End of Blog

I have not posted in this blog in a long time. Unfortunately, I just lost interest. I will restart writing articles for the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine. I have agreed to write sports betting articles for the April issue through the October issue. I have no plans to post in this blog again. It is possible that may change, but right now, I don't see it happening. Thank you everyone.

NBA Opening games: Play the Under?

When both teams are playing in their first game of the year, my data shows:

1993 to 2003, average betting total 195.4, average actual total 192.0.
Overs against the total: 49-87, 36%

That's a pretty darn good rate for the Under, right?
But...

2004 to 2007, average betting total 192.6, average actual total 194.3.
Overs against the total: 28-20 58.3%

The actual totals are about the same in the two time periods (192 vs 194.3), but the average betting total is drastically different (195.4 versus 192.6).

Digging further to look at the average totals for all games:
1993-2003: average betting total 193.0, average actual total 193.4. Overs ATS went 50.2%
2004-2007: average betting total: 195.9, average actual total: 196.4 Overs ATS went 50.3%

From 1993-2003, the average betting total for the first games of the year were 2.4 points higher than the average betting total for the year. But the average actual total was 2 points lower.

From 2004-2007, the average betting total for the first games of the year were more than 3 points lower than the average betting total for the year...and the average actual total was also 3 points lower.

From this data, it seems to me books mispriced the total too high previously, but have since gotten smart and adjusted the opening totals lower. The opportunity is gone. Anyone betting on the angle blindly with ATS numbers from the previous 14 years or even 10 years are making a fundamental mistake of not realizing the possibility the market has corrected and lines are now more efficient than they were in the past. The conclusion is that the angle is no longer a positive EV play.

If you aren't convinced yet to pass on the Unders based on this angle, here's another look at the three games tonight compared with totals from the last year when they last played (excluding playoff games)

CLE vs BOS. Tonight's total is 180. Looks like they last played on 2/27/2008. The total was 191.5
LAL vs POR. Tonight's total is 196. Looks like they last played on 2/26/2008. The total was 202.
MIL vs CHI. Tonight's total is 195. Looks like they last played on 3/29/2008. The total was 207.5

Personnel changes on teams, coaches change, so I'm not saying these are the same teams. But there is probably not that big of a difference in the team rosters (Garnett and Pierce still on the Celtics, Kobe still with the Lakers, Lebron still with Cavs, etc. etc.).

So, the conclusion is that if you hear/read anyone make a pick on the Under in any of the opening games based on this angle, you know they are making a fundemental mistake. Don't make the same mistake.

2-0 and 0-2 preseason teams

There is often discussion by thinking football bettors that it is good to bet against 2-0 teams in the preseason and bet on 0-2 teams in the preseason. The idea is that 2-0 teams don't need a win to feel good, so they have no incentive to win whatsoever. They probably played well in the first two games and they can afford to give their backups more work. Or something to that effect. The reverse is that 0-2 teams need to work harder and want a win.

Has this theory held up? yes and no.

2-0 teams in their 3rd game since 1996 have gone 49-37-4 against the spread.
0-2 teams in their 3rd game since 1996 have gone 46-36-1 against the spread.

These are small sample sizes. While it may be decent news for betting on 0-2 teams, it doesn't look good for betting against 2-0 teams.

Teams this week that are 0-2: CHI, ATL, NE, DAL, GB, CLE
Teams this week that are 2-0: TB, WAS (3-0), DET

What to make of this? I'm not sure, I wouldn't recommend betting any of these teams blindly.

Interesting article on Robert Walker of MGM Mirage

Here is a good article on Robert Walker of MGM Mirage. He is retiring from his position as the MGM Mirage sports book director. It surprised me a bit that the article talks more about sportsbooks and Walker specifically dealing with pro bettors more than anything else.

Good plan doesn't pan out

Yesterday I took the Houston Astros in the 2nd Half at +130. I made this bet before the game started. The 2nd Half in baseball is the 6th inning and beyond. I liked the bet but it lost. I thought it was well thought out given the Yankees situation and had positive EV. Historically, in games with the road team around -155 favorites, the home team has been worth about +130 in the 2nd Half. If the NYY/HOU game was a normal game with a line of -155 for the Yankees, then I would have thought I had a zero-EV bet. But I knew that Mariano Rivera was unlikely to pitch, and even if he did, he would not be at 100% strength. Rivera had pitched in 4 straight games from June 7th to 10th, then took the 11th off, but then pitched again on the 12th. That's 5 out of 6 days! Incredible for a closer these days.

With Rivera out and Joba Chamberlain now in the starting rotation, the Yankee bullpen for last night's game was very suspect.

To top it off, Chamberlain was going into his 3rd start and was still probably on a pitch count. Although it would be higher than his previous start, I would have been shocked if he threw more than 100 pitches. So I didn't think he was likely to pitch much in the 2nd half of the game. If it was another pitcher, like Andy Pettitte, then there would have been the possibility of the starter going deeper into the game and pitching the 7th and 8th too. But with Chamberlain, there is a much lower chance of that. And that meant the bullpen would be pitching most or all the innings in the 2nd half. It turned out that Chamberlain threw 89 pitches over 6 quality innings.

But it didn't work out. Veras and Farnsworth pitched three scoreless innings and the Yankees scored one run in the 8th inning on a Derek Jeter solo HR. I still like the thought process and the rationale for the bet. At worst, I had a zero-EV bet. But likely, I had a positive EV bet given the reasonings shown above.

comments on the Donaghy issue

I don't think it is a good idea to accept Donaghy's accusations as the truth. But I also don't think it is a good idea to assume he is lying. NBA commissioner David Stern is pleading with everyone to believe the latter.

I'll make a couple of comments from one of the ESPN.com articles: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3439554

Here are the comments made by the Maloofs, owners of the Sacramento Kings, on the 2002 Game 6 game against the Lakers.

We believe we have the best fans in the NBA and are so grateful for their continued passion and support," the Maloofs said in a statement. "We certainly didn't like all the calls in that Game 6 and were extremely disappointed with the outcome. However, we have been associated with the NBA for many years and feel in no way that the league was conspiring for the Kings to lose."

This is exactly what any sane person would say. The Maloofs are part of the league. No matter what they truly believed, it does not help to stab the NBA and David Stern now. It can only hurt them, and hurt them immensely. This is the case with everyone that has any connection to the NBA. Owners, players, coaches, broadcasters. Everybody. Even some reporters are probably too close to the NBA to make disparaging remarks on this issue. Imagine a reporter saying he believes Donaghy and that something fishy happened in the 2002 game. What do you think Stern, Phil Jackson, Kobe, Shaq or many others will respond to him the next time he calls them for an interview.

Next comment is on David Stern's comments:

At his news conference Thursday, Stern made his strongest statements ever regarding the 2002 Kings-Lakers game, saying: "You can watch it, you can look at it again, and you could see what we call the correct, incorrect and non-call incorrect. ... My guess is it won't be pretty, but it won't be dishonest and it won't be illegal. Of that I assure you."

It should be tough for anyone to be assured by David Stern. He now says there were many bad calls (or at least he implies it). Did he say that back then. I don't think so. Just think about Stern's motives, and you know he has to say what he says. The other thing is that he cannot prove a negative. Before the Donaghy issue, he would have claimed all his referees were clean, and he would have been wrong.

From a gambling standpoint, I would think twice about betting the home team in the playoffs when they are down 0-2 in the series. Is it possible that one of the reasons they have such a great record in that spot is the referees helping them out in some way, however slight? Possibly. And that might be enough to think about laying off those bets in the future.

Interview with a NBA bettor regarding Donaghy and betting in general

This article on a sports bettor's view on Donaghy is interesting. I saw it linked by "MadLib" on LVA Sports.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-32-308/A-Professional-Gambler-s-Take-on-the-Tim-Donaghy-Scandal.html