Viability of betting against sweeps.

[Karmic]

Do you think you can get ahead for a year in MLB by betting against an underdog to be swept in a 3 game series? betting 1u,2u,4u and stopping when you win. You expect to win slightly over 1u and max loss is 7u.

I discounted this idea at first based on the standard martingale is a bad system idea. However looking over the past few years it looks like even the bad teams are only swept 1 in 5, the mediocre to good teams can be closer to 1 in 10. Additionally baseball is very streaky and teams that are running bad are more likely to be swept again and you can avoid them.

On a bad team it is overall -EV I think, but, with lines hitting +200 two losses and a third game win is worth 5u.

I skipped the first series for each team and started betting small after that. I reduced my units to where 7u is about where my normal 1u would be because I do not have faith in this system, but with selective enough choices I think it may win.

So far I've won every series I've bet Thanks TB for winning the last game yesterday vs Tex. +16u but again small units and choosing two series wrong will wipe that out. No bets today because they are 4 game series starting today.

I have seen this idea brought up a few places and it may have been discounted here before but I couldn't find it. Thoughts?

[Thremp]

No.

[bigalt]

I can't comment on the sweeping issue, but martingaling does not effect the EV, it's just a (poor) form of bankroll management.

You would be much better off sizing your bets based on some handicapping.

[whipsaw]

It can work, but only if you parlay them.

[tippy]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think you can get ahead for a year in MLB by betting against an underdog to be swept in a 3 game series? betting 1u,2u,4u and stopping when you win. You expect to win slightly over 1u and max loss is 7u.

I discounted this idea at first based on the standard martingale is a bad system idea. However looking over the past few years it looks like even the bad teams are only swept 1 in 5, the mediocre to good teams can be closer to 1 in 10. Additionally baseball is very streaky and teams that are running bad are more likely to be swept again and you can avoid them.

On a bad team it is overall -EV I think, but, with lines hitting +200 two losses and a third game win is worth 5u.

I skipped the first series for each team and started betting small after that. I reduced my units to where 7u is about where my normal 1u would be because I do not have faith in this system, but with selective enough choices I think it may win.

So far I've won every series I've bet Thanks TB for winning the last game yesterday vs Tex. +16u but again small units and choosing two series wrong will wipe that out. No bets today because they are 4 game series starting today.

I have seen this idea brought up a few places and it may have been discounted here before but I couldn't find it. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is likely to be a colossal failure. The system doesn't work for a game of pure chance and it has probably even less chance of working on a game of skill. Throw in 10 cent juice and you are doomed.

Basically you are betting that a team doesn't lose three in a row. This happens more than you think.

[Karmic]

[ QUOTE ]


It is likely to be a colossal failure. The system doesn't work for a game of pure chance and it has probably even less chance of working on a game of skill. Throw in 10 cent juice and you are doomed.

Basically you are betting that a team doesn't lose three in a row. This happens more than you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I know it happens a lot, but from my calculations (which may not be perfect) on average I'm laying -525 on an underdog to win 1 of 3. A bad team will lose a 3 game series about one out of every 5 series, while a mediocre but still underdog team can be as good as one out of 10. The 7u I am risking is = to 1u of a normal bet I severely reduced the betting amount to try and keep the bets even.

I guess to state it another way, if I believe an underdog is more likely to win than the odds on the line and I single bet them 3 times similar to the "always betting against the yankees thread" Is my return going to be better or worse this way?

The only reason I believe it has a chance of working is precicely becuase it is not a game of chance, the odds are not the same on each game. I certainly think it can be a colossal failure though.

[ImNew]

If such a system works, wouldn't it be too easy to win against the house?

[Karmic]

[ QUOTE ]
If such a system works, wouldn't it be too easy to win against the house?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not pushing this as a guaranteed, you clearly need to pick your spots, continued betting on a loser is worse than random chance because the games are correlated. In all the series played this year I've bet on 10. I guess what I'm saying is if you feel the teams are closely enough matched that the series will probably go 2-1 would betting this way be better than just flat betting the underdog in each game. Of course you can be completely wrong and lose, but picking blindly seems to trend towards the chances of sweeping a series being close to 1 in 5.

I don't really want to call this a system, I guess it's more of a "reverse parley"? I'm betting a larger amount on an occurence I feel is more likely than the odds I'm betting at.

What I wish I had was a history of 3 game series results for a long enough period that I could feel comfortable with my approximation of the odds. Of course I can go back and pull out examples of where this would have worked very well and very poorly in the past.

I guess the most important question that I haven't figured out yet is would this method be better or worse than just straight betting the underdog on all 3 games. It is only clearly better in cases where the underdog wins exactly 1 of 3 (especially so if that is the last game). It is much worse when the underdog sweeps or gets swept, but that is a less likely occurence.

Yes I realize I ramble.

[Karmic]

YTD +23.95U on 15 series bet. This week there aren't very many 3 game series so I'm down to taking KC vs Det which I think may be a mistake if KC doesn't win today, Bonderman is pitching in the final game. If this continues to work well I'll start a public tracker so you guys can laugh when it implodes, otherwise I'll just post the date and reason it all went wrong.

[rjp]

Obviously it depends on the price, but numbers from a long time ago show that the team that is going for the sweep will get it more often than not. This, however, doesn't mean you should always lay the odds... I suggest you crunch the numbers yourself. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]