1.56 units) 9. Arizona vs. LA Dodgers: Won game 1 +147 (+1.47 units) 10. Kansas City vs. Houston: Skipped game 1; won game 2 +120 (+2.4 units) 11. San Francisco vs. Colorado: Lost game 1 (-1 unit); won game 2 +100 (+2 units) 12. Cinci vs. Chicago: Lost game 1 & 2 (-3 units); pending bet on game 3
Not counting my pending series (#12), my total thus far is: +2.33 units
i would be glad to help ! i found that thread 2 years ago and was really curious about it and IT still alive ! ( don't mind my Join date i was watching Covers threads way before register on it :) )
BTW Coolspot are you still using you system for over / under in MLB ??
my over under system no plays yet this year. I'll post rules in another thread first qualifing play this season.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Loops33:
i would be glad to help ! i found that thread 2 years ago and was really curious about it and IT still alive ! ( don't mind my Join date i was watching Covers threads way before register on it :) )
BTW Coolspot are you still using you system for over / under in MLB ??
my over under system no plays yet this year. I'll post rules in another thread first qualifing play this season.
Per the chase system it would go: 1unit --> 2unit --> 4unit.
Note: I've been playing a lot of series so far and not following all the criteria per say (e.g. sometimes skipping game one and starting on game 2, and playing on some teams who may not qualify). Anyhow here are my results up until today.
1. LA Dodgers vs. San Diego: Lost all 3 games (-7 units) 2. Colorado vs. Arizona: Won game 1 +174 (+1.74 units) 3. San Francisco vs. Milwaukee: Skipped game 1; lost game 2 (-2 units); won game 3 +115 (+4.6 units) 4. Minnesota vs. Baltimore: Skipped game 1; lost game 2 (-2 units); lost game 3 (-4 units) 5. Miami vs. St. Louis: Won game 1 +124 (+1.24 units) 6. Milwaukee vs. St. Louis: Lost game 1 (-1 unit); won game 2 +143 (+2.86 units) 7. Miami vs. NY Mets: Won game 1 +146 (+1.46 units) 8. Texas vs. Seattle: Won game 1 +156 (+1.56 units) 9. Arizona vs. LA Dodgers: Won game 1 +147 (+1.47 units) 10. Kansas City vs. Houston: Skipped game 1; won game 2 +120 (+2.4 units) 11. San Francisco vs. Colorado: Lost game 1 (-1 unit); won game 2 +100 (+2 units) 12. Cinci vs. Chicago: Lost game 1 & 2 (-3 units); pending bet on game 3
Not counting my pending series (#12), my total thus far is: +2.33 units
Thanks for the update good luck on Cincy...
0
Quote Originally Posted by Nuscas:
Season to date recap...
Per the chase system it would go: 1unit --> 2unit --> 4unit.
Note: I've been playing a lot of series so far and not following all the criteria per say (e.g. sometimes skipping game one and starting on game 2, and playing on some teams who may not qualify). Anyhow here are my results up until today.
1. LA Dodgers vs. San Diego: Lost all 3 games (-7 units) 2. Colorado vs. Arizona: Won game 1 +174 (+1.74 units) 3. San Francisco vs. Milwaukee: Skipped game 1; lost game 2 (-2 units); won game 3 +115 (+4.6 units) 4. Minnesota vs. Baltimore: Skipped game 1; lost game 2 (-2 units); lost game 3 (-4 units) 5. Miami vs. St. Louis: Won game 1 +124 (+1.24 units) 6. Milwaukee vs. St. Louis: Lost game 1 (-1 unit); won game 2 +143 (+2.86 units) 7. Miami vs. NY Mets: Won game 1 +146 (+1.46 units) 8. Texas vs. Seattle: Won game 1 +156 (+1.56 units) 9. Arizona vs. LA Dodgers: Won game 1 +147 (+1.47 units) 10. Kansas City vs. Houston: Skipped game 1; won game 2 +120 (+2.4 units) 11. San Francisco vs. Colorado: Lost game 1 (-1 unit); won game 2 +100 (+2 units) 12. Cinci vs. Chicago: Lost game 1 & 2 (-3 units); pending bet on game 3
Not counting my pending series (#12), my total thus far is: +2.33 units
I've been an on-again, off-again lurker on the forums here for a few years, and this system came to mind again at the start of this baseball season. I've been thinking about it and will start following it consistently this season. So I joined the forums for the single purpose of joining this discussion.
I have a couple of modifications that have occurred to me:
1. It seems that what has turned a couple of people off from the system is the inability to withstand a sweep or two. As others have noted, this could be mitigated somewhat with better bankroll management. But it also got me thinking about the unit allocation. Most descriptions I've seen suggest doubling your bet for each subsequent chase attempt. What if you went more conservative, and instead of doubling, wager smaller amounts for game 2 (or 3) as follows?
Alternative A: What if you establish your wager as two components?
Part 1, the recovery amount - wager the amount needed to cover your previous losses on this series. i.e. If you lost 1U on game 1, for game 2 you would wager the amount necessary to earn back 1U. Since we're looking for dogs, we wouldn't need to wager a full unit to make up the game 1 loss.
Part 2, the profit - wager 1U in addition to the recovery amount from part 1.
Alternative B: Even more conservatively, give up all attempts at profit on games 2 and beyond, and simply wager the amount necessary to recoup previous losses. Essentially in this scenario you'd only ever have the opportunity to profit in game 1 of the series, but your overall series risk would be limited to somewhere around 4-4.5 U depending on the odds available.
2. The other thought I had is that if the whole premise of this chase is that we are essentially betting against a sweep, what if you jump in on game 2, only if the dog lost game 1? This is the scenario that I think could benefit most from backtesting; once the data is available in a sortable format, it should be easy to filter and sort to find out how often underdogs losing game 1 go on to get swept.
What are your thoughts on these two potential modifications?
And does anyone know of a data source that would be suitable for backtesting these? I.e. previous season's odds and outcomes all together in the same spreadsheet/table/database?
0
Hi All,
I've been an on-again, off-again lurker on the forums here for a few years, and this system came to mind again at the start of this baseball season. I've been thinking about it and will start following it consistently this season. So I joined the forums for the single purpose of joining this discussion.
I have a couple of modifications that have occurred to me:
1. It seems that what has turned a couple of people off from the system is the inability to withstand a sweep or two. As others have noted, this could be mitigated somewhat with better bankroll management. But it also got me thinking about the unit allocation. Most descriptions I've seen suggest doubling your bet for each subsequent chase attempt. What if you went more conservative, and instead of doubling, wager smaller amounts for game 2 (or 3) as follows?
Alternative A: What if you establish your wager as two components?
Part 1, the recovery amount - wager the amount needed to cover your previous losses on this series. i.e. If you lost 1U on game 1, for game 2 you would wager the amount necessary to earn back 1U. Since we're looking for dogs, we wouldn't need to wager a full unit to make up the game 1 loss.
Part 2, the profit - wager 1U in addition to the recovery amount from part 1.
Alternative B: Even more conservatively, give up all attempts at profit on games 2 and beyond, and simply wager the amount necessary to recoup previous losses. Essentially in this scenario you'd only ever have the opportunity to profit in game 1 of the series, but your overall series risk would be limited to somewhere around 4-4.5 U depending on the odds available.
2. The other thought I had is that if the whole premise of this chase is that we are essentially betting against a sweep, what if you jump in on game 2, only if the dog lost game 1? This is the scenario that I think could benefit most from backtesting; once the data is available in a sortable format, it should be easy to filter and sort to find out how often underdogs losing game 1 go on to get swept.
What are your thoughts on these two potential modifications?
And does anyone know of a data source that would be suitable for backtesting these? I.e. previous season's odds and outcomes all together in the same spreadsheet/table/database?
Alternative A: What if you establish your wager as two components?
Part 1, the recovery amount - wager the amount needed to cover your previous losses on this series. i.e. If you lost 1U on game 1, for game 2 you would wager the amount necessary to earn back 1U. Since we're looking for dogs, we wouldn't need to wager a full unit to make up the game 1 loss.
Part 2, the profit - wager 1U in addition to the recovery amount from part 1.
Alternative B: Even more conservatively, give up all attempts at profit on games 2 and beyond, and simply wager the amount necessary to recoup previous losses. Essentially in this scenario you'd only ever have the opportunity to profit in game 1 of the series, but your overall series risk would be limited to somewhere around 4-4.5 U depending on the odds available.
I messed up the maximum risk amount in my above post. The 4-4.5U limit on risk applies to Alternative A. For the more conservative Alt. B, the series risk amount would be roughly 2.5-3U.
0
Quote Originally Posted by pbushx2:
Alternative A: What if you establish your wager as two components?
Part 1, the recovery amount - wager the amount needed to cover your previous losses on this series. i.e. If you lost 1U on game 1, for game 2 you would wager the amount necessary to earn back 1U. Since we're looking for dogs, we wouldn't need to wager a full unit to make up the game 1 loss.
Part 2, the profit - wager 1U in addition to the recovery amount from part 1.
Alternative B: Even more conservatively, give up all attempts at profit on games 2 and beyond, and simply wager the amount necessary to recoup previous losses. Essentially in this scenario you'd only ever have the opportunity to profit in game 1 of the series, but your overall series risk would be limited to somewhere around 4-4.5 U depending on the odds available.
I messed up the maximum risk amount in my above post. The 4-4.5U limit on risk applies to Alternative A. For the more conservative Alt. B, the series risk amount would be roughly 2.5-3U.
I've been an on-again, off-again lurker on the forums here for a few years, and this system came to mind again at the start of this baseball season.
.
.
.
2. The other thought I had is that if the whole premise of this chase is that we are essentially betting against a sweep, what if you jump in on game 2, only if the dog lost game 1? This is the scenario that I think could benefit most from backtesting; once the data is available in a sortable format, it should be easy to filter and sort to find out how often underdogs losing game 1 go on to get swept.
What are your thoughts on these two potential modifications?
And does anyone know of a data source that would be suitable for backtesting these? I.e. previous season's odds and outcomes all together in the same spreadsheet/table/database?
This is something I have looked into... though not exactly back tested. The issue I discovered with it is that you are actually increasing your risk of a sweep. Because you miss out on all the dogs that won G1.... you will be surprised by the amount of dogs that do win G1.
Typically there are anywhere between 1 to 3 sweeps each new set. Not exactly but generally... sometimes none and sometimes 5.
I do use this though as part of my handicapping when I look for situational spots.
I still chase dogs... it's a big part of my overall system and it's great. Just gotta be choosy and careful. Don't restrict yourself to the set of parameters on post 1... use them as a starting point and build.
I remember when I started doing this a couple of years ago... it started out great not being swept in my first 4 months... then they started coming and I kept making adjustments as I learned.. very important to learn from your losses..
0
Quote Originally Posted by pbushx2:
Hi All,
I've been an on-again, off-again lurker on the forums here for a few years, and this system came to mind again at the start of this baseball season.
.
.
.
2. The other thought I had is that if the whole premise of this chase is that we are essentially betting against a sweep, what if you jump in on game 2, only if the dog lost game 1? This is the scenario that I think could benefit most from backtesting; once the data is available in a sortable format, it should be easy to filter and sort to find out how often underdogs losing game 1 go on to get swept.
What are your thoughts on these two potential modifications?
And does anyone know of a data source that would be suitable for backtesting these? I.e. previous season's odds and outcomes all together in the same spreadsheet/table/database?
This is something I have looked into... though not exactly back tested. The issue I discovered with it is that you are actually increasing your risk of a sweep. Because you miss out on all the dogs that won G1.... you will be surprised by the amount of dogs that do win G1.
Typically there are anywhere between 1 to 3 sweeps each new set. Not exactly but generally... sometimes none and sometimes 5.
I do use this though as part of my handicapping when I look for situational spots.
I still chase dogs... it's a big part of my overall system and it's great. Just gotta be choosy and careful. Don't restrict yourself to the set of parameters on post 1... use them as a starting point and build.
I remember when I started doing this a couple of years ago... it started out great not being swept in my first 4 months... then they started coming and I kept making adjustments as I learned.. very important to learn from your losses..
Houston loses first two games as an underdog, the third game they are a favorite. What to do?
Colorado is on 2 game losing streak entering the series, they lose the first game of a series making it a 3 game losing streak. Do I not take them in games two & theee? Thank you!
0
Please help.
Houston loses first two games as an underdog, the third game they are a favorite. What to do?
Colorado is on 2 game losing streak entering the series, they lose the first game of a series making it a 3 game losing streak. Do I not take them in games two & theee? Thank you!
In my opinion, this should be one of the criteria before starting a new series chase - do you expect your chased team to be a favorite in game 2 or 3? So I think you need to look ahead at the pitching matchups, and avoid chasing on series where the visitor will have their ace later in the series, up against a back-end guy for the home team.
This weekend, that looks to be the case with Pit-AZ. Today Pit is +116, but tomorrow might be closer to even money with Nicasio up against Rubby de la Rosa. And Pittsburgh looks more likely to be the favorite on Sunday with Liriano up against Robby Ray. (This also is ignoring the fact that AZ has won 7 of 10, and therefore a Pitt pick would be in violation of one of the guidelines from the original post on this thread.)
Or a more certain example, Miami is +148 today, but tomorrow has Hernandez against Peavy, so will be favored.
So sorry this isn't helpful to solve your current situation, but it's something to learn from in my opinion.
0
In my opinion, this should be one of the criteria before starting a new series chase - do you expect your chased team to be a favorite in game 2 or 3? So I think you need to look ahead at the pitching matchups, and avoid chasing on series where the visitor will have their ace later in the series, up against a back-end guy for the home team.
This weekend, that looks to be the case with Pit-AZ. Today Pit is +116, but tomorrow might be closer to even money with Nicasio up against Rubby de la Rosa. And Pittsburgh looks more likely to be the favorite on Sunday with Liriano up against Robby Ray. (This also is ignoring the fact that AZ has won 7 of 10, and therefore a Pitt pick would be in violation of one of the guidelines from the original post on this thread.)
Or a more certain example, Miami is +148 today, but tomorrow has Hernandez against Peavy, so will be favored.
So sorry this isn't helpful to solve your current situation, but it's something to learn from in my opinion.
In my opinion, this should be one of the criteria before starting a new series chase - do you expect your chased team to be a favorite in game 2 or 3? So I think you need to look ahead at the pitching matchups, and avoid chasing on series where the visitor will have their ace later in the series, up against a back-end guy for the home team.
This weekend, that looks to be the case with Pit-AZ. Today Pit is +116, but tomorrow might be closer to even money with Nicasio up against Rubby de la Rosa. And Pittsburgh looks more likely to be the favorite on Sunday with Liriano up against Robby Ray. (This also is ignoring the fact that AZ has won 7 of 10, and therefore a Pitt pick would be in violation of one of the guidelines from the original post on this thread.)
Or a more certain example, Miami is +148 today, but tomorrow has Hernandez against Peavy, so will be favored.
So sorry this isn't helpful to solve your current situation, but it's something to learn from in my opinion.
NIce input Pbush ! i have a suggestion for the case that a team is fav in game during the serie, maybe when chasing team is fav maybe playing chase but the RL ( -1.5) ? or playing alter. line like -1 ( https://zcodesystem.com/runline_calc/ ). Would like to know your input on that one....
Cheers
0
Quote Originally Posted by pbushx2:
In my opinion, this should be one of the criteria before starting a new series chase - do you expect your chased team to be a favorite in game 2 or 3? So I think you need to look ahead at the pitching matchups, and avoid chasing on series where the visitor will have their ace later in the series, up against a back-end guy for the home team.
This weekend, that looks to be the case with Pit-AZ. Today Pit is +116, but tomorrow might be closer to even money with Nicasio up against Rubby de la Rosa. And Pittsburgh looks more likely to be the favorite on Sunday with Liriano up against Robby Ray. (This also is ignoring the fact that AZ has won 7 of 10, and therefore a Pitt pick would be in violation of one of the guidelines from the original post on this thread.)
Or a more certain example, Miami is +148 today, but tomorrow has Hernandez against Peavy, so will be favored.
So sorry this isn't helpful to solve your current situation, but it's something to learn from in my opinion.
NIce input Pbush ! i have a suggestion for the case that a team is fav in game during the serie, maybe when chasing team is fav maybe playing chase but the RL ( -1.5) ? or playing alter. line like -1 ( https://zcodesystem.com/runline_calc/ ). Would like to know your input on that one....
NIce input Pbush ! i have a suggestion for the case that a team is fav in game during the serie, maybe when chasing team is fav maybe playing chase but the RL ( -1.5) ? or playing alter. line like -1 ( https://zcodesystem.com/runline_calc/ ). Would like to know your input on that one....
Cheers
It's an interesting idea. I'm a little hesitant on it at first glance, mainly because the foundation of this chase strategy is that a team isn't very likely to get swept; the strategy doesn't say anything about margin of victory. Having said that, I think it's worth testing.
I am working on building out a database of previous seasons' games, and when I assemble that database I'll be sure to include a margin of victory field. That way I will be able to evaluate how often it would have worked out to bet the runline when our chase team is the favorite. I'll let you know.
Thanks also for the link, I hadn't come across that tool before.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Loops33:
NIce input Pbush ! i have a suggestion for the case that a team is fav in game during the serie, maybe when chasing team is fav maybe playing chase but the RL ( -1.5) ? or playing alter. line like -1 ( https://zcodesystem.com/runline_calc/ ). Would like to know your input on that one....
Cheers
It's an interesting idea. I'm a little hesitant on it at first glance, mainly because the foundation of this chase strategy is that a team isn't very likely to get swept; the strategy doesn't say anything about margin of victory. Having said that, I think it's worth testing.
I am working on building out a database of previous seasons' games, and when I assemble that database I'll be sure to include a margin of victory field. That way I will be able to evaluate how often it would have worked out to bet the runline when our chase team is the favorite. I'll let you know.
Thanks also for the link, I hadn't come across that tool before.
This is something I have looked into... though not exactly back tested. The issue I discovered with it is that you are actually increasing your risk of a sweep. Because you miss out on all the dogs that won G1.... you will be surprised by the amount of dogs that do win G1.
Typically there are anywhere between 1 to 3 sweeps each new set. Not exactly but generally... sometimes none and sometimes 5.
I do use this though as part of my handicapping when I look for situational spots.
I still chase dogs... it's a big part of my overall system and it's great. Just gotta be choosy and careful. Don't restrict yourself to the set of parameters on post 1... use them as a starting point and build.
I remember when I started doing this a couple of years ago... it started out great not being swept in my first 4 months... then they started coming and I kept making adjustments as I learned.. very important to learn from your losses..
Thanks for the response. I see your point and agree about not diving in mid-series, but I will still probably test it.
Any other thoughts on my first suggestion of a potential tweak, of lowering your bet for game 2 and 3, seeking just to get back to even rather than to double your stakes each bet?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Goodsy:
This is something I have looked into... though not exactly back tested. The issue I discovered with it is that you are actually increasing your risk of a sweep. Because you miss out on all the dogs that won G1.... you will be surprised by the amount of dogs that do win G1.
Typically there are anywhere between 1 to 3 sweeps each new set. Not exactly but generally... sometimes none and sometimes 5.
I do use this though as part of my handicapping when I look for situational spots.
I still chase dogs... it's a big part of my overall system and it's great. Just gotta be choosy and careful. Don't restrict yourself to the set of parameters on post 1... use them as a starting point and build.
I remember when I started doing this a couple of years ago... it started out great not being swept in my first 4 months... then they started coming and I kept making adjustments as I learned.. very important to learn from your losses..
Thanks for the response. I see your point and agree about not diving in mid-series, but I will still probably test it.
Any other thoughts on my first suggestion of a potential tweak, of lowering your bet for game 2 and 3, seeking just to get back to even rather than to double your stakes each bet?
Thanks for the response. I see your point and agree about not diving in mid-series, but I will still probably test it.
Any other thoughts on my first suggestion of a potential tweak, of lowering your bet for game 2 and 3, seeking just to get back to even rather than to double your stakes each bet?
The MM side of things I'm still searching to get that right balance. I've tried a few different methods, variations and combinations.... in the end I keep coming back to straight out martingale for 3 games...
On the weekend just gone I chased Rays.. A game I bet 1 standard unit... I didn't like the match up in B so I just bet 1 unit again (if it won I would have just profited on the + money side of things).. then the C game I bet the 2 units I lost and added the extra unit for my profit. If C had of lost then I would have only been down 5 units rather than 7 units.
I think you just need to adjust your bet sizes depending on your confidence... In that Rays series I was targeting either G1 or G3 for a W... so I had planned ahead.
Starting Pithing plays a big part on what I select.. not all of it but it's crucial. I avoided chasing Rangers because of the form of starting pitching White Sox. You really want a favourable match up for you C bet, the anchor that will save you. That's what Smyly was for me in the Rays series... he has good form and likes Yankees.
I used to be robotic and followed post 1... since learned to build on that and really cap a series. If I am risking 7 units then I want to know what I a getting into. I might not even chase a series from ant new sets.. I'm selective... but then I can be because I play 2 lab lines for spot plays on dogs and faves on RL.
0
Quote Originally Posted by pbushx2:
Thanks for the response. I see your point and agree about not diving in mid-series, but I will still probably test it.
Any other thoughts on my first suggestion of a potential tweak, of lowering your bet for game 2 and 3, seeking just to get back to even rather than to double your stakes each bet?
The MM side of things I'm still searching to get that right balance. I've tried a few different methods, variations and combinations.... in the end I keep coming back to straight out martingale for 3 games...
On the weekend just gone I chased Rays.. A game I bet 1 standard unit... I didn't like the match up in B so I just bet 1 unit again (if it won I would have just profited on the + money side of things).. then the C game I bet the 2 units I lost and added the extra unit for my profit. If C had of lost then I would have only been down 5 units rather than 7 units.
I think you just need to adjust your bet sizes depending on your confidence... In that Rays series I was targeting either G1 or G3 for a W... so I had planned ahead.
Starting Pithing plays a big part on what I select.. not all of it but it's crucial. I avoided chasing Rangers because of the form of starting pitching White Sox. You really want a favourable match up for you C bet, the anchor that will save you. That's what Smyly was for me in the Rays series... he has good form and likes Yankees.
I used to be robotic and followed post 1... since learned to build on that and really cap a series. If I am risking 7 units then I want to know what I a getting into. I might not even chase a series from ant new sets.. I'm selective... but then I can be because I play 2 lab lines for spot plays on dogs and faves on RL.
Looking at the new set of series starting up, these are the dogs I see (note, I pulled the lines this a.m., with the exception of Toronto and Texas which weren't posted when I first looked, so they might not be entirely accurate now).
I started with the road dogs, and found each team's current streak and last 10 games record because these were the easiest filters (from first post of this thread) to apply quickly.
Chi. White Sox +170 at Toronto
Baltimore +112 at Tampa Bay
Oakland +154 at Detroit
Cincinnati +187 at NY Mets - Skip this because the mets have won 3 straight and 8 of 10.
Pittsburgh +111 at Colorado
St. Louis +115 at Arizona (Skip because AZ has won 7 of 10)
Kansas City +113 at LA Angels
Miami +116 at LA Dodgers (Skip b/c Miami has won only 3 of 10)
Houston +130 at Seattle (Skip b/c Houston has won only 3 of 10)
San Diego +190 at San Francisco
NYY -118 at Texas (I initially included this because I figured NYY would be the dog for games B and C, providing a good opportunity to make up ground if A doesn't cash. However, NYY has won only 3 of 10 also).
And a couple of home dogs:
Atlanta Lost 5 in a row
Minnesota lost 3 in a row
That leaves, White Sox, Bal, Oak, Pit, KC, and SD. I like the Sox at +170 a lot, but if that doesn't come through they'll probably be favorites tomorrow and possibly Wednesday with Sale and Quintana pitching, so it will be hard to make up ground if tonight is a loss.
I think Baltimore is the pick for me tonight, as they pass the remaining criteria including the fact they'll probably be dogs for all three games, and there's no risk of a rainou. Also looking at SD later, but I wanted to get this posted before the games start.
0
Looking at the new set of series starting up, these are the dogs I see (note, I pulled the lines this a.m., with the exception of Toronto and Texas which weren't posted when I first looked, so they might not be entirely accurate now).
I started with the road dogs, and found each team's current streak and last 10 games record because these were the easiest filters (from first post of this thread) to apply quickly.
Chi. White Sox +170 at Toronto
Baltimore +112 at Tampa Bay
Oakland +154 at Detroit
Cincinnati +187 at NY Mets - Skip this because the mets have won 3 straight and 8 of 10.
Pittsburgh +111 at Colorado
St. Louis +115 at Arizona (Skip because AZ has won 7 of 10)
Kansas City +113 at LA Angels
Miami +116 at LA Dodgers (Skip b/c Miami has won only 3 of 10)
Houston +130 at Seattle (Skip b/c Houston has won only 3 of 10)
San Diego +190 at San Francisco
NYY -118 at Texas (I initially included this because I figured NYY would be the dog for games B and C, providing a good opportunity to make up ground if A doesn't cash. However, NYY has won only 3 of 10 also).
And a couple of home dogs:
Atlanta Lost 5 in a row
Minnesota lost 3 in a row
That leaves, White Sox, Bal, Oak, Pit, KC, and SD. I like the Sox at +170 a lot, but if that doesn't come through they'll probably be favorites tomorrow and possibly Wednesday with Sale and Quintana pitching, so it will be hard to make up ground if tonight is a loss.
I think Baltimore is the pick for me tonight, as they pass the remaining criteria including the fact they'll probably be dogs for all three games, and there's no risk of a rainou. Also looking at SD later, but I wanted to get this posted before the games start.
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.
Hot Forum Topics
