Saturday, 3 April 2010

The Fountain Head

Pete Nordsted is on the same page as me. He writes today:

“…I looked at the value of backing various outsiders over the last 6 weeks of the baseball season and the results were very impressive. When looking to back these outsiders the only criteria I set myself was that the selection offered some value. In truth I know very little about the sport. But what does appeal is that the very best teams win just over 60% of the matches and the very worst teams win just under 40% of the time. Basically this means that on any given day any team can beat any other team.

One of the aims of my blog is to air ideas, and from my post earlier, Sleazynick sees an opportunity.
Surely a Martingale style bet on underdogs would work though?

If favorites only win 66% of their games then back the dog in each of the 3 game series doubling till you hit a winner would work?
It’s not that easy Nick, but a "Martingale style'' staking system, perhaps Maria based, is a good starting point, if you are selective and use some of the filters I wrote about earlier. For April, I intend to try a similar strategy for small stakes and see how it goes. Nothing ventured...

At least some people are intelligent enough to get the point. The omnipresent Anonymous once again misses the point of the post completely and really should go back to the beginning and read through the whole blog before passing comment. There really is some good stuff in there, and some actual numbers which I know he likes!

As a person who goes on, some would say ad nauseum, about the importance of value, I find it quite astonishing that Anonymous, or anyone else really, would really think that when it comes to baseball betting, the importance of value somehow goes out of my window?

How about this gem: “Rather than plunging headfirst into system betting, I presume you'd bother to check the pitchers in these situations? Or do they suddenly become irrelevant?” 

Perhaps Anonymous should read the post in full. I clearly said “No ‘system’ can ever work all the time” and “In baseball, the pitchers are the key to the game, first the starter, and then the bull-pen”.

Either Anonymous suffers from short-term memory loss, or does he not understand the points.

I hate to be negative, but he must be a joy to live with. He never has anything positive to say, he can’t even make up a name for himself, he criticises constantly, yet contradicts himself by coming back for more AND taking time out from “counting his winnings” to post advice for me! As someone the other day pointed out, Ayn Rand in her book "The Fountain Head" said that criticism of a person’s work is actually a compliment.

If you are interested in baseball, and disciplined, you can at least get a good run for your money by following some of the suggestions I put out there, and if anyone has any better ideas, feel free to share them.
“A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity.”


Anonymous said...

Cassini my friend.

You firstly mentioned the importance of pitchers. Then, completely separately, plunged into an explanation of your system of backing favs at home after they get stuffed. And made no mention of pitchers.

Your musings could be interpreted by the unknowledgeable reader to be suggesting backing these teams (who have lost by 3 at home and are favs in next game of series) blind with disregard for all other factors (such as pitchers).

That's all.

Anonymous said...

Hi , if you want to win money trading you should really check out this site

Anonymous said...

This 60% v 40% = anyone can beat anyone else. Where does that come from? Would you say the same if it was 65% v 35%, or 75% v 25%?

My point here is. You, or this Pete guy are suggesting that there is some sort of % barrier to cross whereby you interpret it as the low probability not being a realistic outcome. Which of course is drivel.

(As a footnote. Even if it's 99% v 1% then you can still say on any given day B is capable of beating A.)

And by the way, some of the stuff Pete comes out with on his blog is ridiculous. Such as many of his %s on football match outcomes which are often miles away from any reasonable assessment from successful professionals.

Giovanni said...

siete interessati ad uno scambio link?