Degenerate Gambling

[serge 904]

Some friends looking at an offshoot of Martingale theory on baseball, based on series sweeps. The idea is that the best teams in baseball get swept less than 5 times per season. The theory is bet game one of the series: if the team loses, then martingale (essentially double the bet) for game two. The plan is to quit each series when you get a win, putting you up one unit for the series. I've been working on the rough math, and as close as I can figure it without taking off my shoes and socks, there's a very slight edge in doing it, as long as variance doesn't rear it's ugly head and a very good team loses 7 series in a year.

Thoughts?

 

its very interesting, but there are a lot of variables..Mainly the lines, its not a 50/50 bet...So lets say you are betting Yankees the lines could be based on pitching:

 

Game 1: -145

Game 2: +105

Game 3 : -250

 

So if you lose the first two and win the third, you are still losing money I think..

[serge 904]

especially if you are betting the best teams in baseball, you arent going to get favourable lines..I would be still be interested in hearing more..I actually think it might work better if you are betting mediocre teams, with better lines.

[gruven 530]

its very interesting, but there are a lot of variables..Mainly the lines, its not a 50/50 bet...So lets say you are betting Yankees the lines could be based on pitching:

 

Game 1: -145

Game 2: +105

Game 3 : -250

 

So if you lose the first two and win the third, you are still losing money I think..

Thats taken into consideration, you increase your wager including the lines to win one unit. It doesn't work with mediocre teams, they lose too many series.

[serge 904]

Thats taken into consideration, you increase your wager including the lines to win one unit. It doesn't work with mediocre teams, they lose too many series.

 

I would be willing to try it on bet 365...Just for fun ill start with .20 units..See what happens..

[mrdannyg 274]

Some friends looking at an offshoot of Martingale theory on baseball, based on series sweeps. The idea is that the best teams in baseball get swept less than 5 times per season. The theory is bet game one of the series: if the team loses, then martingale (essentially double the bet) for game two. The plan is to quit each series when you get a win, putting you up one unit for the series. I've been working on the rough math, and as close as I can figure it without taking off my shoes and socks, there's a very slight edge in doing it, as long as variance doesn't rear it's ugly head and a very good team loses 7 series in a year.

Thoughts?

 

It makes no sense, though you already knew that. For it to have any benefit, there'd have to be a definable "good team" that correlated with "unlikeliness to get swept". While it's logical that the best teams won't get swept, that's no different than saying that the best teams win a lot of games. Perhaps there is some argument under certain characteristics - if we define a "good" team as one that had odds of less than 10:1 to win their league at the beginning of the year, and they continue to be within 5 games of a playoff spot by July 1 (just making up parameters), then you could argue they'll play a little harder to avoid the sweep.

 

All this is moot though. If there is a real reason that the likelihood of a good team to get swept is less than a simple deduction of their likelihood to win games, then you'd be better off just betting on them in the last game of every series where they've lost the first 2 games.

[Babying 613]

Some friends looking at an offshoot of Martingale theory on baseball, based on series sweeps. The idea is that the best teams in baseball get swept less than 5 times per season. The theory is bet game one of the series: if the team loses, then martingale (essentially double the bet) for game two. The plan is to quit each series when you get a win, putting you up one unit for the series. I've been working on the rough math, and as close as I can figure it without taking off my shoes and socks, there's a very slight edge in doing it, as long as variance doesn't rear it's ugly head and a very good team loses 7 series in a year.

Thoughts?

. I like the idea. Lets get the group betting going.

[serge 904]

With all due respect to Danny and his well thought out mathematical theories and methods...I prefer gambling a la Chris's theory...

[gruven 530]

It makes no sense, though you already knew that. For it to have any benefit, there'd have to be a definable "good team" that correlated with "unlikeliness to get swept". While it's logical that the best teams won't get swept, that's no different than saying that the best teams win a lot of games. Perhaps there is some argument under certain characteristics - if we define a "good" team as one that had odds of less than 10:1 to win their league at the beginning of the year, and they continue to be within 5 games of a playoff spot by July 1 (just making up parameters), then you could argue they'll play a little harder to avoid the sweep.

 

All this is moot though. If there is a real reason that the likelihood of a good team to get swept is less than a simple deduction of their likelihood to win games, then you'd be better off just betting on them in the last game of every series where they've lost the first 2 games.

It's not my theory. I'm arguing that there is a potential of high risk for actually fairly minimal return. The toughest part of the equation is the inability to predict with certainty who is going to be a good team, and who isn't early in the season. There is a stats site (mlbsweeps.com) that provides some good insight. On average, the very best teams in BB, say the top 5, get swept less than 4 times per season. If the average number of series is 50, then you're looking at considerably less than 1 in 10 chance of a sweep. I figured very roughly that if you managed to pick 4 teams that were the best, you'd probably profit somewhere in the 8 units per team range. The problem lies in the outlier: if a 'good team' goes bad, you can lose considerable units. Basically it's the same idea as Martingale theory, but you take some of the variance out of the 'infinite bankroll' necessity of martingale, since teams are extremely unlikely to get swept multiple times.

Like I said, I'm not sold, I'm just trying to figure out if there's a small edge in it. I'm not the best at probability math, so it's very rough for me. I see a VERY small edge the way I've figured it.

[serge 904]

Martingale could work in hockey as well...No decent team loses 7 or 8 games in a row anymore...

 

oh wait..

 

[serge 904]

I think its fairly easy to see who a good team is..Go to futures and see who has best odds

[mrdannyg 274]

It's not my theory. I'm arguing that there is a potential of high risk for actually fairly minimal return. The toughest part of the equation is the inability to predict with certainty who is going to be a good team, and who isn't early in the season. There is a stats site (mlbsweeps.com) that provides some good insight. On average, the very best teams in BB, say the top 5, get swept less than 4 times per season. If the average number of series is 50, then you're looking at considerably less than 1 in 10 chance of a sweep. I figured very roughly that if you managed to pick 4 teams that were the best, you'd probably profit somewhere in the 8 units per team range. The problem lies in the outlier: if a 'good team' goes bad, you can lose considerable units. Basically it's the same idea as Martingale theory, but you take some of the variance out of the 'infinite bankroll' necessity of martingale, since teams are extremely unlikely to get swept multiple times.

Like I said, I'm not sold, I'm just trying to figure out if there's a small edge in it. I'm not the best at probability math, so it's very rough for me. I see a VERY small edge the way I've figured it.

 

It isn't so much about the possibility of winning or losing to me, it's about whether it is a logical and efficient way to do it. The actual methodology and testing is a complete nightmare of course (since a "sweep" might mean having your 3-4-5 starters against the best team in the MLB or you're 1-2-3 starters against the Astros, it's an impressively imprecise measure). With gambling, if you think you have an advantage, the best thing to do is simplify it as much as possible to reduce variance.

 

So if the premise is that a sweep is a particularly unlikely thing to happen, then you need to consider if that is a logical statement. The top teams maintain motivation through a season (as a general statement), and are likely to view getting swept as a 'big deal'. Non-top teams may well be satisfied taking 2 out of 3 against a good team, so they'll have less motivation in that third game. So there's a logical basis there that I'd agree with. But why make it messy? If the logic is that a good team will be especially likely to avoid a sweep, just bet on them in any games where they've lost the first two! The logical basis I gave above could suggest something similar occurs, to a lesser extent, in the second game of a series where a top team has lost the first game - so maybe it makes sense to apply a Martingale-type strategy to both games, though I'd argue that it would be easy enough to 'test' whether especially good teams typically win at a better-than-expected rate after losing the first game of a series, meaning that odds would already take this into account.

 

To bet Martingale-style across all games, rather than across the second or third game after losses, you'd have to believe that good teams have an especially large advantage in the first game of a series, which is both contrary to our initial premise and easily testable.

 

Chris - I know you weren't necessarily arguing in favour of this, just sharing a theory. I suck at tone, so don't consider this accusatory. I just find gambling theories interesting, though unfortunately, they can almost always be shown to be illogical.

[gruven 530]

It isn't so much about the possibility of winning or losing to me, it's about whether it is a logical and efficient way to do it. The actual methodology and testing is a complete nightmare of course (since a "sweep" might mean having your 3-4-5 starters against the best team in the MLB or you're 1-2-3 starters against the Astros, it's an impressively imprecise measure). With gambling, if you think you have an advantage, the best thing to do is simplify it as much as possible to reduce variance.

 

So if the premise is that a sweep is a particularly unlikely thing to happen, then you need to consider if that is a logical statement. The top teams maintain motivation through a season (as a general statement), and are likely to view getting swept as a 'big deal'. Non-top teams may well be satisfied taking 2 out of 3 against a good team, so they'll have less motivation in that third game. So there's a logical basis there that I'd agree with. But why make it messy? If the logic is that a good team will be especially likely to avoid a sweep, just bet on them in any games where they've lost the first two! The logical basis I gave above could suggest something similar occurs, to a lesser extent, in the second game of a series where a top team has lost the first game - so maybe it makes sense to apply a Martingale-type strategy to both games, though I'd argue that it would be easy enough to 'test' whether especially good teams typically win at a better-than-expected rate after losing the first game of a series, meaning that odds would already take this into account.

 

To bet Martingale-style across all games, rather than across the second or third game after losses, you'd have to believe that good teams have an especially large advantage in the first game of a series, which is both contrary to our initial premise and easily testable.

 

Chris - I know you weren't necessarily arguing in favour of this, just sharing a theory. I suck at tone, so don't consider this accusatory. I just find gambling theories interesting, though unfortunately, they can almost always be shown to be illogical.

Nothing accusatory at all. I'm actually arguing with friends AGAINST this idea, since I believe the return is too small for the slight edge. Like you, I believe there are better ways to do things like that. But as a smoothing out of variance, under the VERY large assumption you can predict the top 2-3 teams early on, I think it works. I just think the return is minimal.

[mrdannyg 274]

Nothing accusatory at all. I'm actually arguing with friends AGAINST this idea, since I believe the return is too small for the slight edge. Like you, I believe there are better ways to do things like that. But as a smoothing out of variance, under the VERY large assumption you can predict the top 2-3 teams early on, I think it works. I just think the return is minimal.

 

To be fair, if you can pick the top few teams early on, you could probably just bet them ML every single game and also come out ahead. There are a few popular baseball betting strategies centered around the last game of series - whether its trying to avoid sweeps, betting unders on getaway days, etc. So there's some logic behind it, though I'd say the strategy suggested combines the worst of all methods - attacking the premise in an indirect way, imprecise methodology and the wrong end of the risk/return spectrum. At the end of the day, it's the 'sucker' tournament strategy - getting it all-in early as only a slight favourite (if at all).

[pezeveng 207]

If we start this group I have a fun idea as to how we should bet.

 

At the start of each series each group member takes turns picking the series and whether you want to bet the series over or under.

 

So lets say I start I would pick at least 1 blue jay-tampa game to go under. Bet 50 first game lose than bet 100 second game win. With over unders you never get lines of -150 or more so we can just flat bet and some series we make more and some we make less.

 

Its better to pick 3 game series than 4 just in case we have some mush guys in the group. One you go 0 for you are on the sidelines.

[pezeveng 207]

25, 50, 100.

 

Would be the best way to go.

[serge 904]

25, 50, 100.

 

Would be the best way to go.

 

so much better than analyzing statistics..Gambool

[pezeveng 207]

so much better than analyzing statistics..Gambool

 

For anyone to think they have some math formula that oddsmakers computers don't already take into account is way to late to the party.

 

My idea is strictly a gamble but at least were switching it up and we can yell at Wayne when he goes 0-3.

[serge 904]

does anyone remember the name of this account we opened..Or the password or the email I used to register..lol

[serge 904]

Ok so with respect to this sweep theory..

 

Houston Astros are going for the sweep against the New York Yankees...Astros are by far the worst team in baseball, according to futures..They are 350-1 shot to win the World Series..No one else is worse than a 100-1

 

The Yankees are considered a good team..7th best in the futures....To add to this the Astros have not swept a season opening series in 13 years...

 

Yankees are -160 today....Is it a sure win?

[Zach6668 513]

Do they release the odds of all games at once or only on the day of?

 

If it's the latter, the odds in the final game should reflect the supposed inefficiencies your theory attempts to exploit. In theory, anyways.

[serge 904]

Do they release the odds of all games at once or only on the day of?

 

If it's the latter, the odds in the final game should reflect the supposed inefficiencies your theory attempts to exploit. In theory, anyways.

 

typically the night before...but in baseball its all pitching related...Its the only sport where one player basically determines the line.

[Dubey 1,035]

without looking at historical data, I'd guess that a good to great teams odds of getting swept in a series, given that they've already lost all of the previous games before the last game of the series is exactly equal to the odds of them losing any other random game against the same team in the same season. This seems like textbook gambler's fallacy to me.

[Babying 613]

 

My idea is strictly a gamble but at least were switching it up and we can yell at Wayne when he goes 0-3.

damn you know me too well

[serge 904]

without looking at historical data, I'd guess that a good to great teams odds of getting swept in a series, given that they've already lost all of the previous games before the last game of the series is exactly equal to the odds of them losing any other random game against the same team in the same season. This seems like textbook gambler's fallacy to me.

 

I tend to agree with this comment..In a more team oriented sport, with respect to the lines..In hockey, football, basketball( a little more dependant)

 

The odds cant be equal, due to the pitching matchups..However over a 100000 game simulation sure it should be equal as all these things even out..

 

Perfect example is tonights Yankees vs Houston..Worst team in baseball trying to sweep a better than average team...

[Babying 613]

 

Perfect example is tonights Yankees vs Houston..Worst team in baseball trying to sweep a better than average team...

don't the Yankees stink this year?