BG does it bother you at all that you have straight crossed with steviey at least 5-10 times this year and always around the same number? Seeing Stevie on a's -115 would pretty much end all chance of me playing angels plus 107.
BG does it bother you at all that you have straight crossed with steviey at least 5-10 times this year and always around the same number? Seeing Stevie on a's -115 would pretty much end all chance of me playing angels plus 107.
No. I respect his work but have not noticed any correlation to Stevie's plays. I would be more bothered by crossing someone in where past correlation has been established.
A general observation with the first month of the season now in the books. Given the changing dynamics of the betting market place, any deviation from normalcy always piques my curiosity. Earlier in the week I had mentioned that the interconnectedness of the MLB market was a little bit off this year. It is quite common for such interconnectedness to be more erratic earlier in the season as the market tries to get a grasp on teams and pitchers. The dynamic changes in team pricing earlier in the season is typically accompanied with an increase correlation with results (compared to when the season becomes more mature). Teams winning are more likely to catch bids (which may be one of the culprits to favorites being inflated in the past as posted by someone else in this thread) compared to later in the year. With that said, result-correlation has also lower than what is usual in the first month. The market is giving the appearance of trying to get in front of a teams good runs as well as time team regression. Teams trying to avoid sweeps are getting the typical bids off baseline. But you are also starting to see the market jump off overachieving teams, bid into underachieving teams, and valuation moves off team baselines that are bullishly and bearishly within the same series at a higher rate than in the past. As of now, the possible transformation appears slight and may be just noise or a misinterpretation. But if this trends increasingly works its way into the market, the likely result will be less polarized valuation biases (less larger plays), possibly more smaller valuation biases, and timing will become more difficult.
No. I respect his work but have not noticed any correlation to Stevie's plays. I would be more bothered by crossing someone in where past correlation has been established.
I understand what you are saying here, I cross with Stevie as well much more then I cross with the market and it doesn't bother me that much when he posts a play after I already got down. But I think his plays are unique enough that I would choose not to cross with him after I saw his posted play.
Holy H. BG, or anyone in this thread, did i miss a pitching change or is there some other reason for such downward pressure on price of Phi today?
Nope. With the way yesterday closed and the market continuing to support AL teams, this line may have some more downside from here. The market has been fickle with the Phillies this year. Just when it seems like the market may be starting to come around with them (i.e. against the Mets), they jump back off. Looks like Lee is fair game now too.
I do think this market attack (if it sticks) provides a good example regarding the post made about how often times line moves against a team/pitcher can be misconstrued as fades on said team/pitcher. Even though there is not too much to go by on how the market prices Bauer, with the information we have, it appears that the majority of the move down (if not all) is not a fade on the Phillies/Lee, but rather a fade on the number, as the opener was set outside of market pricing range.
it appears that the majority of the move down (if not all) is not a fade on the Phillies/Lee, but rather a fade on the number, as the opener was set outside of market pricing range.
Isnt this what every market move is about? When I bet CLE +134 this morning, I didnt think hmmm Lee/Phillies suck, Bauer Indians good...I thought I make this game +120 and its 134...
we can thank the lovely dodger offensive production with runners in position last night for that outcome. Zito got out of plenty of jams... nice call on the mets. Thanks.
we can thank the lovely dodger offensive production with runners in position last night for that outcome. Zito got out of plenty of jams... nice call on the mets. Thanks.
Braves starting to come back to earth, is there "value" fading them at this juncture????
Short answer is no.
I don't recommend blindly fading or betting on teams without incorporating the price . By doing so, you are typically assuming one of the following- 1.) The MLB market has the tendency to inflate overachieving teams more often than not to overcome overall vig on said teams 2.) Regression to the mean is regression below the mean when predicting team production. Keep in mind, when markets make upgrades to teams valuations they are meant to be predictive rather than descriptive. Market upgrades are not made to say that a particular team has played well in the past so they deserve an upgrade in their price. Rather, the upgrade is meant to say that said team has provided evidence to suggest past market pricing was not efficiently discounting a certain level of production (above original assessment) deemed sustainable in the near future.
Having said that, it is not rare for a market to in fact inflate a price on an overachieving team. In the past, the typical market reaction to the inflated price is to gradually unwind the premium as the team regresses. So far this year, the market reaction to production has been a bit different than years past. It is as if the market is trying to time streaks rather than adjust accordingly to them. For example, the Phillies, Blue Jays, and Angels have witnessed pricing upgrades in recent days, while the market started to downgrade the Orioles last week after their hot start. This type of market behavior coupled with the overall decreasing pricing interconnectedness makes your approach that more dangerous.
He probably won't get pushed as hard in the near future if avoidable, but this exit appeared situational. Pulled for a pinch hitter in the 8th.
situational is right and I realized that after I hit the post button. we got our money's worth on that one. nice winner BG. Thoughts on ranger line drop?
Isnt this what every market move is about? When I bet CLE +134 this morning, I didnt think hmmm Lee/Phillies suck, Bauer Indians good...I thought I make this game +120 and its 134...
Some line moves are made to realign a line to current market pricing points (more or less), while others are made to establish new valuations. The latter represents a market fade on a team.
Buffett, why did you like the Phillies today with Halladay laying high odds with a poor pitching record.
How did you find value in this play?
"FROM ESPN: PHILADELPHIA -- After one of the worst games of his long career, Roy Halladay admitted Sunday he's been pitching hurt."
BG has been quite generous in his willingness to answer questions and participate in various discussions. I for one would not blame him if he chooses not to answer this one.
If he has been pitching hurt shouldn't of the Pitching coach knew he had some sort of problem before they started him.
His previous record alone should of been a warning sign, but hey it's a business just like the NFL
Buffett, why did you like the Phillies today with Halladay laying high odds with a poor pitching record.
How did you find value in this play?
"FROM ESPN: PHILADELPHIA -- After one of the worst games of his long career, Roy Halladay admitted Sunday he's been pitching hurt."
I don't originate in absolutes. I try to apply an appropriate likelihood that Halladay may be injured or that there is a structural change in production levels. If it is learned that Halladay was in fact injured after the fact, a case can be made that there was no value in backing Halladay (at nearly any price). In general, when dealing with pitchers that are materially deviating from expected performance, I find that market tends to discount production levels somewhere in between a mean and median expectancy, which tends to create value on the under performing pitcher more often than not.
For every Halladay whose valuation gets downgraded not enough when an injury risk is applied to his valuation, there are a few Cain's who get over discounted.
I'm sure there are hundreds of times a year (if not more) where guys take the mound with some discomfort or some moderate pain or something along those lines. If either he or the team was concerned that there was something more serious, then I'm sure he wouldn't have taken the mound. But if a pitcher only pitched when he was feeling 100%, he certainly wouldn't be starting 32-35 games a season.
Comments
No. I respect his work but have not noticed any correlation to Stevie's plays. I would be more bothered by crossing someone in where past correlation has been established.
I understand what you are saying here, I cross with Stevie as well much more then I cross with the market and it doesn't bother me that much when he posts a play after I already got down. But I think his plays are unique enough that I would choose not to cross with him after I saw his posted play.
Timing the market is a skill, similar to handicapping, that if done well will lead to CLV.
Nope. With the way yesterday closed and the market continuing to support AL teams, this line may have some more downside from here. The market has been fickle with the Phillies this year. Just when it seems like the market may be starting to come around with them (i.e. against the Mets), they jump back off. Looks like Lee is fair game now too.
Isnt this what every market move is about? When I bet CLE +134 this morning, I didnt think hmmm Lee/Phillies suck, Bauer Indians good...I thought I make this game +120 and its 134...
18 baserunners, 1 run.
how pathetic is that... lets get em today.
Short answer is no.
I don't recommend blindly fading or betting on teams without incorporating the price . By doing so, you are typically assuming one of the following- 1.) The MLB market has the tendency to inflate overachieving teams more often than not to overcome overall vig on said teams 2.) Regression to the mean is regression below the mean when predicting team production. Keep in mind, when markets make upgrades to teams valuations they are meant to be predictive rather than descriptive. Market upgrades are not made to say that a particular team has played well in the past so they deserve an upgrade in their price. Rather, the upgrade is meant to say that said team has provided evidence to suggest past market pricing was not efficiently discounting a certain level of production (above original assessment) deemed sustainable in the near future.
Having said that, it is not rare for a market to in fact inflate a price on an overachieving team. In the past, the typical market reaction to the inflated price is to gradually unwind the premium as the team regresses. So far this year, the market reaction to production has been a bit different than years past. It is as if the market is trying to time streaks rather than adjust accordingly to them. For example, the Phillies, Blue Jays, and Angels have witnessed pricing upgrades in recent days, while the market started to downgrade the Orioles last week after their hot start. This type of market behavior coupled with the overall decreasing pricing interconnectedness makes your approach that more dangerous.
He probably won't get pushed as hard in the near future if avoidable, but this exit appeared situational. Pulled for a pinch hitter in the 8th.
situational is right and I realized that after I hit the post button. we got our money's worth on that one. nice winner BG. Thoughts on ranger line drop?
Some line moves are made to realign a line to current market pricing points (more or less), while others are made to establish new valuations. The latter represents a market fade on a team.
I can only speculate. Price discovery is not on the top of my list. The screen is acting differently this year.
looks like they figured out how to cross the plate tonight
How did you find value in this play?
"FROM ESPN: PHILADELPHIA -- After one of the worst games of his long career, Roy Halladay admitted Sunday he's been pitching hurt."
BG has been quite generous in his willingness to answer questions and participate in various discussions. I for one would not blame him if he chooses not to answer this one.
His previous record alone should of been a warning sign, but hey it's a business just like the NFL
I don't originate in absolutes. I try to apply an appropriate likelihood that Halladay may be injured or that there is a structural change in production levels. If it is learned that Halladay was in fact injured after the fact, a case can be made that there was no value in backing Halladay (at nearly any price). In general, when dealing with pitchers that are materially deviating from expected performance, I find that market tends to discount production levels somewhere in between a mean and median expectancy, which tends to create value on the under performing pitcher more often than not.
For every Halladay whose valuation gets downgraded not enough when an injury risk is applied to his valuation, there are a few Cain's who get over discounted.
But the fact still remains that he went on to pitch the game knowing he was injured and most certainly someone on the team knew it before hand.