What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FFA Wagering Thread: THERE HE IS!@! (5 Viewers)

The 2nd period shutout is just what the doctor ordered. The under has a real shot if Quick can keep the Ducks off the board for 20 more minutes. Could always buy out now, too.

 
The Ref said:
Aaron Rudnicki said:
The Ref said:
Frostillicus said:
SF/PIT u 7

STL o 3.5

ARI/MIL o 8
Click to expand...
2-0 so far! Hows the Under 7 going in the SF Game!
Click to expand...
Shtick?
Click to expand...
Totally.... if he wasn't up for today i wouldn't even thing about breaking chops. In fact Ive been tailing most of Frosty totals plays and he's been doing very well.
Click to expand...
Yeah most of my losses have been close. This one was the opposite of that. In retrospect, an under on Petit/Locke is like what but hey, can't argue with numbers sometimes.

 
tjnc09 said:
ChainsawU said:
tjnc09 said:
Chainsaw, you put in a lot of work in this thread, but I still think you put too much weight in umpires.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned Laz Diaz in here before. I have a genuine dislike for the guy. He seriously effects games with his strike zone. Five of his last seven have gone over. Yu has never pitched with him. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Click to expand...
Nice call :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Laz was the star of the show in Anaheim tonight. Game tied - Weaver got out of bases loaded no outs in the 8th thanks to a bunch of called strikes, which Girardi subsequently argued, and got himself ejected. The Yanks announcer: "I don't think I've ever seen Girardi argue balls and strikes to an umpire before." Then, bottom of the 8th, Angels plated three runs on zero hits and six walks. And Laz ejected a Yankees' relief pitcher in the process. To put it into perspective the Angels only had four hits on the night. And had not walked six in a single inning since 1990. Again, the Yanks announcer: "I have never seen anything like this before."

A pretty cool pitchers' duel that quickly went to crap because of freakin' Laz Diaz.

edited to add some animated .gif images

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ChainsawU said:
tjnc09 said:
ChainsawU said:
tjnc09 said:
Chainsaw, you put in a lot of work in this thread, but I still think you put too much weight in umpires.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned Laz Diaz in here before. I have a genuine dislike for the guy. He seriously effects games with his strike zone. Five of his last seven have gone over. Yu has never pitched with him. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Click to expand...
Nice call :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Laz was the star of the show in Anaheim tonight. Game tied - Weaver got out of bases loaded no outs in the 8th thanks to a bunch of called strikes, which Girardi subsequently argued, and got himself ejected. The Yanks announcer: "I don't think I've ever seen Girardi argue balls and strikes to an umpire before." Then, bottom of the 8th, Angels plated three runs on zero hits and six walks. And Laz ejected a Yankees' relief pitcher in the process. To put it into perspective the Angels only had four hits on the night. And had not walked six in a single inning since 1990. Again, the Yanks announcer: "I have never seen anything like this before."

A pretty cool pitchers' duel that quickly went to crap because of freakin' Laz Diaz.

edited to add some animated .gif images
Click to expand...
Twitter-

Fact: if you rearrange the letters in laz Diaz, you get Joey Crawford.

 
A more frustrating baseball loss, I cannot recall.

Up 3-0. Tied 3-3.

Up 4-3. Blown save. Tied 4-4.

Up 5-4. Base hit on an 0-2 pitch. Bring in shitbag Tim Collins and his 13.50 ERA (what could go wrong???).... bloop double. 2nd & 3rd. Line SHOT gapper to win the game on yet another 0-2 pitch. All this to a team with batting averages in the .100's up and down the order.

We move on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also playing Rockies' team total over when the book offers a line. The wind will be from SSW (directly out to center field) at 12 mph. This ump is 6-3-0 O/U lifetime at Coors. When the temp has been between 70 and 80 degrees at Coors field this season, the O/U is 6-1-0 and the Rockies have totaled 10,12,9,2,10,10,11 runs by themselves in those games. The 2 was against Bumgarner. The only experience either of these two pitchers has with this umpire was a Rockies home game on May 28, 2011, where Nicasio and the Rockies beat the Cardinals 15-4.

 
ChainsawU said:
Also playing Rockies' team total over when the book offers a line. The wind will be from SSW (directly out to center field) at 12 mph. This ump is 6-3-0 O/U lifetime at Coors. When the temp has been between 70 and 80 degrees at Coors field this season, the O/U is 6-1-0 and the Rockies have totaled 10,12,9,2,10,10,11 runs by themselves in those games. The 2 was against Bumgarner. The only experience either of these two pitchers has with this umpire was a Rockies home game on May 28, 2011, where Nicasio and the Rockies beat the Cardinals 15-4.
Click to expand...
10.5

 
swirvenirvin said:
ChainsawU said:
Also playing Rockies' team total over when the book offers a line. The wind will be from SSW (directly out to center field) at 12 mph. This ump is 6-3-0 O/U lifetime at Coors. When the temp has been between 70 and 80 degrees at Coors field this season, the O/U is 6-1-0 and the Rockies have totaled 10,12,9,2,10,10,11 runs by themselves in those games. The 2 was against Bumgarner. The only experience either of these two pitchers has with this umpire was a Rockies home game on May 28, 2011, where Nicasio and the Rockies beat the Cardinals 15-4.
Click to expand...
10.5
Click to expand...
5 -120

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheGooRoo said:
NIU Kicker said:
NIU Kicker, on 02 May 2014 - 2:46 PM, said:
TheGooRoo said:
TheGooRoo, on 02 May 2014 - 2:30 PM, said:
swirvenirvin said:
swirvenirvin, on 02 May 2014 - 2:02 PM, said:swirvenirvin, on 02 May 2014 - 2:02 PM, said:

WR's and TE's taken in 1st round... Under 6.5 +200 on SB
Click to expand...
Kiper and Mcshay just mocked 10 last night. 10 seems like a stretch to me, I was a little surprised to see guys like Bruce Ellington and Davante Adams make it in, but you do have some WR-needy teams like KC, Carolina, and New Orleans drafting in the 20's.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm not buying it either. That said I think 7 is a high probibility.
Click to expand...
I agree 7/8 seems right. It's obviously not a bet at -110 odds, but how about +200? Good discusion.
Click to expand...
at 7.5 now and under is -220

 
Padres 9-1 L10 (since Jun 27 2011) as the home favorite versus the AL. KC 0-7 at Petco all-time with 37 runs allowed and 0-5 L5 overall in 2014 with 39 runs allowed. Padres 5-0 L5 with HPU Mark Carlson and 2-0 LY with run totals of 4 and 8 versus Latos and Mejia. Royals 1-8 SU L9 (since 2010) with Carlson behind home plate. These trends favor the Padres, but the Royals seem to be due for a win. Their last losing streak that went more than two games was last year when they lost seven in a row between August 17-24. However, KC is only batting .226 with a major league-low .296 slugging percentage and AL-worst .261 weighted on-base average (wOBA) versus lefties (link) and they are 0-4 L4 versus LHP.

 
ChainsawU said:
Padres 9-1 L10 (since Jun 27 2011) as the home favorite versus the AL. KC 0-7 at Petco all-time with 37 runs allowed and 0-5 L5 overall in 2014 with 39 runs allowed. Padres 5-0 L5 with HPU Mark Carlson and 2-0 LY with run totals of 4 and 8 versus Latos and Mejia. Royals 1-8 SU L9 (since 2010) with Carlson behind home plate. These trends favor the Padres, but the Royals seem to be due for a win. Their last losing streak that went more than two games was last year when they lost seven in a row between August 17-24. However, KC is only batting .226 with a major league-low .296 slugging percentage and AL-worst .261 weighted on-base average (wOBA) versus lefties (link) and they are 0-4 L4 versus LHP.
Click to expand...
Chain - I'm a numbers guy, and I really enjoy your writeups...out of curiosity, how do you determine how far back when you're searching the database? I only ask b/c everything I remember from statistics courses is the 30 is typically the magic number for sample size (link to support) and typically you're coming underneath that.

I'm not challenging bc I have a better solution, just wondering more than anything why you stop at a certain point, or if different criteria make you stop at a certain point.

Whatever the answer is...keep it up. I'm one of the guys in here who unfortunately doesn't have nearly as much to add compared to what I take away; so I'm very appreciative of any insight.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tiger Fan said:
ChainsawU said:
Padres 9-1 L10 (since Jun 27 2011) as the home favorite versus the AL. KC 0-7 at Petco all-time with 37 runs allowed and 0-5 L5 overall in 2014 with 39 runs allowed. Padres 5-0 L5 with HPU Mark Carlson and 2-0 LY with run totals of 4 and 8 versus Latos and Mejia. Royals 1-8 SU L9 (since 2010) with Carlson behind home plate. These trends favor the Padres, but the Royals seem to be due for a win. Their last losing streak that went more than two games was last year when they lost seven in a row between August 17-24. However, KC is only batting .226 with a major league-low .296 slugging percentage and AL-worst .261 weighted on-base average (wOBA) versus lefties (link) and they are 0-4 L4 versus LHP.
Click to expand...
Chain - I'm a numbers guy, and I really enjoy your writeups...out of curiosity, how do you determine how far back when you're searching the database? I only ask b/c everything I remember from statistics courses is the 30 is typically the magic number for sample size (link to support) and typically you're coming underneath that.

I'm not challenging bc I have a better solution, just wondering more than anything why you stop at a certain point, or if different criteria make you stop at a certain point.

Whatever the answer is...keep it up. I'm one of the guys in here who unfortunately doesn't have nearly as much to add compared to what I take away; so I'm very appreciative of any insight.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that writeup wasn't very good. And I agree with you on sample size. I know about it and that you want to shoot for a minimum sample of 30. Even when I get 30 samples I still don't know how to tell if it is "statistically significant." I need to email my statistics professor. I took the class last April but every time I had a question for him even remotely resembling sports, he would steer the conversation in a different direction. That is my next goal, that I should have learned from the class, learning how to tell if something is statistically significant.

To answer your question: I just try to go by feel. After using the sportsdatabase.com website every day for the last year, I am still not tired of it. I love it. I lean on it way too much probably, and get locked into it. Before I know it I have come up with 50 different angles on something, and unfortunately sometimes they're pretty crappy angles. But you guys don't realize how thankful I am to be able to share what I find out, even though sometimes it is crap. And, trust me - most of the time the wins are just luck.

But something I never mentioned before - a phenomenon - ever since I started doing "homework" on games, I started taking less risks. When you have seen the data in front of you and get a feel for it you kind of know what to expect from different games. You chase less, and I found that I am generally more content with the results overall and don't experience the insane highs and lows as much.

 
ChainsawU said:
Tiger Fan said:
ChainsawU said:
Padres 9-1 L10 (since Jun 27 2011) as the home favorite versus the AL. KC 0-7 at Petco all-time with 37 runs allowed and 0-5 L5 overall in 2014 with 39 runs allowed. Padres 5-0 L5 with HPU Mark Carlson and 2-0 LY with run totals of 4 and 8 versus Latos and Mejia. Royals 1-8 SU L9 (since 2010) with Carlson behind home plate. These trends favor the Padres, but the Royals seem to be due for a win. Their last losing streak that went more than two games was last year when they lost seven in a row between August 17-24. However, KC is only batting .226 with a major league-low .296 slugging percentage and AL-worst .261 weighted on-base average (wOBA) versus lefties (link) and they are 0-4 L4 versus LHP.
Click to expand...
Chain - I'm a numbers guy, and I really enjoy your writeups...out of curiosity, how do you determine how far back when you're searching the database? I only ask b/c everything I remember from statistics courses is the 30 is typically the magic number for sample size (link to support) and typically you're coming underneath that.

I'm not challenging bc I have a better solution, just wondering more than anything why you stop at a certain point, or if different criteria make you stop at a certain point.

Whatever the answer is...keep it up. I'm one of the guys in here who unfortunately doesn't have nearly as much to add compared to what I take away; so I'm very appreciative of any insight.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that writeup wasn't very good. And I agree with you on sample size. I know about it and that you want to shoot for a minimum sample of 30. Even when I get 30 samples I still don't know how to tell if it is "statistically significant." I need to email my statistics professor. I took the class last April but every time I had a question for him even remotely resembling sports, he would steer the conversation in a different direction. That is my next goal, that I should have learned from the class, learning how to tell if something is statistically significant.

To answer your question: I just try to go by feel. After using the sportsdatabase.com website every day for the last year, I am still not tired of it. I love it. I lean on it way too much probably, and get locked into it. Before I know it I have come up with 50 different angles on something, and unfortunately sometimes they're pretty crappy angles. But you guys don't realize how thankful I am to be able to share what I find out, even though sometimes it is crap. And, trust me - most of the time the wins are just luck.

But something I never mentioned before - a phenomenon - ever since I started doing "homework" on games, I started taking less risks. When you have seen the data in front of you and get a feel for it you kind of know what to expect from different games. You chase less, and I found that I am generally more content with the results overall and don't experience the insane highs and lows as much.
Click to expand...
The thing your stats professor won't understand is that the Red Sox today are not the Red Sox 10 years ago or 20 years ago. You can go back years to make your sample "statistically significantly" by the number of Red Sox games but that doesn't mean anything because your variable (Red Sox) has changed so dramatically. There won't ever be a black and white line to determine how far to go back in sports.

 
tjnc09 said:
ChainsawU said:
Tiger Fan said:
ChainsawU said:
Padres 9-1 L10 (since Jun 27 2011) as the home favorite versus the AL. KC 0-7 at Petco all-time with 37 runs allowed and 0-5 L5 overall in 2014 with 39 runs allowed. Padres 5-0 L5 with HPU Mark Carlson and 2-0 LY with run totals of 4 and 8 versus Latos and Mejia. Royals 1-8 SU L9 (since 2010) with Carlson behind home plate. These trends favor the Padres, but the Royals seem to be due for a win. Their last losing streak that went more than two games was last year when they lost seven in a row between August 17-24. However, KC is only batting .226 with a major league-low .296 slugging percentage and AL-worst .261 weighted on-base average (wOBA) versus lefties (link) and they are 0-4 L4 versus LHP.
Click to expand...
Chain - I'm a numbers guy, and I really enjoy your writeups...out of curiosity, how do you determine how far back when you're searching the database? I only ask b/c everything I remember from statistics courses is the 30 is typically the magic number for sample size (link to support) and typically you're coming underneath that.

I'm not challenging bc I have a better solution, just wondering more than anything why you stop at a certain point, or if different criteria make you stop at a certain point.

Whatever the answer is...keep it up. I'm one of the guys in here who unfortunately doesn't have nearly as much to add compared to what I take away; so I'm very appreciative of any insight.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that writeup wasn't very good. And I agree with you on sample size. I know about it and that you want to shoot for a minimum sample of 30. Even when I get 30 samples I still don't know how to tell if it is "statistically significant." I need to email my statistics professor. I took the class last April but every time I had a question for him even remotely resembling sports, he would steer the conversation in a different direction. That is my next goal, that I should have learned from the class, learning how to tell if something is statistically significant.

To answer your question: I just try to go by feel. After using the sportsdatabase.com website every day for the last year, I am still not tired of it. I love it. I lean on it way too much probably, and get locked into it. Before I know it I have come up with 50 different angles on something, and unfortunately sometimes they're pretty crappy angles. But you guys don't realize how thankful I am to be able to share what I find out, even though sometimes it is crap. And, trust me - most of the time the wins are just luck.

But something I never mentioned before - a phenomenon - ever since I started doing "homework" on games, I started taking less risks. When you have seen the data in front of you and get a feel for it you kind of know what to expect from different games. You chase less, and I found that I am generally more content with the results overall and don't experience the insane highs and lows as much.
Click to expand...
The thing your stats professor won't understand is that the Red Sox today are not the Red Sox 10 years ago or 20 years ago. You can go back years to make your sample "statistically significantly" by the number of Red Sox games but that doesn't mean anything because your variable (Red Sox) has changed so dramatically. There won't ever be a black and white line to determine how far to go back in sports.
Click to expand...
Thx, you explained my point better than I did...but I guess this was at the crux of my question...even getting to a 30 sample size is very difficult I would imagine, especially with each statistic you're factoring in....hence, how does he determine how far back.

Also, from what I remember...this is why one of my earliest math professors always swore on horses and not team sports....the variables are greatly reduced.

 
ChainsawU said:
Yeah, that writeup wasn't very good. And I agree with you on sample size. I know about it and that you want to shoot for a minimum sample of 30. Even when I get 30 samples I still don't know how to tell if it is "statistically significant." I need to email my statistics professor. I took the class last April but every time I had a question for him even remotely resembling sports, he would steer the conversation in a different direction. That is my next goal, that I should have learned from the class, learning how to tell if something is statistically significant.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you read my link in my OP, but take a look at that and some of the comments...might help to re-ground you if you think you need a refresher.

To answer your question: I just try to go by feel. After using the sportsdatabase.com website every day for the last year, I am still not tired of it. I love it. I lean on it way too much probably, and get locked into it. Before I know it I have come up with 50 different angles on something, and unfortunately sometimes they're pretty crappy angles. But you guys don't realize how thankful I am to be able to share what I find out, even though sometimes it is crap. And, trust me - most of the time the wins are just luck.
Click to expand...
:thumbup: I'm afraid to venture down that blackhole of a website b/c I don't think I'd get anything else accomplished. I'm sure the wins aren't just luck

But something I never mentioned before - a phenomenon - ever since I started doing "homework" on games, I started taking less risks. When you have seen the data in front of you and get a feel for it you kind of know what to expect from different games. You chase less, and I found that I am generally more content with the results overall and don't experience the insane highs and lows as much.
Click to expand...
This makes sense, and would lead me to believe you're on the right path. Do you track your results and have you been able to determine what sports/angles/etc. work best for you?

Appreciate the response, and I really do enjoy your writeups :thumbup:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
Texas floods
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
Mrs. Rannous
Mrs. Rannous
scorchy
Any banking guys that can offer solutions to a vexing issue?
Replies
31
Views
702
Mrs. Rannous
Mrs. Rannous
Skipdog77
Walking Style, what say you?
Replies
31
Views
479
FarFromHome
FarFromHome

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top