 Here's one you can use all season long.
I'd have to say I'm mostly in agreement with the Dinque, Drunkguy side of this debate. I'm opposed to the "due theory" in general.
This particular possibility interested me because it coudl be posible that a Martingale type thing could work in cases where the Vegas lines are reflecting reality as well as they could. Drunkguy and I always seem to disagree on this, so I'm guessing we will here. I'd agree with him that if the lines were perfect, then a Martingale approach is almost never reasonable in anything.
But...what if the percentages in certain circumstances were nudged higher? Somebody in the Mess Hall suggested a Martingale against Andre Aggassi in the last US Open. He had ZERO chance of winning the event unless Federer and Roddick were stricken with malaria or something. We're talking about an old guy with a bad back...and we're talking about a guy who would still be getting betting respect from the oddsmakers because of his name.
That one made sense...I took a flyer on it...and Agassi was actually a favorite in the third round match he finally lost. Logic...line value...a reasonable use of the Martingale to me (though malaria probably does have a greater than 0% chance of striking Flushing Meadows).
In the case of Kansas City, we're talking about that interesting set of circumstances I outlined above. It's a great hitter's park that inflates offense to a good degree. This isn't commonly known by people. At least, they don't realize it's a GREAT hitter's park rather than a good one. Throw in a lot of really bad pitchers...and it's not unreasonable to assume that the dam would break once over 27 innings or 36 innings in a series.
The record outlined by Grandfather actually shows a HUGE profit. If every failure represents a loss of 15 units (four game series)...that's a record of 123-75 in terms of units. Odds are the five losses were in three game sets rather than four game sets...which would be a record of 123-35.
Now...obviously, that's looking backward. A million things can be found that look great going backward. The key is what they do from the time you notice them. This year...after GF posted it, the mark is just 22-22.
Someone after year one who saw the convergence of a great hitter's park with a franchise that had no budget for compiling quality pitchers might consider a strategy like this. He would have been happy he did. This year is no harm no foul...but doesn't really provide much evidence in favor of the approach moving forward.
I don't think the way to judge something like this is to look at see if there was something "magical" about the third game if the first two went Under. I think people should be trying to determine what the percentage chance is that the dam will break at some point during 27 innings with a lousy pitching staff in a great hitter's park. If that's a 95% likelihood, then there's value in the Martingale approach.
I think I agree with DG that this is normally a bad thing to try, and that the odds are against it working even if you think you've found something logical. I guess I'm more optimistic that it's possible if there's a certain confluence of indicators in an area where the line isn't reflecting reality. DG and I will probably always disagree about whether or not the late lines offer value or not.
The Agassi thing made a lot of sense...and it had to be a 99% chance (or fractionally higher) that he wasn't going to win the tournament. Congrats to whoever posted that before the event began.  | 
BETCRIS 
09-19-2006, 08:29 AM
