Advanced NFL Betting Strategies - Tips to Profiting off

Sports Betting Tips: NFL Football Teaser Betting Strategy and Tips (How to Win at Teasers)

Sports Betting Tips: NFL Football Teaser Betting Strategy and Tips (How to Win at Teasers) submitted by WagerTalk to WagerTalk [link] [comments]

Sports Betting Tips: NFL Football Teaser Betting Strategy and Tips (How to Win at Teasers)

Sports Betting Tips: NFL Football Teaser Betting Strategy and Tips (How to Win at Teasers) submitted by WagerTalk to WagerTalk [link] [comments]

Top Ten Greatest Male Players in Challenge History - No. 4 - C.T. Tamburello

Honorable Mentions - Abram, Dan S., Jamie, Mike M., Theo V., Turbo, Wes
No. 10 - Alton Williams (Real World: Las Vegas)
No. 9 - Mark Long (Road Rules: USA - The First Adventure)
No. 8 - Darrell Taylor (Road Rules: Campus Crawl)
No. 7 - Derrick Kosinski (Road Rules: X-Treme)
No. 6 - Kenny Santucci (Fresh Meat)
No. 5 - Evan Starkman (Fresh Meat)
No. 4 - C.T. Tamburello (Real World: Paris)
 
C.T. carrying the Johnny Bananas backpack is the greatest highlight ever recorded in Challenge history.
 
Before the backpack moment, we hadn’t seen C.T. in three years. He was rumored to be forever banned after almost killing Adam King on the Duel II. On Cutthroat, when T.J. announced the heavy hitters twist and C.T. came walking out the dark, challenge fans all around the world were not prepared for what they were about to witness. C.T. was finally let out of his cage and Johnny Bananas became absolute prey.
 
If there were ever to be a logo for the Challenge, a visual image of the C.T.-Bananas backpack moment would be it. Picture this: Replace the Jerry West silhouette in the red and blue NBA logo with a white silhouette of C.T. mid power-walk and Bananas in the back of him imitating a backpack. Then, replace “NBA” with “MTV”. Now, you got your MTV Challenge logo. C.T. being at the front and center of a hypothetical challenge sports logo makes perfect sense considering C.T.’s athletic performances changed the landscape of the Challenge from a regular game show to the series becoming known as America’s Fifth Sport.
 
C.T. is the Peyton Manning of the Challenge.
 
Peyton Manning is the greatest regular-season quarterback in the history of the NFL. C.T. is the greatest regular-season competitor in the history of the Challenge.
 
Peyton Manning only has two Superbowls (and won his second one in his final season in the NFL, while being a shell of his former self). C.T. has three championships (and won his final one while being in his worst physical shape ever).
 
Both, Peyton Manning and C.T.’s regular-season career numbers lead you to believe that they should have had twice as much championships than what they currently have. However, their own blunders (C.T.’s boneheaded mistakes and gassing out right before the finish line on the Exes 2 final = Peyton’s choking) throughout their careers hold them back from reaching extreme success in the post-season.
 
To continue this comparison, Johnny Bananas is Tom Brady (6 championships). C.T. is the more natural athlete and talented challenger between him and Bananas, but Bananas has had the better legacy (Peyton’s the more talented QB between him and Brady, but Brady accomplished a greater legacy).
 
C.T. has seven of the greatest regular season competitive performances that didn’t result in championships.
 
The Inferno: In C.T.’s rookie debut, the higher end competition consisted of Abram, Darrell, Mike Mizanin, Shane and Timmy. C.T. won 4 life shields. C.T. led all the males in life shields and actually won more life shields than the higher end competition as one whole collective (Darrell, Mike Mizanin, and Timmy each won one life shield, totaling up to 3). C.T. was the best performer of the season as a rookie. He made the final challenge, but his Real World team lost to Road Rules in a close race.
 
Inferno II: C.T. was the life shield king. He racked up 6 life shields this season in one of the most competitive male casts to ever be assembled in Challenge history. C.T. led the season in life shields again, Landon came in 2nd with four, Mike in 3rd with three, and Derrick came in 4th with two. C.T. made the final, but he and the final remaining Bad Asses got blown out the water in a triathlon.
 
The Duel: C.T. won three missions and landed in the top 2 seven times. In C.T.’s third season, he was the second best competitor behind Evan, who won six missions (but half of them were due to having the superior partner in Jodi in comparison to C.T. having Diem). Despite being a top 2 performer, C.T. got disqualified against Brad in the final male duel and didn’t make it into the post-season.
 
Gauntlet III: C.T. was co-captain of one of the most dominant regular season teams ever, the G3 Veterans. C.T. was either the best or second best athlete on the team (along with Evan, the other team captain). C.T.’s performance in Piñata Pit (which I delve into later) proved what a freak of nature of a competitor C.T. was.
 
Rivals: C.T. managed to win two missions and landed in the top three overall six times with an average partner (Adam). Rivals C.T. was the scariest. The whole season was based around J.E.K. and friends trying to take him out, because he was such a force to be reckoned with. C.T. lost right before the final because of Adam’s performance in the T-Bone elimination.
 
Exes: C.T. and Diem won two out of eight missions, only second to Bananas and Camila’s three. C.T. and Diem made the final, but got second place. C.T. and Diem had the lead the whole final, but C.T. collapsed moments before the finish line.
 
Dirty Thirty: C.T. was competing in his 11th season and still putting up the best scoring numbers in one of the toughest male casts ever assembled. C.T. won 6 missions. That’s the most out of all males on Dirty Thirty (Not a single other player won 5, Hunter won 4, Nelson and Leroy won 3, and the rest have 2 or less). C.T. made the final on D30, but got third place because his gas tank can’t keep up with the other two finalists.
 
C.T.’s ATG Physical Strength, Aggression, and Athleticism is the most lethal combination in Challenge history.
 
If the Challenge were to ever have a Madden-esque video game, C.T.’s player rating regarding his athleticism and strength would look something like: STR: 99. SPE: 99. AGI: 99. A prime C.T. was a cheat code. The Bananas Backpack moment attests to this. Below are some other missions and eliminations where C.T.’s strength and athleticism proved to us he was of a different breed.
 
In Piñata Pit (G3), players from both teams had to jump in a mud pit, retrieve a ball, and return it to the starting line. The mission was played in rounds. Each round, there were fewer balls than there were players. Players were getting eliminated round-by-round. The game of Piñata Pit came down to the two best players on each team, Veteran C.T. and Rookie Derek McCray. You’re probably reading this wondering who Derek McCray is. I don’t blame you. Let me give you some background information on him. The moment Derek M. first stepped into the Challenge, he was immediately viewed as a competition threat, even with no performance log to back for it. Derek M. came into the Gauntlet 3 with instant respect, based off the fact that he had been recruited by more than 200 colleges for his football talent. Considering Piñata Pit contained all the aspects of a game of football: running, tackling, stripping a ball away from an opponent, and taking it to the end zone, the average betting man would’ve bet on Derek to score and win it for the Rookies. Challenge fans, however, knew to bet differently. When the final round went underway, Derek reached the ball first, but C.T. was inches behind Derek as he gained possession of the ball. C.T. then proceeded to slam him to the ground effortlessly and Derek literally yelped as he was getting manhandled. C.T, with what looks like half an effort, popped the ball out of Derek’s arms and took it back to the end zone to win it for the Veterans. In Piñata Pit, C.T. basically took the manhood out of a Division 1 athlete.
 
In the T-Bone elimination (Rivals), C.T.’s “Choo! Choo!” train almost killed Johnny and Tyler. It’s the biggest near death experience in Challenge history. I have a theory: We haven’t seen C.T. in a physical combat elimination ever since for good reason. I’m positive that’s a calculated decision by the Challenge Gods, not one that’s left up to chance.
 
C.T. faced off against Leroy in Wrecking Wall (FA), an elimination where both players had to punch through a 30-foot dry wall to make holes to climb up until they were able to reach the bell at the top. First player to ring the bell won. Leroy is an elimination beast; he’s won 8 career eliminations because of his physical strength and athleticism alone. He was no match for C.T. though. Anyone who watched the Duel 2, knows C.T.’s punching power is nothing to be played with. His punching power knocked out a whole wall on that season.
 
In the Flying Leap mission (Duel), players, one at a time, had to jump back and forth from one end of a platform to another that was suspended from a crane 20 feet above water. Numerous flags were hanging from poles located on both sides of the platform. Players had to grab as many flags as possible within a three-minute time limit; Whoever collected the most flags won. C.T. won Flying Leap with flying colors. He was the only male to not land on his body when jumping or not use any running momentum to assist his jumping sequences. C.T. instead showed us his athletic prowess, by setting his feet, loading his hips, exploding and jumping across, landing on his feet every time. Everyone on the sidelines watched in awe. C.T. made it look like a walk in the park.
 
C.T.’s All-Time Great Intelligence.
 
C.T. is the perfect two-way player. He not only has the brawn, but he has the brain as well. His long history of solving puzzles makes him an ATG intelligent male player. Below are some of C.T.’s greatest moments in which he had to put his brain to work.
 
C.T. eliminated Evan in Ascender (Duel), an elimination game in which players had to climb up a rope, pull a handle at the top of the rope, to release a basket containing puzzle pieces. The players then had to climb back down the rope to assemble a tiling puzzle similar to a tangram. C.T versus Evan was the second last male elimination on the original Duel. Up to that point, Evan was the clear #1 best competitor of the season and C.T. was the second. The two best players were going mano a mano. Evan got raddled under the stage lights (got caught trying to cheat), and the brain of the cold blooded killer, C.T. solved the tangram with ease.
 
In the Rivals 2 final, C.T. completed the puzzle checkpoint in a flash that Johnny/Frank fell behind in. Upon seeing the puzzle, C.T. straightaway figured it out because the puzzle was one that he played when he was hungover at a breakfast country club.
 
In the Final Redemption Challenge on D30, players had to read a code that provided a combination to a lock that contained puzzle pieces. The first two players to retrieve and complete their puzzle would return to the game, while the rest were eliminated. C.T.’s competition in this challenge was Dario, Jordan, Leroy, and Bananas. C.T. was the first male to successfully figure out the code and complete his puzzle, and re-entered the game as a result.
 
C.T. eliminated Darrell in Knot So Fast (Invasion). It was the last champions elimination of the season. The grandest stage of them all was set and the two all-time great champions had to rely on their strategical intelligence to win this one. Darrell put up a good fighting effort in trying to undo C.T.’s knot, but it looked like a physically impossible task. It actually was. According to Darrell on Challenge Mania, C.T.’s knots were so tight that production had to cut them off with machetes after the elimination was over. C.T. broke the Knot So Fast elimination. That’s how intelligent C.T.’s strategy was. The elimination win versus Darrell gave C.T. a spot in the finals, where he faced off against underdogs Cory and Nelson, who were fifteen years younger and in the athletic prime of their lives. In the final challenge, C.T. still managed to acquire his second season win and proved to the rest of the Challenge world that the underdogs were no match for the champion of champions.
 
C.T. has the All-Time Greatest Eating Abilities.
 
Eating is such an important trait to have in the challenge. It’s often identified as the most difficult portion of the final challenge each season. Players hate it. We’ve actually seen players quit in the final before because they couldn’t stomach eating disgusting things. We’ve seen C.T. devour all types of disgusting things without looking fazed in the slightest, that makes you question whether or not he has taste buds.
 
Remember the pickled fish soup in the Rivals 2 final? C.T. drank his like he was chugging a beer, while everyone around him was vomiting all over the place. Wes couldn’t bother to even taste his drink, so C.T. chugged it down for him.
 
In the Exes 2 final, C.T. ate the deer head and sheep blood as if it was everyday dinner. When he finished his plate, C.T. decided to go for seconds and helped Diem finish up her plate as well.
 
C.T.’s eating abilities are inhumane. Not only is C.T. known for downing disgusting foods in final challenges as if it were nothing, but he’s also known for winning regular season competitions where you had to eat a ridiculous amount of food (Toss Your Cookies v. Shane, eating the entire birthday cake on Race to the Altar in Exes).
 
C.T.’s first championship and third championships (Rivals II and WOTWII) were social-political clinics.
 
C.T. played his first eight seasons without winning the big one. It wasn’t until Rivals II, his ninth season, where he finally got his first challenge gold medal. As usual, C.T. crushed it on the field, but off the field, in the Challenge house, he played one of the best political-social games I had ever seen. On Rivals II, the opposite sex had control over the votes on male elimination days. C.T. was wooing all the girls, and they thought they were going to be apart of the next love big story on the Challenge. C.T. was never voted in because at least one player within four of the female teams had a fling with C.T. or were falling heads over heel for him on Rivals 2 (Anastasia, Cooke, Diem, and Nany).
 
On War of the Worlds II, C.T. was a member of the U.K. Team. He was apart of Cara’s Cult/The Royal Family. The physical shape C.T. was in this season was his worst ever, so him not ever being considered for elimination by his own team is mind blogging. C.T.’s social game was on a whole another level this season. My favorite C.T. moment on WOTWII is when he turncoats on Cara’s Cult right before the final and saves Tori from elimination to strengthen U.K.’s team for the final. C.T.’s political-social finesse on WOTWII rightfully earned him his third championship.
 
C.T.’s social-political skill, in general, deserves more recognition. Every time I hear people talk about C.T.’s eliteness, people only bring up the competition juggernaut and not the social-political mightiness he’s established over the course of his sixteen season career.
 
C.T. has only done three less seasons than Johnny Bananas, but he’s been in 11 less eliminations. Other than the first Rivals, I don’t recall there being a time where he wasn’t at the top of social structures. He has a whole catalogue of seasons where he was either pulling strings from the top or aligning with the biggest playmakers that were ones doing the pulling (i.e: Inferno 2 – CT was in a four person alliance with Derrick/Brad/Darrell where there duties were to not nominate each other in the inferno selections; The Duel – CT/Evan/Derrick/Brad each were paired with the best athletic girls and controlled the chain selections; Exes 2 – in an alliance with Mark/Robin, Johnny/Camila, and DunbaPaula that ran the game till the very end).
 
C.T. made history twice on Invasion and War of the Worlds II.
 
C.T. won his second championship 22 seasons after his rookie season. He debuted on the original Inferno, which took place in 2004, and won Invasion of the Champions in 2017. That’s a span of 13 years. C.T.’s Invasion win broke the previous record of the longest span between a rookie debut and championship win, that was held by Johnny Bananas. J.B. won his sixth championship 16 seasons after his rookie season. He debuted on the original Duel, which aired in 2006, and won Rivals 3 in 2016 (a 10 year span).
 
C.T.’s new breaking record was broken again by none other than C.T, just a few seasons later. C.T. won War of the Worlds 2, which took place 27 seasons after the Inferno, and 15 years later.
 
C.T.’s Overall Assessment.
 
If you read up until this point, I’m guessing a lot of you probably refuse to agree with my opinion of C.T. being the fourth greatest male challenger ever. Here’s my argument: C.T. is the greatest Challenge talent ever, but he doesn’t have the greatest legacy. Like mentioned earlier, he’s the Peyton Manning of the Challenge and I don’t consider Peyton Manning the #1 G.O.A.T. of Football (Jerry Rice, Jim Brown, and Tom Brady fit that bill better). In my eyes, Bananas, Jordan, and Landon are those three guys. The combination of their talent, winning percentage, and accomplishments fair just slightly better than C.T’s.
 
C.T. has just three championships in a sixteen season career. The rest of my top three have won just as much in a lot lesser time (Jordan, Landon) or doubled his wins in the same type of lengthy career (Bananas). C.T.’s temper and poor decision making tossed three years of his absolute prime down the drain (Inferno III, Gauntlet III, Duel II) and his inability to perform in the clutch tossed another year (Exes). That’s five seasons where the ultimate competitor, C.T., missed out on championships.
 
On the Inferno III, C.T. is cast on the Bad Asses; He was the best player on the cast, but he gets sent home the first night in South Africa because he punches Davis. C.T. would’ve been a lock for the final this season, he threw another potential championship out the window.
 
In the Gauntlet 3 final challenge, Big Easy cost C.T. and all the other final remaining veterans a championship win. You’re probably confused as to how this is C.T.’s fault, but he actually had a major hand in letting Big Easy ride to the final. If you go back to the first gauntlet deliberation where Johnny got sent in against Evan, Johnny plead to the rest of the Veteran males that Big Easy should have to go in, because he was going to lose them a final. C.T., who was the leader of the team, didn’t buy into Johnny’s plea; He had personal dislike towards Johnny and his reason for not throwing Big Easy in was because he loved partying with him. What’s the logic in that? C.T., the whole season was preaching about “trimming the fat” (getting rid of the girls on their team) and never worrying about Easy once was a horrific example of how to play a winning game. Prime C.T. was always finding a way to be the author of his own demise.
 
On the Duel 2, C.T. went into cannibalism mode. C.T. would’ve legitimately smashed Adam’s head and ate Adam’s head if it wasn’t for like thirty cast and production crew members successfully capturing him (and then tranquilizing him and putting him in his cage). There’s no guaranteeing C.T. would’ve won the D2, since the top crop of males this season was stacked. But this is an absolute peak C.T. we’re talking about, who’s in contention for the best men’s competitor all-time, so a championship victory is never out of the question.
 
In the Exes final, C.T./Diem lead the whole way until the final run up the mountain. Right before the finish line, C.T.’s tank ran out of gas (mirroring Peyton’s ability to choke in the playoffs) and he delayed winning his first championship for even longer.
 
C.T.’s competitive abilities (ATG physical strength, aggression, athleticism, intelligence, and eating) and his championship success in his career’s second half are sufficient enough to get him into the Challenge Mount Rushmore, but the four seasons he tossed down the drain in the first half of his career are a little too detrimental to have him in the top trinity. I think about it like this: Would I consider drafting Prime C.T. (Inferno - Free Agents) as my first pick when constructing a team in an-all time draft? Nope. He, was easily #1 in terms of competitive talent, but he was a complete hothead with bad decision making and only won one championship in ten seasons. Would I consider drafting Dadbod C.T. (Invasion - Total Madness) number one? Not at all. He’s won two championships in six seasons, with a phenomenal social-political game, but his competitive abilities are half of what they were before. Every version of C.T. comes with a small albatross that keeps him from having top three legacy.
submitted by futurepoet to MtvChallenge [link] [comments]

Sports Betting Odds

If you are brand new to gambling, among those very first affairs which you ought to do is study how sports betting odds get the job done. It truly is critically essential as it enables one to fully grasp just how probable an event is to come about, and also exactly what your prospective winnings will probably undoubtedly be. In the beginning, it might seem perplexing, but study our guidebook and then let's clarify it for you personally. In gaming, chances signify the ratio involving the numbers by celebrations into some bet or guess. So, chances of 3 to 1 inch signal the very first bash (the bookmaker) bets three times the total staked from the next party (that the bettor).
Just how Can Sports bet Odds Perform?
Sports betting chances are intended to, so in a glimpse, provide people a notion of just how likely it really is that every team will triumph in addition to just how much you will produce using a prosperous wager on such final result. To put it differently, you need to utilize these to have yourself a fast concept of this underdog, and your favoured.
To make a decision as to what chances they supply, bookmakers consider a reach of facets. This may possibly incorporate everything from exactly what additional Sportsbooks are presenting right through to the consequences of prior matchups. They will fix those chances in real-time, dependent on facets such as harms and also the current weather, in addition to that the quantity of cash supplied by bettors on just about every final result.
What Exactly Is Probability?
Even the most introductory amount, gambling supplies you with all the skills to anticipate the results of the particular celebration, also when a forecast is not right, and you will acquire more money. To almost any specific occasion, there really is a particular selection of results. Simply take rolling out a stunt for example.
If a person rolls a dice, then you can find just six potential consequences. Hence, in the event you gamble that anyone rolls a '1 ', then there will be really a 16.67% opportunity which will take place. What gambling chances simply do is demonstrate the way the event is really to occur. so, a portion, i.e. 4/7, as the huge majority additionally offers you the capacity to look at them as decimals. Yet again, why do not we discuss? We all will eventually become evident.
Odds - What to Pick?
Selecting which arrangement of chances to produce if online sports betting is down to some question of private taste. This may most likely, however, perhaps not at all times, function as the form of chances associated by at which your home is. We have to find most of the sports betting internet sites give the choice to decide on which form of chances that you wish to see if you are taking a look at setting a bet. In addition, there are chances calculators out there that are able to enable you to switch between several kinds of odds. The very main point is the fact that it will not matter which kind of chances you prefer to make use of: you will not get or shed additional dollars by deciding upon a particular means of seeing chances. It hence creates the best way to pick the one which you're most relaxed together and utilize it if potential.
Strategies for Putting a Wager
You learn more on the topic of calculating betting, along with different techniques they can be displayed, then you should use this advice in your favor if setting the next wager. Under, you are going to discover a couple of our best hints for employing your new-found awareness about this subsequent bet you put!
  1. Do Not Be Scared to Look Around
Many Sportsbooks will upgrade their chances predicated on real-life effects quicker than some others. Equipped with all the wisdom the way to exactly calculate prospective winnings, then you are able to find out exactly what constitutes the absolute most rewarding wager for you personally, in case you wind up profitable.
  1. Check out frequently
It is crucial that you maintain a watch out for your likelihood, preferably utilizing a smartphone or tablet in the event that you should be about the go. In the event you notice chances switching fast in one path then it really is probably something that has shifted (e.g. weather conditions, spot, or some essential accident). This may possibly influence that which you right back into the competition, or how far you really bet.
  1. Gauge the danger
Utilize exactly what you understand about chances to discover that which you look at as a decent degree of hazard in case gambling in an underdog. $1 wagered on 20/1 chances, as an instance, somewhat very low hazard stake regarding maximum drawback. Many bettors could but feel uneasy gambling $100 on 100/1 chances (in spite of the massive possible benefit) since the chances are stacked so heavily towards you personally.
  1. Remain in the understand
Be sure that you benefit from insider understanding. Bookies, say, may possibly only possibly not be around date up what is happening in upcoming NFL fittings in contrast to a super fan who considers breaking-news reports. This really is the reason it could be of help to bet to a game you are a real lover of or do your homework before setting your stake.
submitted by ofagames to u/ofagames [link] [comments]

Algos move the market in the short term, not retail/institutional/pension funds

My title of my post is the statement I stuck too from the very moment this selloff started. I've stayed consistent with this belief the entire time, whether we go up or down. If you just wanted any more proof, take a look at the Twitter link, as an additional piece of evidence. It's the same case in the recent up moves (the futures are contributing to the majority of the recent up move).
https://mobile.twitter.com/bespokeinvest/status/1248368169091239937
Retail, institutional investors, pension funds, etc. - they don't trade overnight futures. However you know who does? Stat arb algos as well as option trading firms/hedge funds/prop trading firms/bank risk-mitigation algos. For example if a hedge fund was put into a dicey risk situation, they turn on these algos to offload risk overnight. If they can't sell credit risk, they have to do it elsewhere like in ES futures. If an option market maker is short gamma and realizes oh crap, this is gonna cause me to be super long tomorrow with this move in ES, I've gotta hedge and turn on my overnight algo to sell first so I get less long deltas overnight.
So when you guys want to ask "who in the world is even selling" as we sold off and now "who in the world is even buying" as we go up, it's the algos. You are right, not many actual people are buying these days. It's the algos, and when I say algos, I mean the risk/liquidity algos.
Do you want to know why the algos are buying now? It's simple. Jerome Powell said he's buying credit ETFs. If you are a market maker, you have to sell these ETFs to them. Now you have to find a beta hedge. What's the best way to find that beta hedge? Buy ES futures. This then causes SPY to open higher. Now, if your algo was fast enough, you could have front ran the FED by buying HYG and JNK (this is why their NAV is trading at a massive premium), but if you weren't, well you get desperate as you get picked off from being short credit, so now you have to buy ES, SPY, and anything else you can. You might have to then buy SPX/SPY puts with it since you then have to protect your now new ES/SPY longs (which you didn't actually want to buy but were "forced" to buy),, which is why VIX hasn't dropped that much relative to how much SPY has gone up. It's all an algorithmically driven market.
This is why the entire market, on BOTH the down move and the now up move, has decoupled from the economy. So no, you guys may think people are FOMOing in. That's not true. Most investors aren't FOMOing in right now. The algos have just gone out of control on both the down and up moves and it's all technical.
Correlation (with other assets like credit and bonds), positioning (short squeeze and forced liquidations), option gamma (short gamma makes moves bigger), and short term stat arb strategies dominate the market short term. Retail and even big firms like Blackrock or Berkshire do not. Fundamentals win out long term. It may be months for SPY, and it is years for individual companies. No short term movement is ever controlled for by actual people wanting to put on a position.
As I said a month ago when we were selling off, if Citadel and Renaissance Technologies wanted to hold up the entire market for a day, they easily could. They may not want to if it's not in their favor, but they easily could. Two firms. That's enough. That about sums up this market. (EDIT: this part may have been extremely confusing due to my bad wording, but if you read some of the posts below with like me, MasterCookSwag, and ArseneWankerer, I try to clear up my meaning)
Another interesting and true fact? If options trading was ELIMINATED, the market would NEVER have sold off to 220 and it would have never skyrocketed back to almost 280 now. You may ask it's the same fundamentals right? Yes it is, the fundamentals of the economy and virus are the same, but elimiate options, and actually the entire market changes.
Finally, to add one more thing, if this wasn't clear, there needs to be a catalyst for the first wave of selling and buying, but everything after that is purely technical. For example, the catalysts would have been the virus and the oil shock in the wave of selling. The catalyst would have been the Fed in the wave of buying. However, the catalyst in itself shouldn't have produced a very large move. For example, imagine we go from 290 -> 270 as an example. The catalyst, if only traded by itself, should have moved it from 290 -> 285. However, the algos, with all the technical details I described above, then moves it from 285 -> 270. This is what I call "forced selling" or "fake selling," and I've alluded to this in my other posts. There is also "fake buying" in the reverse. However, "fake selling" is usually more powerful because on average people leverage up to be more bullish than bearish in an average market environment. So yes, the initial catalyst is important, but it's not the reason for the majority of short term moves.
I worked in the industry so I know this. You can call it a dirty secret, but hopefully if you see some actual statistics (see the above link on Twitter), you'll understand too. Fundamentals eventually will win longer term, but you know that saying about how the market can stay irrational before you stay solvent, well that's literally true because the market is algo driven. And as we progress into a state of better technology and even more options volume (think about how many people just recently started trading options) and other assets, this will be more and more true. One of these days, which could be like in 20+ years, if some black swan catalyst happens in conjunction with all of these technical factors I mentioned, you literally can see a 20% triple circuit breaker day immediately and like 90%+ of that drop would be all technical.
I'll try to answer any questions to the best of my ability.
EDIT: So for the people who are pointing out I don't understand what a MM is, let's do a easier example with NFL betting lines. Vegas acts like a MM in this regard. When an NFL line closes, is it 50/50 on both sides of the line? Nope. Vegas is still subject to risk. That's why sometimes they win or lose a lot of money depending on the outcome of an event, even though they are a "MM" too. Yes, Vegas will adjust a line based on some order flow, but it has their OWN MODELS TOO to determine what is fair, so they will adjust accordingly to the toxicity of the order flow. They will not just completely change their line so much so simply based pure order flow to keep on capturing 50/50. If you really think an options MM for example goes home every night flat every Greek, you are kidding yourself.
The point I was making above is a firm such as Citadel does so much volume that they have a huge impact on the market, whereas if you take them out of the market for say a month, the entire market microstructure changes in options and equities. Notice in my original post, I clearly said that these firms may not actually want to do this in their favor, but I am using them as an example saying they do so much volume they can IF they wanted to (in options you are more likely to do so than equities). I was emphasizing this point to show you guys how algos play such a large role in the market. It's similar to Vegas when they act as a MM to betting lines. They control the betting line at the end of the day. They aren't always 50/50 on both sides with no risk. Of course, Citadel and SIG in options will adjust their vol curves based on some order flow, but at the end of the day, they control most of the options vol pricing, which indirectly also affects equities in a big way when we have massive short gamma moves.
Similarily, apply it to sports betting. Let's say we shut down Vegas for a month and let only DraftKings price all the betting lines. I bet you the lines would be different and the volume would be different. Would they be completely different (like a -3 to a +3 line)? No, it wouldn't be that extreme, but it would be different and volume would be different and reaction to order flow would be different. Just think about it like this and apply it to trading.
EDIT2: this was also my post like ~3 weeks ago when we were like ~230. Too bad investing deleted my context of my post (since it relates to a lot of what I said below), but you can still see my title and my comments, so you know what I was calling. Yea sure, you can say I got lucky, but I wasn't wrong.
https://www.reddit.com/investing/comments/fjtkzh/we_are_very_close_to_the_bottom/
Addressing the above link, it's the type of logic that I am using in my below posts to probabilistically call bottoms like this. I'm never 100% sure (it's impossible to even be like 70%+ sure imo), but if you put some of this together (like when does the forced selling for the risk/liquidty algos stop?), you can actually call bottoms a bit easier than just winging it 50/50. Notice that this also coincided with March options expirations, as I mention, options are a big part. It also conincided with Jay Powell saying he's going to "alleviate the risks" (this is the forced selling from algos risk) he sees in the repo and now credit market.
EDIT3: u/brokegambler posted this, if you want a real professional talking about it https://www.realvision.com/market-makers-and-coronavirus-the-mechanics-of-a-market-sell-off?utm_source=contributor&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=43900_HK_GH_CONT_W1_LINK
EDIT4: ok last edit but https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pinningthestrike.asp is just a quick example of one phenomenon that happens due to options and market makers. There's not going to be many articles you can find online on about what I'm talking about, but this pinning the strike phenomenon is a well-observed effect that's actually writen about of what market makers can do in terms of controlling price action due to their risk. Interestingly, what we have in our case the last month is the opposite of this in which rather than strikes getting pinned, strikes get blown through to cause the huge moves (since we've been in short gamma the last month). The article isn't super detailed, but can give you a general idea of one effect.
EDIT5: sorry I'll add one last edit...I do realize maybe my wording was not the greatest in my post, and after reading it again, it does sound a bit "forceful" at times, so I apologize for that. This was meant to be more informative, but please don't take it as I am trying to force any one opinion on anyone. Apologize for that!
submitted by Randomness898 to investing [link] [comments]

Basic foundational metrics for measuring your relative sports betting performance

Measuring Returns
Understanding how to measure your performance is a crucial element of being a successful sports bettor. With varying odds and bet allocations, it’s not as simple as just counting your wins and losses. You can win 80% of your wagers, but if those bets were made at poor odds or you had poor bankroll management, you could still have disastrous results.
What you need to measure is your return on investment (“ROI”). In the finance world, ROI is defined as a measurement of the gain or loss generated on investment, relative to the amount of money invested. For example, if you bought Amazon stock at $1,000 per share and it’s currently trading at $1,900 per share, you would say that investment has an ROI of 90% (($1900 - $1,000) / $1,000). Pretty straightforward calculation.
In sports betting, however, there is often confusion regarding how to measure ROI.
Wager ROI
In the 2019 MLB season, Aaron and I wagered around $1.39 million across approximately 800 games. When it was all said and done, we had made approximately $113 thousand. If you divide $113 thousand by $1.39 million, you get 8.1%. Is this our ROI?
If you ask the average sports bettor, they would say yes. If you ask the average finance professional, they would probably ask you “well, how much money did you start with?”
We’re going to define that 8.1% (Net Win / Wagered Amount) as our Wager ROI. For every dollar that we wagered, we made around 8.1 cents.
Wager ROI = [Net Win / Wagered Amount]
Portfolio ROI
We didn't start the 2019 season with a bankroll of $1.39 million, however.
We started with $130 thousand. And we ended with $243 thousand.
Yes, we wagered significantly more than our bankroll. But we started this endeavor with an investment of $130,000. Thus, by the financial definition of ROI, we had an ROI of approximately 87%. To avoid confusion with Wager ROI (and an unnecessary argument from sports bettors), we will define this as our Portfolio ROI. Calculations as follows:
Portfolio ROI = [Ending Investment / Starting Investment – 1]
Cash Turnover Ratio
So how did we wager $1.39 million when we only started with $130,000? Well one of the beauties of sports betting (besides futures) is that the outcome of a wager is determined quickly (~24hrs for MLB, a week for NFL). When you win a game, your sports betting account is credited, and you can then use those proceeds to bet on something else.
How efficiently we use our bankroll is something we’re going to call Cash Turnover Ratio. The Cash Turnover Ratio is the amount of wagers placed, divided by the average portfolio balance over the measurement period. For simplicity, it’s best to calculate your average portfolio balance as the average between your starting and ending bankroll.
Cash Turnover Ratio = [Wagered Amount / ((Starting Portfolio + Ending Portfolio) / 2)]
Our Cash Turnover Ratio for the 2019 baseball season was 7.4x as calculated below:
7.4x = $1.39 million / [($130k + $243k) / 2]
The Cash Turnover Ratio is a measurement of how efficiently we are using our capital. If we had an average portfolio balance of $10 million and only wagered $1.39 million, that would be a very inefficient use of our capital. The only way to increase our Cash Turnover Ratio is to 1) increase our wager size or 2) place more wagers. Of course, increasing our wager size increases our risk and methods such as at Kelly Criterion give us the framework to optimize our bet allocation.
Performance Objective
So what should be our objective? To maximize our Wager ROI? To maximize our Portfolio ROI? Each person is different, but we prioritize Portfolio ROI over Wager ROI.
There’s always going to be a tradeoff between Wager ROI and the number of wagers you play (and therefore your Cash Turnover Ratio). Let’s say you only bet the most select wagers and are able to hit 60% against -110 lines. You would be sporting a very impressive 14.5% Wager ROI, but you could likely improve your Portfolio ROI by being less selective and betting the games that you may only win at a 55% clip. Your Wager ROI would decrease, but the increased volume would increase your Portfolio ROI.
So maximizing Portfolio ROI is a better strategy than maximizing Wager ROI, but is it our performance objective?
Risk Adjusted Returns
Simply, no. What we haven’t addressed yet is the riskiness of a betting strategy.
For example – Bettor 1 has $10,000 and decides to make five $2,000 wagers at -110 over the course of a week. Bettor 1 wins three and lose two, winning a net $1,455, which is good for a Wager ROI of 14.5% and a Portfolio ROI of 14.5%.
Alternatively – Bettor 2 also has $10,000 and makes 50 wagers of $200 instead, winning 30 and losing 20 over the same one-week period. Bettor 2 also has a Wager ROI of 14.5% and a Portfolio ROI of 14.5%.
Do Bettor 1 and Bettor 2 do have equally strong betting strategies? Absolutely not. Bettor 2 was able to achieve the same returns as Bettor 1 but assumed a lot less risk in the process. We can borrow another concept from the financial realm to assess risk-adjusted performance.
The Sharpe Ratio
I’ll save you the boring history and definition of the Sharpe Ratio, but it is essentially a measurement of investment performance compared to a risk-free asset, after adjusting for risk. The Sharpe Ratio represents the additional return generated for an incremental unit of risk. Risk is generally measured as the standard deviation of returns.
For our purposes, we will assume the risk-free asset to have a return of 0.0% given that these bets are short-term securities (and Treasuries are yielding next to nothing).
We can use the Sharpe Ratio to assess the performance of each Bettor. In the table below, we’ve compared Bettor 1 with Bettor 2.
Comparison of Strategies
The big difference between the two bettors is that Bettor 1 assumed a lot more risk with 1) larger bets and therefore a higher standard deviation. As a result, Bettor 2 has a much higher Sharpe ratio than Bettor 1.
You can download a workbook with the above calculations along with a more realistic example of differing betting strategies. Simply replace the shaded cells with your own data to calculate your own Sharpe Ratio. PM me if you want the workbook, or we can migrate it to a google sheet if enough people are interested.
submitted by cleatstreet to sportsbook [link] [comments]

Offseason with Cidolfus: Quarterbacks

Quarterbacks

There’s no way to discuss the Miami Dolphins looking ahead to the 2020 season without addressing the elephant in the room. Ever since Ryan Tannehill was shipped off to the Titans, a single question has loomed large over the future of this franchise: who is the long term answer under center? As we head into the 2020 draft with a top-five pick, it’s a question we’re going to be hearing an awful lot over the next few months.
I’ll be blunt from the outset: a great deal of this series this year is going to deal with that question. I understand that this is going to cause contentious debate, just as it has throughout the season and will continue to throughout the offseason. I understand also that some of my takes about our strategy this season are going to be controversial.
I’ve tried to stay out of the pro-/anti-tank arguments throughout the season as much as possible. I have not always been successful. Spoiler alert for those who hadn’t already caught on: Cidolfus was pro tank. I understand that this position makes many of you viscerally angry just as I understand that many who supported tanking were annoyed at those celebrating “meaningless” wins. So before we get going, I want to ask everyone to keep one thing in mind not only in regards to my own commentary to follow, but for any discussion in this series or in the many other posts that are sure to occur over the next several months:
Let people be fans in whatever manner makes them happy.
I understand that we have emotional reactions to this sport. Nevertheless, it bears reminding: football is a sport and watching is supposed to be fun. If someone wants to win every Sunday because it’s just more fun to win? Good for them. If someone is willing to trade losses now for a perceived advantage in the long term and is happy to see us lose now because they think it’ll be better later? Good for them. If someone wants to bandwagon a team because they just like to watch winning football on Sundays? Good for them. If someone wants to pick the Dolphins as their team for the future because they like the animal? Pity the poor fool, but good for them.
It’s not my job, your job, or anyone else’s job to tell someone else how to enjoy watching sports, so we should all just try and live and let live. That’s not to say that we can’t discuss these differing viewpoints. The whole point of this series is to generate discussion. Just keep it respectful.
Like last year, I plan on posting one of these each week throughout the postseason, and then when I can find time as appropriate through the offseason I’ll try to follow up with an additional free agency and draft discussion. I’m expecting a lot of real work to hit me beginning on March, though, so we’ll see what happens. As always, this series will be primarily geared towards team-building with a focus on contract management under the salary cap. I don’t pretend to be any great evaluator of NFL talent and instead rely pretty heavily on other sources for that type of analysis. This analysis is pretty statistics heavy, by which I mean the math part. Disclaimer: I’m not a statistician and I’m pretty far removed from what little stats I took in college at this point, so as far as the real math goes, it’s still going to be pretty rudimentary.
With all that said, let’s start The Offseason with Cidolfus III.

The Quarterback Conundrum

Whether you’re a believer or a skeptic of Flores as the coach to drag this franchise kicking and screaming out of mediocrity, I hope it is not too controversial to suggest that getting a quarterback should be our first priority from a roster-building standpoint.
But of course it is.
Especially due to the recent uncertainty regarding Tua Tagovailoa’s intentions to declare for the 2020 NFL draft, this subreddit has seen enthusiastic suggestions from using any of our three first round selections all the way to not even drafting a quarterback in the first three rounds at all and instead rolling into the 2020 season with Fitzpatrick and Rosen. Some suggest faith that Rosen can still develop into the heir apparent. Others recommend punting to the 2021 draft where we can try our chances at Lawrence or Fields. Still others suggest that first round quarterbacks are overrated and point to successes found in the middle and later rounds.
Those who have read these posts in previous years know that I’m a numbers guy. So I spent a good chunk of my holiday vacation this year compiling statistics on every quarterback drafted since 2000 to see what we can learn to inform a strategy as how to best find your future quarterback in the NFL. The data has mostly been culled from Pro Football Reference cross-referenced with Wikipedia for information on when players were rostered but did not play. Being a numbers guy, I would have liked to get into some more advanced metrics like ANY/A+ (which is useful for comparisons over a long period of time since it’s normalized to the league average over a three year period). Unfortunately, this information, and many other stats (like QBR) were not available going back the full twenty years, and I wanted to be as consistent as possible. Instead, I decided on 12 different values across three broader categories:
Activity: Availability is the best ability in the NFL. How many games did the player start? How many seasons was that player on an active roster? What percent of their possible games played did they start? What was the QB win percentage in starts?
Accolades: How many accolades did the quarterback acquire over their career? A lot of people will make appeals to these accolades when determining a player’s value, and while I find them the least helpful for this discussion, it’s good to know for argument’s sake. How many Pro Bowls, First Ballot All Pros, and MVPs did the player receive? How many Super Bowls did they win?
Stats: Nothing too fancy here. How did the player perform over their career? We’re looking mostly at career completion percentage, touchdown to interception ratio, adjusted net yards per attempt, and passer rating. These are some easily-digestible, high-level metrics on a quarterback’s general passing performance. I intentionally omitted rushing performance from this analysis because it’s so extremely skewed in favor of a small handful of quarterbacks that the data wouldn’t be particularly useful.

Some Caveats and Acknowledgments

I tracked total attempts initially as a metric to exclude or weight individual quarterback stats. For example, when calculating the average ANY/A, I wasn’t satisfied with simply taking the simple mean of the stat across all quarterbacks in a given round. After all, why should Tyrod Taylor’s 5.96 ANY/A on 1362 attempts be weighed just as heavily as Jordan Palmer’s -2.50 ANY/A on a mere 18 pass attempts?
On the other hand, weighing these stats would vastly overinflate the value of any single long-time player to skew the averages of any single round. Tom Brady’s 9959 career attempts, for example, account for more than 50% of passes thrown by sixth rounders drafted in the past 20 years. Tom Brady is obviously an outlier in the dataset: to weigh his 7.08 ANY/A as over 50% of the entire sixth round would dramatically skew the results even further.
As a result, I have not weighted any of the stat averages based on attempts or games player or any other metric of longevity. I admit that this skews the results the other way. Sticking with the sixth round, 26 of the 43 players drafted threw 50 or fewer attempts their entire career. Many of them never threw a pass in an NFL game, which I evaluated as straight 0s across the board. I decided that this is very much the point for this analysis: if a quarterback never throws an NFL pass, that is a completely unsuccessful draft pick.
I do not expect NFL drafting behaviors in general to change. Most sixth-round quarterback selections will never get a legitimate chance to start, so tracking averages in such a way that devalues a sixth-round quarterback by scoring them as straight 0s while allowing even bad first round selections to put up marginally better numbers is at least an acceptable reflection of a team’s actual attempts to draft quarterbacks.
There are going to be variables I can’t account for, at least not with the data available to me. Rules changes and general trends in the NFL have resulted in the bar moving pretty dramatically upwards especially in the past couple years.
With that all out in the open, let’s take a look at the past 20 years of drafting quarterbacks. As a quick note, I’ve made the assumption that Lamar Jackson wins the MVP this season (because obviously), but I’ve not projected a winner of the 2020 Super Bowl.

Round by Round

The quick and dirty: 242 quarterbacks were drafted between 2000 and 2019. Let’s start with a simple breakdown of the averages.

Means by Round

Round Players Drafted Games Started Seasons Rostered Start % Win % Pro Bowls All Pros MVPs Super Bowls Completion % TD:INT ANY/A Passer Rating
7 36 8.44 3.86 5.31% 6.39% 0 0 0 0 22.86% 0.28 1.06 24.87
6 43 15.53 4.58 8.86% 13.87% 0.39 0.14 0.08 0.17 36.67% 0.67 2.34 43.02
5 34 3.50 3.74 4.77% 15.27% 0 0 0 0 27.38% 0.35 1.81 31.80
4 26 16.08 5.35 14.57% 21.05% 0.12 0 0 0 50.07% 0.72 3.17 60.43
3 26 22.42 6.08 19.42% 22.41% 0.35 0 0 0.08 50.17% 0.98 3.64 62.03
2 21 41.38 7.29 30.83% 35.97% 0.48 0.19 0 0.05 53.18% 1.07 4.28 67.06
1 56 70.52 7.38 58.57% 46.68% 0.93 0.11 0.11 0.13 60.12% 1.59 5.50 82.68
ALL 242 28.16 5.41 23.02% 23.96% 0.36 0.06 0.04 0.07 43.10% 0.95 3.18 53.88

Medians by Round

Round Players Drafted Games Started Seasons Rostered Start % Win % Pro Bowls All Pros MVPs Super Bowls Completion % TD:INT ANY/A Passer Rating
7 36 0 3.00 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 43 0 3.00 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 34 0 3.00 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 35.80% 0 0.11 17.05
4 26 3.00 4.50 4.48% 5.00% 0 0 0 0 56.80% 0.59 4.37 63.95
3 26 10.00 5.00 13.28% 22.22% 0 0 0 0 59.00% 0.89 4.45 74.10
2 21 21.00 6.00 26.79% 38.71% 0 0 0 0 58.60% 0.86 4.68 72.70
1 56 50.00 7.00 63.54% 47.54% 0 0 0 0 60.30% 1.43 5.47 81.70
ALL 242 7.50 4.00 93.11% 20.00% 0 0 0 0 56.20% 0.71 4.11 69.00
A couple things to note looking at both of these tables in tandem: accolades are a poor metric by which to judge the worth of a quarterback pick in each round. This is easy enough to explain: the same few players have won the same awards multiple times in the past 20 years and there are also a limited number of each award per season. Only one quarterback can win MVP or win the Super Bowl, but multiple players can post a solid ANY/A over 6.00 each season. This scarcity is reflected by the median where the vast majority of players never win any of these awards. Case in point: Tom Brady accounts for 13.63% of all Pro Bowl nods, 33.33% of all First Team All Pros and MVPs, and 37.5% of all Super Bowl victories in the entire population examined. That doesn’t change that drafting a quarterback in the sixth round is functionally worthless.
Similarly, the number of seasons rostered and games rostered correlates very strongly to draft position. This shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone, as even poorly performing players often get more opportunities to start draft position. The steadily increasing seasons rostered also indicates that the higher drafted a player is, the more likely they are to play a second contract. A median seasons rostered of 3.00 for rounds 5-7 indicates that quarterbacks drafted in those rounds are more often than not cut before completing a standard rookie contract.
At a glance, the data confirms what most probably suspected already: the higher a quarterback is drafted, the more likely it is that the team got it right and the quarterback in question was a successful pick. What can be observed from above is the general trend that all statistical measures trend positively with the round the player is selected. In general, from the data here it should be pretty obvious that a team is not likely to find their franchise quarterback after the third round as the means for nearly every category for all of those are lower than the means of all quarterbacks drafted. Shocker: quarterbacks in the back half of the draft are, on average, worse than the average of all quarterbacks drafted. So the question then becomes: how do the top three rounds stack up?

Completion Percentage

Round Mean St. Dev. St. Dev. of Mean From Mean of All
1 60.12% 3.82% 0.64
2 53.18% 17.81% 0.38
3 50.17% 21.73% 0.27

TD:INT

Round Mean St. Dev. St. Dev. of Mean From Mean of All
1 1.59 0.81 0.42
2 1.07 0.80 0.08
3 0.98 1.02 0.02

ANY/A

Round Mean St. Dev. St. Dev. of Mean From Mean of All
1 5.50 0.98 0.79
2 4.28 2.09 0.38
3 3.64 2.15 0.16

Passer Rating

Round Mean St. Dev. St. Dev. of Mean From Mean of All
1 82.68 9.89 0.79
2 67.06 27.33 0.36
3 62.03 29.78 0.22
Again as expected, the first round selection is, in aggregate, better. Importantly, though, first round selections are better not just because they have higher mean values for the stats we’re tracking here; they are better because they typically have less variance and also because they’re notably better relative to an average quarterback from the entire draft. Not only is the average ANY/A of a first round selection much higher than that of a second or third round, the standard deviation within its own population is dramatically lower. It’s a safer pick. The standard deviations of the mean from the mean of all draft selections also suggest that the average first round pick is, in general, better relative to the average of all picks than the second or third is. Again, that shouldn’t be a surprise given what we’ve already seen and the positive correlation between draft status and performance.
The takeaway from this should not be that you can only find success in the first round of the NFL draft for QBs or that top-selected quarterbacks are locks (more on that later). This is obviously and demonstrably not true. The takeaway should be that in the aggregate, quarterbacks in the first round are more successful than those drafted in any other round, and it’s not particularly close.
This brings me to the first of the draft suggestions proposed that I want to directly address.

But the best quarterback from the 2011 draft was a third rounder!

Look at Russell Wilson! Look at Dak Prescott! Drew Brees! Tom Brady! They are some of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, and they were all drafted outside of the first round. Tony Romo was a really good quarterback, and he even went undrafted! You don’t need to draft a quarterback in the first round to find your quarterback of the future.
Let’s look at all the teams in the NFL and who was projected as the team’s starting quarterback headed into the preseason and what round they were drafted in.
Team Quarterback Round
Arizona Cardinals Kyler Murray 1
Atlanta Falcons Matt Ryan 1
Baltimore Ravens Lamar Jackson 1
Buffalo Bills Josh Allen 1
Carolina Panthers Cam Newton 1
Chicago Bears Mitch Trubisky 1
Cincinnati Bengals Andy Dalton 2
Cleveland Browns Baker Mayfield 1
Dallas Cowboys Dak Prescott 4
Denver Broncos Joe Flacco 1
Detroit Lions Matt Stafford 1
Green Bay Packers Aaron Rodgers 1
Houston Texans Deshaun Watson 1
Indianapolis Colts Andrew Luck 1
Jacksonville Jaguars Nick Foles 3
Kansas City Chiefs Patrick Mahomes 1
Los Angeles Chargers Philip Rivers 1
Los Angeles Rams Jared Goff 1
Miami Dolphins Ryan Fitzpatrick 7
Minnesota Vikings Kirk Cousins 4
New England Patriots Tom Brady 6
New Orleans Saints Drew Brees 2
New York Giants Eli Manning 1
New York Jets Sam Darnold 1
Oakland Raiders Derek Carr 2
Philadelphia Eagles Carson Wentz 1
Pittsburgh Steelers Ben Roethlisberger 1
San Francisco 49ers Jimmy Garoppolo 2
Seattle Seahawks Russell Wilson 3
Tampa Bay Buccaneers Jameis Winston 1
Tennessee Titans Marcus Mariota 1
Washington Redskins Case Keenum Undrafted
Only 10 of 32 teams planned to start a quarterback drafted outside of the first round at the beginning of this season. Of those teams planning to start a quarterback drafted outside the first, three of them were rostering quarterbacks drafted in the first who were expected to start at some point of this season (Josh Rosen, Dwayne Haskins). A full 75% of NFL teams went into 2019 planning to start a first rounder at quarterback at some point.
Tom Brady is one of 43 sixth rounds who has amounted to anything. Minshew has a chance at being the second, but his head coach won’t even commit to him as the starter for next season despite his solid performance. What Brady and Minshew have in common is that both got their first opportunity to start because the guy ahead of them on the depth chart who had just inked a massive new deal got injured.
Drew Brees had an up-and-down start to his career in San Diego before he started lighting the world on fire in New Orleans. Dak Prescott, like Brady, got the nod to start because Tony Romo got injured. He looked good in pre-season and flashed there, but if Romo doesn’t go down, is Prescott still the heir apparent? Does he survive two seasons on the bench, or do the Cowboys bring in competition when Romo retires?
Even Russell Wilson wasn’t projected to be the starter when he was drafted. The Seahawks had just inked a deal with Matt Flynn and he was expected to be their starting quarterback. Nobody was betting on the undersized guy to beat him out for the starting gig. Wilson came in and started playing extremely efficient football, sure. But without Beastmode pounding away on the ground and the Legion of Boom keeping scores low, how does that story go?
To be clear, I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I’m not saying this to discredit these players, but rather to demonstrate the reality of the circumstances in which they were drafted. The Patriots and the Seahawks didn’t outsmart everyone by drafting Brady and Wilson late. They got lucky. If Bill Belichick really, truly believed that Tom Brady would lead the Patriots to six Super Bowls, he wouldn’t have waited to the sixth round to draft him.
Banking on getting lucky is not a valid team-building strategy.
Tom Brady, Gardner Minshew, Dak Prescott, Kirk Cousins, Russell Wilson, Nick Foles, Jimmy Garoppolo, and Drew Brees are the only quarterbacks drafted outside of the first round in twenty years to have a completion percentage of 60%, a TD:INT ratio over 2.00, and an ANY/A rating over 6.00. That’s a pretty low bar for franchise quarterbacks these days, and only eight out of 186 quarterbacks drafted outside of the first round qualify.
I’ll say it again for those in the back: banking on getting lucky is not a valid team-building strategy.

First Round Breakdown

So Cidolfus, you might say, what about within the first round? Top quarterback picks are overrated. Look at the past few seasons: the top QB drafted often isn’t the best QB in the draft. This is often true, so let’s take a look at the numbers here, too. I’ve broken down the quarterbacks selected in the first round by those taken in the top 5, those with picks 6-15, and those with picks 16-32.

Means by Pick

Picks Players Drafted Games Started Seasons Rostered Start % Win % Pro Bowls All Pros MVPs Super Bowls Completion % TD:INT ANY/A Passer Rating
16-32 17 50.76 7.41 38.59% 44.77% 0.59 0.18 0.18 0.12 58.99% 1.60 5.12 76.70
6-15 14 55.14 6.07 56.32% 45.94% 0.79 0.07 0.07 0.14 60.19% 1.59 5.45 82.87
1-5 25 92.56 8.08 73.42% 48.39% 1.24 0.08 0.08 0.12 60.85% 1.58 5.74 84.22

Medians by Pick

Picks Players Drafted Games Started Seasons Rostered Start % Win % Pro Bowls All Pros MVPs Super Bowls Completion % TD:INT ANY/A Passer Rating
16-32 17 33.00 7.00 32.64% 41.67% 0 0 0 0 58.10% 1.19 5.12 76.70
6-15 14 33.50 5.00 57.29% 46.22% 0 0 0 0 59.20% 1.40 5.38 78.95
1-5 25 73.00 7.00 76.79% 50.00% 0 0 0 0 61.50% 1.57 5.80 86.10
The first round plays out similarly to the entire draft. In general, quarterbacks taken in the top five (which, in this data set functionally means quarterbacks drafted in the top three, as only Philip Rivers and Mark Sanchez have been drafted at fourth and fifth overall respectively) are better in the aggregate than those selected elsewhere in the round.

Completion Percentage

Round Mean St. Dev. St. Dev. of Mean From Mean of First
1-5 61.50% 3.16 0.36
6-15 59.20% 4.00% -0.24
16-32 58.10% 5.00 -0.53

TD:INT

Round Mean St. Dev. St. Dev. of Mean From Mean of First
1-5 1.58 0.47 -0.01
6-15 1.59 0.91 0
16-32 1.60 1.14 0.01

ANY/A

Round Mean St. Dev. St. Dev. of Mean From Mean of First
1-5 5.80 0.78 0.31
6-15 5.38 1.32 -0.12
16-32 5.12 0.93 -0.39

Passer Rating

Round Mean St. Dev. St. Dev. of Mean From Mean of First
1-5 86.10 7.71 0.34
6-15 78.95 12.45 -0.37
16-32 76.70 10.85 -0.60
Like before, nothing too surprising here. We already knew that first round picks had relatively low variance, so it shouldn’t be a surprise to see statistics clustered really heavily here. Only the touchdown to interception ratio doesn’t outright favor the top five picks, and even then the first five picks have the lowest standard deviation and a difference of 0.02 on a touchdown to interception ratio is only one extra touchdown for every fifty interceptions. That the standard deviation of the means for the 6-15 and 16-32 picks are below the mean of the entire first round in general also isn’t too surprising when considering that nearly half of the quarterbacks taken in the first round in the past twenty years have been taken in the first five picks.

What This Means About the Draft

So, to summarize so far: quarterbacks taken in the first round tend to be better than quarterbacks taken in any other round. They generally post better aggregate stats and there’s also a trend of decreasing variance among draft picks the higher you pick. The same applies to the first round itself but on a smaller scale. In the aggregate, a top five pick on an NFL quarterback not only typically yields the highest average performance, it is also the safest place to draft a quarterback as those who are drafted in that position exhibit the lowest variance of their performances. All of these numbers support what conventional wisdom already tells us.
What should definitely not be ignored in this conclusion, however, is that the data also tells us one other very important thing, and it’s yet another thing that conventional wisdom tells us: drafting a franchise quarterback is really, really hard. If we conclude that the average top five pick is the best chance we have in the aggregate, we also have to come to terms with the fact that the average top five pick also isn’t a great quarterback.
A career completion percentage of 60.19%, a touchdown to interception ratio of 1.59, an ANY/A of 5.45, and a passer rating of 82.87 for a player who wins 46.22% of their games and starts for not even three and a half seasons of games is not great. For some perspective: those numbers are worse than Tyrod Taylor’s career numbers.
A top five quarterback pick is obviously not a lock for a franchise quarterback, but it offers the best chance to find your guy.

What About Free Agents or Trades?

All right, so that’s the draft, but that’s only part of how you put together a roster in the modern NFL. What about our options in free agency or on the trade market? Historically speaking, starting quarterbacks who hit free agency or are traded do so for a reason. You don’t have to go back nearly as far as 2000 to demonstrate my point here. Just look at the last several seasons of transactions:
  • Josh Rosen traded to the Dolphins for a 2nd and a 5th
  • Ryan Tannehill and a 6th traded to the Titans for a 4th and a 7th
  • Nick Foles signed by the Jaguars, 4 years, $88 million
  • Joe Flacco traded to the Broncos for a 4th
  • Case Keenum and a 7th traded to the Redskins for a 6th
  • Case Keenum signed by the Broncos, 2 years, $36 million
  • Kirk Cousins signed by the Vikings, 3 years, $84 million
  • Alex Smith traded to the Redskins for Kendall Fuller and a 3rd
Hindsight on most of these has looked pretty bad for the team acquiring the quarterback. Cousins and Tannehill have been the most successful of the bunch, but that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. Tennessee is obviously glad to have Tannehill this year (as are we all), but in 2019 Tannehill and Derrick Henry had a combined salary cap cost under $4 million. The Titans have $48 million in cap space in 2020 and Ryan Tannehill, Logan Ryan, Jack Conklin, and Derrick Henry are all unrestricted free agents. Cousins hasn’t lit the world on fire in Minnesota, and I don’t think anyone is rushing to call his fully-guaranteed contract the deal of the century, but it hasn't been the worst deal in the world.
Teams do not generally let good quarterbacks go unless they have a clear successor ready to roll in their absence. When you see names like Cam Newton, Marcus Mariota, or Jameis Winston thrown around this offseason, take a look at who’s replacing him on that roster and ask why we would want to pay veteran quarterback money for someone another team is ready to walk away from.

Okay, So What?

That’s all great, but what does this tell us? There are three prime takeaways from this:
In the aggregate, quarterback performance appears to correspond with draft position. The higher the quarterback is drafted, the better the in general he is likely to be. Most quarterbacks drafted aren’t very good. Busts are common even at the top of the draft where a team has the best chance to find their guy. Free agents are free agents for a reason. If a team is willing to let a quarterback go, odds aren’t good that he’ll be someone substantially different with another team.
With all of this in mind, how should it inform our strategy moving forward? The first takeaway suggests that we shouldn’t bet on beating the system by passing on quarterbacks until later in the draft. It takes a special kind of hubris as a general manager to believe that you’re smarter than everyone else and will be able to find your guy that all the other teams slept on. In the hunt to find a quarterback, most teams will have to invest meaningful draft capital into the position. We have the fifth overall pick, and if a guy we think can be our franchise quarterback is available at that position, we’d be foolish to wait until one of our later firsts or even our seconds to draft him. The only reason that we should be passing on a quarterback in the first round this year is if we do not think that guy is there.
The second takeaway suggests that the single most important thing that we can do to maximize our chances to find our quarterback of the future: keep drafting them. Since Dan Marino left, the Dolphins have drafted six quarterbacks:
  • Josh Heupel (2000; Round 6, Pick 177)
  • Josh Beck (2007; Round 2, Pick 40)
  • Chad Henne (2008; Round 2, Pick 57)
  • Pat White (2009; Round 2, Pick 44)
  • Ryan Tannehill (2012; Round 1, Pick 8)
  • Brandon Doughty (2016; Round 7, Pick 223)
That’s fucking scandalous. In the twenty years since Dan Marino retired, the Dolphins have drafted only six quarterbacks, and only one of them in the first round. We’ve relied heavily on free agents and castoffs from other organizations trying to replace one of the greatest pure passers of all time.
Last year we spent a second round and fifth round selection to trade for Josh Rosen, a first round pick only a year removed from being selected 10th overall. He hasn’t been able to supplant the textbook definition of a journeyman quarterback in Ryan Fitzpatrick this season. There’s no indication beyond wishful thinking that we should be willing to allow Rosen to be the only young quarterback developing on our roster right now. I believe strongly that unless our front office truly, truly believes that our quarterback of the future isn’t in the 2020 draft, we should be spending our fifth overall pick drafting a quarterback. And even if we don’t love anyone enough to take them at five, we should still be open to drafting someone in the second or third if anyone falls.
As mentioned earlier, the hiring of Chan Gailey as our offensive coordinator probably suggests some level of commitment to Ryan Fitzpatrick as a starting quarterback for at least the beginning of the 2020 season, but no sane fan believes that the 37-year-old journeyman is our future. That said, keeping him on does allow us to avoid throwing a quarterback right into the fire. The reality is that quarterbacks drafted in the first round rarely sit for their rookie seasons anymore. Mahomes only played the last game of his rookie season after the Chiefs had already clinched and Rodgers obviously sat behind Favre, but they’re the two notable exceptions in more than a decade. Even though I expect Fitzpatrick to kick the season off, it’s a good bet that he won’t start the full season.
And then, until we are absolutely certain that our young starting quarterback is the future of our franchise, we should continue to draft quarterbacks. Obviously you don’t need to continue to invest high picks every single year, but until a team has committed to a quarterback on a long-term, veteran contract, it’s in the team’s best interest to continue to invest picks in rounds 2-4 on quarterbacks at least every other year.
One of the biggest mistakes the Dolphins made during Ryan Tannehill’s tenure was ignore the quarterback position after drafting him. The front office should have been drafting quarterbacks if not to push him then to have a young, cheap back-up quarterback with upside. When Tannehill went down with an ACL injury, it’s an absolute travesty that our front office made no effort to augment our QB room until Tannehill reinjured the ACL and missed the season and instead overpaid to bring Jay Cutler out of retirement.
Tannehill’s injury not progressing as expected or being reinjured should have been a scenario we planned for, and that we signed Cutler so late suggests that we never had a serious conversation about what a season of Matt Moore would look like. With Tannehill recovering from injury, we should have used that as an opportunity to add a young guy with upside to our quarterback room. Would it have worked out any better? Given the quarterbacks who came out of the later rounds of the 2017 draft, probably not, but that’s something we know in hindsight, and given the results of the 2017 season and the cap cost of Cutler, it’s a move we should have made.
This team shouldn’t make the same mistake again. The Miami Dolphins have pussyfooted around investing in finding a quarterback for the future through the draft for years, and it’s time that changes. I’ll address my specific thoughts on our options in the draft later in this series. Frankly, until Tua Tagovailoa makes an announcement tomorrow, it’s really too early to say anything for sure. Even if you’re skeptical of Tua for whatever reason, his availability likely shifts how other quarterback-needy teams act (including the possibility of jumping us as the Cardinals did to secure Rosen). In the meantime, to sum up my thoughts on general strategy:
We should almost certainly draft a quarterback in the first round of this year’s draft. Probably at fifth overall unless we really, truly, do not believe in any of the guys available. We should continue to spend middle-round selections on quarterbacks in subsequent seasons until we’re absolutely certain we have our quarterback of the future. Even after we have our quarterback of the future, we should continue to invest in selecting quarterbacks in the later rounds regularly (although not every year) to try to develop talent from within.
What are we looking to find? Based on the numbers, in order to meet what most people would expect of a starting quarterback in today’s NFL, expect the quarterback to hit the following benchmarks at minimum:
  • Completion percentage of at least 60%
  • TD:INT ratio of at least 2.0
  • An ANY/A of at least 6.0
Typically, if a player manages to hit all three of those benchmarks, he’s well on his way to being a winning quarterback, although not necessarily an elite one. And as we’ve just seen in the wildcard round, having a quarterback who’s good enough can sometimes be enough.
Next week, I'll be continuing with where I usually start with this series, the season review including thoughts on the coaching staff, player performance, and a review of in-season transactions. Enjoy the rest of wildcard weekend, all.
submitted by Cidolfus to miamidolphins [link] [comments]

Maximizing Wins and Minimizing Losses on NFL Betting

The NFL is considered by majority as the most popular sports for betting across the globe. The act of placing bets goes hand in hand in making profits out of those wagers. However, this does not necessarily mean you can pursue one without regarding the other. Not only will you be maximizing wins and minimizing losses on NFL betting, you will also be receiving generous payouts while having a good betting strategy.

Visit: https://www.betnow.eu/blog/maximizing-wins-and-minimizing-losses-on-nfl-betting/
submitted by BetNowSocial to u/BetNowSocial [link] [comments]

More College Basketball Line Movement Data

My previous post regarding line movement in NCAA Men's Basketball spreads received a lot of great feedback and started some really great conversation. As I continue looking into this type of data I will share all of my results here in order to keep those conversations going or, at the very least, continue providing some interesting information for everyone to explore while we don't have any sports to bet on. The most recent numbers I've studied are college basketball totals. The overall takeaways this time are very similar to those previous:
  1. Movements on a total correctly predict the winning side less than half the time.
  2. No profitable betting strategy can be formulated by using line movements alone.
However, there were some interesting differences between sides and totals that are noteworthy:
  1. In reference to the adage, "The public loves favorites and overs"; Overs are not quite as popular with the "public" as favorites. Totals moved up (in favor of the over) 8.7% more often than down (in favor of the under). Recall that favorites saw an almost 11% bias compared to underdogs.
  2. The totals market is slightly more efficient than the spread market. Total line movements had an overall accuracy of 49.84%, compared to 48.99% for spreads. I explained that fading the market's spread movements would save a bettor over 1,000 units vs tailing. This same strategy for totals would save only 172 units.
  3. I found the first indication of market efficiency in one specific sub-set of data. When a total is bet down (in favor of the under), it correctly predicts an under 50.3% of the time. While still not successful enough to overcome -110 odds, it was pretty cool to uncover that the under is a "sharp" play more often than not.
I presented a theory at the end of this article that smaller markets are more likely to be comprised of a higher percentage of sharp players. College basketball is only ever king of the American betting markets during March and early April. Throughout the entire rest of the season it pales in comparison to the NFL and NBA. I made the assumption that recreational, so-called "five dollar" bettors are much more likely to make their "entertainment only" bets in one of those bigger markets. While it certainly can't be said that every die-hard fan or bettor with a model is a sharp player, I think it's an interesting perspective to have before analyzing those bigger markets.
In the meantime, as always, feel free to message me with any thoughts or questions, and stay safe!
Full article with graphical representations can be found here: https://gamblingandsubmarines.com/evaluating-line-movement-in-ncaa-basketball-totals/
submitted by NSIPicks to sportsbook [link] [comments]

LONG POST ALERT: Trusting the Process - what I'm keeping the same and what I'm changing for next year

Edit: Wow, thanks for the upvotes and comments guys! This sub has helped me out plenty of times so glad I could give something back people thought was useful!

I've been seeing a lot of posts about which players were league winners / losers this year and Must Draft / Do not Draft for 2020 lists already. While it's useful data to have, I think the more important information to have as team managers are the process hits / misses from the year, rather than the player hits / misses. Taking CMC at number 2 overall probably paid off for you regardless of whether you autodrafted or put in a whole offseason of research - and taking Kamara 3rd or 4th overall probably bit you regardless. We can't control who overperforms or underperforms consensus, but what we CAN control is how we choose to build our teams and what external knowledge we use to help our decisions (and how much weight we give that).


I know every league is different and there are plenty of cat-skinning techniques that will win you a league. But I figured I would list everything that worked for me process-wise this year (and everything that didn't) in case any of it is useful to anyone else on this sub. I had a good year this year, cashing more often than not in the leagues that I played, so there's more that worked that didn't. I'd be curious to hear what adjustments people made before this season or are considering making to their process after this season. Even if people disagree with some of what I've posted, I think that's good too because it hopefully means people think about WHY they disagree and it helps inform their process that way for next year as well. Here goes!


WORKED: Having lots of high floor players
Once I was past the first few rounds of startups/redrafts last year, I targeted a lot of high-floor players (slot receivers like Beasley, Crowder, etc., RBs like James White). They seem undervalued in general, but they helped we win a couple championships. Having a lot of floor players meant that I was still alive in matchups for longer and gave me the option of ceiling-gambling in late games if necessary or just keeping more floor guys in there to lock in a win if I'd done well enough early. This particularly helped in bigger leagues (14-16 teams) where just being able to start a guy at each position knowing they'll definitely score points is usually enough to win you a matchup. I'm going to roll this strategy out again next year for sure. I've also tended to notice that once I'm past round 10ish in a lot of leagues the rest of my picks tend to be the same so if the bottom of my roster shares are the same in multiple leagues, I really want to avoid a large bust component there!­


FAILED: Stockpiling TEs late in a TE premium league
One of the leagues I played in this year was a TE premium league. Rather than go hard early after one of the blue chip guys (Kelce, Ertz, Kittle) I thought that targeting a bunch of TEs late (Burton, Olsen, etc.) late would be an easy way to get decent roster contributors. This didn't work out since TE has been such a wasteland the last couple of years that there aren’t really "meh" options, just good options or bad options. Next year, if I miss out on the TE studs early, I'm going to gamble on upside since the positional floor is so low that floor plays aren't worth it.


**WORKED: Going positionless (BPA) for the first few rounds.*\*
This gets preached a lot and I hadn't really bought into it before this year. But two things happened which made me finally build a positionless draft spreadsheet this year. One was an absolutely disastrous league in 2018 where around rounds 3/4 I was set on drafting RB followed by WR and after seeing Mixon go off the board I drafted McKinnon, and followed that up with Baldwin right after Cooper went off the board. Yup. I wanted to avoid that disaster again and make it easier for me to pivot positions. This was helped by joining a league with an interesting format (2QB, 8 W/T FLEX) which meant I had to actually chase total value rather than positional value. I ended up winning that league this year I think in part to having a slight head start in truly going BPA in the startup draft. If anyone's actually curious about how I built that spreadsheet, just let me know in the comments and I'll post info there.


WORKED: Waiting on drafting QBs, but drafting a few of them
A little bit of a follow-on from the floor section, but if you're investing in a lot of surefire "floor" at WRB once you're past the blue chip guys, you have to chase ceiling somewhere. I think that QB is the best place to chase it since you can scoop a couple QBs late in drafts. I moneyed in a few leagues this year behind the exact same unsexy trio of Cousins, Brissett, and Fitzpatrick. It cost me almost no draft capital and it meant that at least ONE of them had a streamable matchup I could confidently attack for 20-25+ points each week. QBs are a nice dynasty asset to have too IMO given that they stay in the league relatively longer so it never hurts to have a couple extra lying around.

FAILED: Not valuing RB stashes more than other positions
I stashed a lot of young WR this year (Boykin, Quinn, etc) that haven't panned out. In a lot of leagues, my decision for this offseason for them is either hold or cut, since it's very difficult to get any picks/players in return for them. I'm sure there's lots of Isabella owners out there in the same boat! However, I think there are young RB stashes that haven't really contributed yet (Thompson, Hill, Henderson) that you could probably sell for a player or pick if you really wanted. For next year, I think I'll try to stash more at RB than other positions since I think there's more resale value in the position, so the initial draft capital isn't as much of a potential waste.

WORKED: Relying less on Vegas lines as a tiebreakerI
was sports betting for years before starting to play fantasy back around 2012/13. Because of that background, I used to lean on Vegas O/Us a lot as a tiebreaker for fringe matchups plays, choosing the guy in a game with a higher implied points total. But the Vegas O/U, while a useful guide, isn't perfect. It tells us the number that Vegas thinks will balance its book, rather than the number of points that they think will actually be scored in a game. This year, when I've seen dissonance between fantasy analysts and Vegas, I haven't taken what Vegas has said as gospel and instead I've used the fantasy knowledge as an opportunity to bet the O/U. A perfect example was the Packers-Vikings MNF game that just passed which had an O/U of around 47 and at the same time most fantasy sites had both Rodgers &Cousins as QB2s with the only W/T1s on both rosters being the mainstays of Adams, Diggs, and Jones.

FAILED: Trusting camp hype over "real" draft capital
I think the local SB nation blogs for each team are great for team insights during OTAs and training camp and getting more of a feel for how camp battles are shaking out. But buying that camp hype bit me a couple times this year. One example this year was the Ravens. I know it's still early in his career, but after hearing everything out of the Ravens camp this offseason about Miles Boykin while hearing almost nothing about Hollywood, I went hard for Boykin in all my rookie/startup drafts and faded Hollywood - obviously it didn't pan out! Next season, if there's a skill position player that is drafted by an NFL team in the 1st round, I'll trust that they'll get opportunity once the season starts.
submitted by fencing123 to DynastyFF [link] [comments]

Which sportsbook should I use? Not which book, but how many?

Hey folks,
I've been a longtime lurker under the username hemegeah. My background is in economics and technology, but I've had a long history of being a successful-ish degenerate, from playing in the WSOP, placing over $900,000 in wagers so far this year in MLB and NFL (Average bet size is around $1500 for about 12% ROI), and having some success in Daily Fantasy as well (biggest win was $100,000 in NFL 2017, but other smaller first prizes as well in the $10,000-$50,000 range). I'm well aware this probably sounds like BS so I'm happy to verify to mods however they see fit.
As a US citizen, I have spent most of my time in the shadows due to regulatory and legal concerns, but with a path to legalization in the US, I would like to share insights/picks/whatever fellow sports bettors find useful for free. With legalization opening the floodgates, I believe the next logical step is democratizing profitable sports betting. I'd like to start with a longform piece I wrote demonstrating the value of price-shopping with books. Please provide feedback on whether this type of stuff is interesting, or if there's other info/insights you guys would be interested in!
Which Sportsbook Should I Use?
Not Which Book, But How Many
Which sportsbook should I use? Ignoring promotions put on by sportsbooks, the simple answer is: the book that charges the lowest vig. This makes sense: all things equal, over the long term, the book with the lowest vig holds the lowest percentage of your money.
However, this is the wrong question to ask. The right question is: how many sportsbooks should I use? Having multiple sportsbooks allows a bettor to shop for the best odds, similar to comparing prices across multiple stores when making a big purchase. Shopping for the best odds is one of the most important but least emphasized aspects of sports betting. In this article, we will demonstrate the importance of having multiple sportsbooks and how shopping for odds can have a profound impact on the returns of your sports betting portfolio.
Consider an example where a bettor bets $100/game on every MLB game during the period May 16-18, betting the money-line for the home team (the actual betting strategy and outcomes don’t matter but we will get to that).
Based on closing odds posted for these games, let’s examine what the returns would look like across six popular sportsbooks:
https://imgur.com/a/okLB2Lz
Our natural inclination may be to use a sportsbook like BetOnline or 5Dimes, which historically has been known to offer the lowest vig, while avoiding a sportsbook like Bovada, notorious for having a high vig. However, if we were to compare across multiple sportsbooks, choosing the best closing line, we can greatly improve our returns. This is what our returns would look like if we picked the best closing line across multiple books:
https://imgur.com/a/jzHkcru
Despite using the same betting example above, by shopping for the best closing line across multiple sportsbooks, a money-losing proposition has now turned into a winning one. While there are diminishing returns as you add additional sportsbooks, notice how the returns increase at every level of adding an additional sportsbook, demonstrating that even adding Bovada, the sportsbook with the highest vig, provides value when shopping for lines.
What does this all mean? Going back to our original thought experiment and looking at the bet outcomes in absolute terms, making $4,000 worth of bets with $100 bet sizes, the sportsbook with the lowest vig, BetOnline, loses $6.90. Shopping across all six sportsbooks listed generates a profit of $21.28. This is free money, the equivalent of 0.28 betting units generated out of thin air across only 40 betting units wagered. Using multiple sportsbooks to find the best price will always outperform using only one sportsbook, regardless of your betting strategy.
Let me know your guys' thoughts!
submitted by cleatstreet to sportsbook [link] [comments]

Ultimate Guide for Online Sports Betting OFA168

Sports betting is beginning to go mainstream also. The thing that was mentioned using a wink and a nod would be currently discussed publicly. There are shows on major sporting programs that pay to wager daily. It’s really a boom time for sports bettors, and also the playing field is still open for those who are not used to the match.
Retail sportsbooks and gambling apps are still established in legalized countries. Because of this, gaming lovers have lots of legal on the web and portable sportsbook options. Online sports betting sounds somewhat complicated at first, but it is going to feel a whole lot less foreign when you get some experience.
This guide intends to help decrease your learning curve tremendously. Let us start out with the basic principles.
Bettors try to predict the outcomes and create their very best bet on which the result is. Bettors an average of a bet with a sportsbook. Odds-makers at the assorted novels will put lines or chances for its readily available wagers.
Essentially, chances clearly show the chances of a certain event occurring. Additionally, they indicate the potential yield for all those that gamble successfully. Sportsbook provides a vast selection of markets. From leading sports like NFL gambling along with NBA gambling to niche offerings like cricket along with rugby, you will discover lots of wagering opportunities out there. The very same applies in regards to betting types.
The most ordinary bet simply entails selecting a winning side. But, you will find lots of different means to bet and facets to think about. Sports betting is a popular pastime that’s bringing more attention thanks to legalization in several markets.
You are brand new to sports gambling and prepared to begin. Now what?
Beginning any new undertaking might be overwhelming initially, but a lot of times you’ll find it isn’t really that tough once you start grinding. That is true with sports gambling. Much like many other scenarios, it is ideal, to begin with, the fundamentals and builds from there:
Advantages of sports-betting: Sports gambling has ever turned into a blessing for every one of those countries that have ever entered. A clinic that has been illegal has become generating additional tax revenue. What’s more, occupations are and continue to be established in each new industry.
Steps to Start Betting on Sports: it may not be much easier to begin gambling on sports betting. Most operators are working out the legal niches, and enrolling in an account using them is just a snap. From that point, you are able to remove and add funds from the accounts easily and start researching chances.
The Mechanics of sports-betting: Among the coolest things concerning sports gambling is that you’re able to get as complex as you prefer at your own pace. It is possible to keep it simple and follow the fundamentals or dip in with both feet to boost your level of skill from the beginning. That is ultimately your decision personally; also there isn’t any wrong or right strategy. It boils down to a question of what is most effective for you personally.
Knowing the chances: that really is a place that could confuse those brand new to the match. A brief, chances inform one of that the suggested probabilities and possible yield for powerful wagers. For a simplified case, negative chances imply a well-liked and less yield potential. While favorable chances point out an underdog and also the capacity for larger yields.
For every one of those categories, there exists a ton more to comprehend proceeding forward. As you progress, you’re able to research issues, like chances, in a great deal more detail. Provided that those foreign notions will develop into something that you know well.
Sports betting can be exceedingly enjoyable, and additionally, there is the opportunity to earn a profit whilst doing whatever you like. That is clearly a win-win scenario, however, additionally, it is critical to get into it using a transparent mind.
Almost always there is the prospect of hitting a significant parlay you are likely to have rich using overnight. A sports betting is hard and maybe quite a grind, but that is also part of this allure. Begin sports gambling using realistic expectations sufficient reason for a laser-like give attention to being more disciplined. For all those not used to the match, you need to think about the money you’re wagering as a portion of one’s entertainment budget.
Just bet what you’re comfortable gambling and do not exceed this amount. There’ll be a lot of time and energy to enlarge your bets as your skills improve; therefore there is no requirement to dash it as long as you are learning. Last but most certainly not least, bear in mind this is something which you ought to discover entertaining and fun. In case it stops sense like this — or in case you struck on the inevitable losing series — you shouldn’t be reluctant to simply take a rest. Having a step backward and forth representing somewhat will permit you to tweak your approach and plan where required. Obtaining a breather and obtaining additional view might cause one to feel rejuvenated if you are prepared to play.
Sportsbook operators are for-profit entities. Therefore, they are not only providing a gambling market place out from the goodness in the hearts. The target for these may be exactly the very same as you: to earn money. Novels that do not accomplish that goal won’t be around as long. Odds-makers who always have a beating will gradually be trying to find a fresh field of work. Nevertheless, the overwhelming bulk of operators that are established are excellent at what they’re doing.
They turn into a profit as an outcome. Therefore, just how do they accomplish so? Sports-books earn money by the commissions that they collect for shooting action on stakes. That can be known as the vig or even juice. Let us consider a good illustration working with a normal group of point spread odds of -110.
In case your bet is more correct, you are going to reunite 0.90, and that’s the own 0% bet and a benefit of .90. So just why not double your funds? That is since the bookmaker has essentially maintained a proportion of their yield for themselves. Additionally, think that the operator can also be taking bets on each side of the equation.
In an ideal environment, they’ll receive even actions on each side. 1 / 2 of those stakes will likely triumph, as the spouse will probably soon lose. The internet of the things they collect, no matter what they cover out, reflects profit. Obviously, maybe not all of the stakes will bring even actions, which explains the reason you are going to observe chances move once they have been published. In case the book maker’s accountability using a single side of a result gets too great, they’ll create the likelihood a little more positive on the opposite hand to draw in more activity.
Mistakes Need to Avoid
Whenever you’re beginning with something brand new, it’s vital to see that there is going to soon be a learning curve. Mistakes will occur on the way, however, you are able to study on everyone and boost your general knowledge base.
If it comes to sports gambling, you are likely to make mistakes. You’ll miss something which appears obvious on your handicapping ahead of this match. Or you can set a bet on chances that unexpectedly turn into far more positive on the negative you’re leaning. It’s going to occur, and there is absolutely no solution to protect against every mistake. But, you’ll be able to prevent many big pitfalls which might create your sports gaming profession shortlived.
Do Not Chase Your Losses: You are likely to drop a few stakes. Any sports bettor who lets you know to win all of the time is not really being honest. When reductions happen, analyze the reason why suck it up and then proceed. Don’t make an effort to “get “ by Slimming down since you are “because of a win” Which is an instant recipe for tragedy.
Do not Bet On your mind: It is critical to own a crystal clear funding in mind for their own sports gambling console. Simply deposit that which you could manage to reduce, and also withstand the desire to go ahead when things are not moving away. If your long term budget has been gone, then simply take that as a chance to have a rest and return back into it having a transparent head.
Do not Be Unrealistic or over-estimate Your Skills: From nature, most sports fans are enthusiastic. Some people may take this for the extreme and feel as though they’re always right and therefore are not able to create a lot of money gambling. You shouldn’t be this guy or woman. Understand that you are going to have work to accomplish aside from your sports consciousness grade, and keep your profit aims reasonable.
Sports gambling can be considered a wonderful source of entertainment and also a potentially rewarding enterprise. Nevertheless, the probability of happening increases whenever you stop the aforementioned advantages.
submitted by ofagames to u/ofagames [link] [comments]

In honor of Babe Ruth’s 125th birthday, here’s the All-Guys Nicknamed Babe Team. And at last an answer to the question you’ve always wondered: Who had more bWAR, Babe Ruth, or the combined total of the 30 other players called Babe?

Happy birthday, Babe Ruth! The Big Fella would have turned 125 years old today, and if he were somehow with us I bet he could still turn around a fastball.
In honor of the Babe, what would the All-Babe Team look like? And who had more Wins Above Replacement according to Baseball Reference (bWAR): Babe Ruth, or the combined total of the 30 other guys who also had the nickname Babe?
I'm not including the various players with nicknames derived from Baby, the 1950s player Loren Babe, or Samuel Byrd -- who, as a frequent pinch-runner and defensive replacement for the Bambino, had the nickname "Babe Ruth's Legs." These are just players nicknamed Babe — whether in honor of Ruth or for unrelated or unknown reasons — according to Baseball Reference.
Lineup: CF Babe Ganzel: 0.4 bWAR SS Babe Pinelli: 5.7 bWAR RF Babe Herman: 40.3 bWAR LF Babe Ruth: 162.1 bWAR DH Babe Phelps: 14.0 bWAR 1B Babe Young: 11.3 bWAR 3B Babe Dahlgren: 4.2 bWAR 2B Babe Ellison: -0.9 bWAR C Babe Roof: 3.3 bWAR
Ganzel had a career .378 OBP so we'll bat him lead-off. Pinelli -- who was more of a third baseman, but did have 71 games at shortstop -- is your old-school bunt/slap hitter in the 2 hole. Herman should see a lot of fastballs hitting in front of the Colossus of Clout. Of course Ruth hit third for the Murderer's Row Yankees — that’s why he wore #3 — but we'll bat him clean-up here. Phelps will start against righties, but we may have to platoon him. Young should flourish as the six hitter. Dahlgren was primarily a first baseman, but we need him at third. Ellison was a terrible hitter but we don't have another second baseman on the roster. Roof is your typical good glove/bad bat catcher so we'll bat him 9th.
Bench: 1B Babe Borton: 3.8 bWAR OF Babe Twombly: 0.3 bWAR C Babe Wilber: 0.2 bWAR C Babe Towne: 0.1 bWAR 1B Babe Danzig: 0.0 bWAR OF Babe Klee: 0.0 bWAR OF Babe Bigelow: -0.2 bWAR 1B Babe Butka: -0.4 bWAR OF Babe Martin: -0.6 bWAR OF Babe Barna: -0.7 bWAR OF Babe Nelson: -1.0 bWAR
Borton’s really the only Babe on the bench we’d want to use as a pinch hitter.
Pitching Staff: P Babe Adams: 52.2 bWAR P Babe Ruth: 20.3 bWAR P Babe Marchildon: 9.5 bWAR P Babe Klieman: 5.1 bWAR P Babe Birrer: 0.9 bWAR P Babe Meers: 0.9 bWAR P Babe Linke: 0.9 bWAR P Babe Doty: 0.5 bWAR P Babe Davis: 0.2 bWAR P Babe Sherman: -0.2 bWAR P Babe Picone: -0.3 bWAR
Our top two are formidable, with the right-handed Adams and the lefty Ruth, but it gets ugly quick. Marchildon had 162 starts in the bigs, going 68-75 with a respectable 3.93 ERA, but 5.1 BB/9. Kleiman was 26-28 with 33 saves and a 3.49 ERA. After that... well... maybe we'll go with the "opener" strategy.
Now lets take a look at them, Babe by Babe:
OF/P Babe Ruth: 182.4 bWAR
According to Baseball Reference, The Bambino had 162.1 bWAR as a batter and 20.3 bWAR as a pitcher... which is the second-highest pitching bWAR of any Babe in baseball history. Almost all his value as a pitcher came in just two seasons, 1916 (8.8) and 1917 (6.5) -- ages 21 and 22. In those two seasons, he had a combined 47-25 record with 650.0 IP, 1.88 ERA, and 1.077 WHIP.
George Herman Ruth -- who usually was called "Jidge" by his teammates, a funny mispronunciation of George -- picked up the nickname Babe when he was an 18-year-old prospect with the minor league Baltimore Orioles in 1913. There are several origin stories for the famous nickname... some say because he had a round baby face, others because he was so naive and rambunctious he was like an overgrown baby, and some because Orioles manager Jack Dunn doted on him like his own child.
People usually think of Babe Ruth as a right fielder, but he played almost as many games in left (1,048) as he did in right (1,130)... not to mention 74 games in center field, 32 at first base, and 163 at pitcher. In fact, Ruth almost always played left field except in stadiums that had a big left field -- like Yankee Stadium! Almost all of Ruth's career games in right field were at Yankee Stadium, Cleveland's League Park, and Washington D.C.'s Griffith Stadium. Everywhere else, he almost always played left field.
P Babe Adams: 52.2 bWAR
The second-best Babe was a star pitcher for the Pittsburgh Pirates during the deadball era, going 194-140 with a 2.76 ERA and 1.092 WHIP over a 19-year career. He was renowned for his control, walking just 430 men in 2,995.1 career innings — 1.29 BB/9. To put that in perspective, Greg Maddux had a 1.79 BB/9. Charles Adams was known as Babe several years before George Herman got the nickname. He picked it up in the minors in 1907 or 1908, supposedly because the female fans in Louisville were so enamored with his beautiful baby face.
OF/1B Babe Herman: 40.3 bWAR
Like Ruth and Adams, Floyd Herman picked up the nickname Babe in the minors. In 1921, the 18-year-old rookie with the Edmonton Eskimos in the Western Canada League introduced himself as Lefty, but his manager didn't like that -- too many players already named Lefty. After seeing Herman’s power in spring training, the giddy manager said: “You’re going to be my Babe,” as in Ruth. Over a 13-year MLB career, Herman hit .324/.383/.532 with 181 HR and 997 RBI. Such great numbers, why only 40.3 bWAR? Herman was a famously inept baserunner, and the source of an epic line from Ring Lardner: "Babe Herman did not triple into a triple play, but he doubled into a double play, which is the next best thing." He was even worse as a fielder -- in 1928, many decades before Jose Canseco, a fly ball bounced off his head. Years later, a sportswriter asked Herman about the play, and he said the story was all wrong: "The ball actually hit me in the shoulder!” I'm... not sure that's better. His defensive WAR was -9.7!
C Babe Phelps: 14.0 bWAR
The 6'2", 225-pound Ernest Phelps got the nickname Babe because of his resemblance, both in terms of body size and his face, to Ruth. Like Ruth, put on weight as he got older... by the end of his career, he was sometimes called "Blimp." A left-handed hitting catcher, Phelps hit a respectable .310/.362/.472 over an 11-year career.
1B Babe Young: 11.3 bWAR
Like several others on this list, Norman Robert Young lost some prime years to World War II. From 1939 to 1942, ages 23 through 26, the first baseman hit .277/.359/.454 in 424 games for a .813 OPS, accounting for 8.9 of his career 11.3 bWAR. He missed the next three seasons as he was in the U.S. Coast Guard, returning in 1946 at the age of 30. I can't find the origin story of his nickname, but as a left-handed slugger who played for Fordham University in the Bronx in the 1930s, I can guess it was in honor of the Bambino.
P Babe Marchildon: 9.5 bWAR
There are several people on this list who we can't even guess as to how they picked up the nickname Babe. This is definitely one of them. Babe was a most unlikely moniker for Philip Joseph Marchildon, a 5'10", 170-pound right-handed Canadian pitcher who lived a very tough life. Born in Ontario, he didn't play baseball until he was in high school, then got a job working in a nickel mine. At the age of 25, pitching for a semi-pro team, he went to a try-out with the minor league Toronto Maple Leafs; Marchildon struck out seven of the nine batters he faced, then drove back to Sudbury to resume life as a miner. As the story goes, the manager drove all the way to Sudbury to find him, dragged him out of the elevator just before it descended into the depths, and forced him right then and there to sign a baseball contract. Presumably because of his time as a miner, Marchildon had incredible strength in his fingers, enabling him to throw a fastball with remarkable movement... but he also struggled to control it, and often was among the league leaders in walks, wild pitches, and hit batters. In 1942, Marchildon joined the Royal Canadian Air Force as a tail gunner on a bomber. Two years later, his bomber was shot down over Denmark. Marchildon and only one other crewmember survived; they were captured by the Germans and sent to Stalag Luft III, the prison camp made famous by the movie The Great Escape. After the war, Marchildon returned to baseball, but those who had known him before and after said the war had changed him, and he was long tormented by nightmares about what he'd endured. Marchildon, who went 68-75 with a 3.93 ERA and 1.456 WHIP in a nine-year career, is a member both the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame and the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame.
IF Babe Pinelli: 5.7 bWAR
If only umpires accumulated bWAR! Rinaldo Angelo Paolinelli (he would later change it to the more American-sounding Ralph Pinelli) was born in San Francisco in 1895 -- the same years as Ruth -- to Italian immigrants. (His father was killed by a falling telephone pole in the Great 1906 San Francisco Earthquake.) As a boy, he loved to play baseball, but the older boys wouldn't let him, and taunted him as "Babe" (as in baby) when he cried about it. Eventually they let him play, and he proved to be good enough that he would have an eight-year career in the bigs, hitting .276/.328/.346 in 2,617 ABs primarily as a third baseman for the Reds. After his career ended, Pinelli became an umpire; it's believed he was the first Italian-American umpire in MLB history when he made his debut in 1935. Pinelli was behind the plate for Don Larsen's perfect Game 5 in the 1956 World Series, and retired after Game 7. He wrote the first autobiography by an umpire, Mr. Ump, and was known as "The Lou Gehrig of Umpires" because he claimed he never missed a game in his 22-year career. He wasn't always on time, though: In 1941, Pinelli's umpiring crew was taking a boat from New York to Boston, and got lost in the fog. The first inning was umpired by the players, but the umpires arrived for the 2nd inning. Boston's manager was Casey Stengel, and from then on whenever Pinelli missed a call, Stengel would holler: "You're still fogbound!"
P Babe Klieman: 5.1 bWAR
We don't know why Edward Frederick Klieman was called Babe, but he also was called Specs and you can see why. Klieman was a swing-man for the Indians in the 1940s, going 26-28 with 33 saves and a 3.49 ERA in eight seasons.
1B Babe Dahlgren: 4.2 bWAR
Ellsworth Tenney Dahlgren was born in San Francisco in 1912, two years before Ruth made his MLB debut. His stepfather dubbed him "Babe" after the Sultan of Swat. Dahlgren actually followed in Ruth's footsteps, making his debut for the Red Sox in 1935 and then a few years later joining the rival New York Yankees, and later in his career played for the Boston Braves. Dahlgren famously replaced Lou Gehrig at first base when the Iron Horse ended his consecutive games played streak. He hit .261/.329/.383 over his 12-year career.
1B Babe Borton: 3.8 bWAR
A deadball era first baseman, it's unknown how William Baker Borton was dubbed Babe, but he was known by that nickname in 1913, a year before Ruth. A seldom-used reserve for the White Sox and Yankees, Borton jumped to the Federal League in 1915. That season, playing for the St. Louis Terriers, he would hit a respectable .286 with a .395 OBP (leading the league with 92 walks!). After the Federal League folded, Borton returned to MLB and would hit .224/.350/.306 in just 98 ABs, and then like many other former Federal League players was released. He would keep playing professionally in the Pacific Coast League, but in 1920 -- the same year the Black Sox scandal was unveiled -- the 30-year-old Borton was caught in a scheme trying to fix games, and booted from professional baseball.
C Babe Roof: 3.3 bWAR
The last MLB player with the nickname Babe was Phil Roof, who also had the grand nickname of the Duke of Paducah. Roof was a light-hitting catcher, putting up a .215/.283/.319 line in 2,151 career ABs... and yet he had a good enough glove to have a 15-year MLB career, retiring in 1977 at the age of 36. Babe Roof hit 43 home runs in his 15-year career... which means he averaged less than three a year.
P Babe Birrer: 0.9 bWAR
A pitcher in the 1950s, Werner Joseph Birrer posted a career 4.36 ERA and 1.387 WHIP in 119.2 career innings over three seasons. I can only imagine the disappointment of a little boy opening a pack of Bowman Cards and finding not a Mantle or a Mays but a Birrer. But for all that, Birrer did have one shining moment, and how he got the nickname Babe. On July 19, 1955, Birrer pitched four shutout innings in relief... and hit not one but two three-run home runs. A pitcher who hits home runs, naturally he was given the nickname Babe!
P Babe Meers: 0.9 bWAR
Russell Harlan Meers was a left-handed pitcher for the Cubs who pitched in one game in 1941 -- taking the loss despite giving up just one earned run and five hits in 8 innings -- and then of course World War II happened. He would spend 1942-1945 in the U.S. Navy. After the war he'd pitch another two seasons with the Cubs, then bounce around a few more years in the minors. In his MLB career, he went 3-3 with a 3.98 ERA and 1.482 WHIP. He threw hard, but had fantastically bad control... as a 20-year-old rookie in the Mountain State League in 1939, he walked 191 batters in 227 innings!
P Babe Linke: 0.9 bWAR
Edward Karl Linke posted a 5.61 ERA and 1.695 WHIP but somehow lasted six years in the bigs. Maybe he kept getting chances because he threw a no-hitter in the minors as a 20-year-old in 1932. Linke's career very nearly ended in 1935, when he was hit in the face by a line drive; it hit him so hard that it bounced off his forehead and went back to the catcher, who caught it on the fly and threw to second for a double play! Linke was hospitalized for two days, but returned to baseball (and would win eight of his nine decisions after that). Unfortunately we don't know why he was called Babe.
P Babe Doty: 0.5 bWAR
The original Babe according to baseball-reference.com, Elmer L. Doty was born in 1867. He had just one MLB appearance, but it was a pretty good one -- a complete game win for the Toledo Maumees, allowing just one run and one walk while fanning four against the Brooklyn Bridgerooms. He would continue to pitch semi-pro and minor league ball for a few more years before becoming a woodworker. Alas, he may be the original Babe, but we don't know why they called him that; quite possibly it was because he was just 22 years old when he made his debut.
OF Babe Ganzel: 0.4 bWAR
He was born Foster Pirie Ganzel, so I understand why he wanted a nickname, but I don't know why it was Babe. He had two brief stints in the majors, hitting .311/.378/.473 in 74 career ABs; but the outfielder had a long minor league career, beginning as a 21-year-old in 1922 and ending as a 41-year-old in 1942. He was later a minor league manager; one time in response to criticism from fans that he never told his players to bunt, he ordered his first nine batters to do so. All nine reached base safely. I guess the fans were right!
OF Babe Twombly: 0.3 bWAR
Clarence Edward Twombly played two years for the Chicago Cubs, 1920-1921, hitting .304/.357./366 in 358 career ABs. We can speculate he got the nickname Babe because he was the baby brother to another major leaguer, George, who played five seasons between 1914 and 1919 (hitting .211/.289/.247 in 417 ABs). Interestingly enough, big brother George was playing for the minor league Baltimore Orioles in 1914 when he was stricken by appendicitis, and he was replaced in the lineup by a baby-faced rookie named... Babe Ruth. Later that year, the Reds were given the opportunity to purchase two players from the Orioles roster; instead of Ruth, they took George Twombly and a former major league infielder named Claud Derrick. Later that year, the Red Sox were given the same deal and they took Ruth and Ernie Shore.
C Babe Wilber: 0.2 bWAR
If not for World War 2, maybe Delbert Quentin Wilber would have been higher on this list. As an infant, his mother called him "Babe" and it stuck. Wilber made his minor league debut as a 19-year-old catcher in the St. Louis Browns system in 1938, hitting .304 with a .490 SLG in 398 ABs, and he'd follow that up hitting .308 with a .472 SLG in 435 ABs in 1940. But three months after Pearl Harbor, Wilber found himself at the Jefferson Barracks Army Air Force Base in Missouri. He entered the war as a private and left it as a captain, spending most of that time on military bases as a playemanager for baseball teams often loaded with MLB stars. He would finally reach the Show as a 27-year-old in 1946, getting a cup of coffee with the St. Louis Cardinals. Over his eight-year career, Wilber would hit .242/.286/.389 in 720 ABs.
P Babe Davis: 0.2 bWAR
Born in 1913 -- one month after the inauguration of the 28th president -- Woodrow Wilson Davis pitched in just two MLB games, giving up one run on three hits (but four walks) for the Detroit Tigers in 1938. He did have seven years in the minors, going 50-55 in 190 games across six different leagues, but like many others on this list his professional baseball career was derailed by World War II, serving in the U.S. Navy. I can't find a source for the nickname Babe, but he obviously liked the nickname -- after baseball, he founded "Babe's Mighty Mites," a baseball and softball youth program in Wayne County, Georgia.
C Babe Towne: 0.1 bWAR
A catcher for 14 games for the Chicago White Sox in 1906, Jay King Towne went 10-for-36 with seven walks (.395 OBP) and had a pinch-hit appearance in the 1906 World Series, but apparently that wasn't good enough to bring him back to the bigs the following season. He had a long minor league career, though, starting as a 22-year-old catcher for the Rock Rapids Browns in the Iowa-South Dakota League in 1902 and ending as a 36-year-old playemanager of the Fort Dodge Dodgers in the Central Association in 1916. In 1911, he hit .366 for the Sioux City Packers of the Western League! Like many others, I can't find the origin of the nickname Babe, but he had it years before Ruth did.
1B Babe Danzig: 0.0 bWAR
Harold Paul Danzig went 2-for-13 in his only MLB season, in 1909 with the Boston Red Sox. Danzig would spend a total of nine years in professional baseball, playing in the Pacific Coast League, the New England League (hitting .345 for Lowell Tigers in 232 AB), the Southern Association, and the Empire State League. Danzig -- born eight years before Ruth, and making his MLB debut while Ruth was a 14-year-old boy at St. Mary's School for Boys -- reportedly picked up the nickname Babe because of his large size as a youth, in reference to Paul Bunyan's blue ox!
OF Babe Klee: 0.0 bWAR
Ollie Chester Klee appeared in just three MLB games, all with the Cincinnati Reds in 1925. On August 10th, he replaced future Hall of Famer Edd Roush in center field in the 7th inning of a 10-6 game against the Brooklyn Robins; he would then lead off against Dazzy Vance in the 9th, and strike out. (Vance would strike out the side, going the distance in the 13-7 victory.) On August 14 and August 26, the 25-year-old got into games as a pinch runner, but didn't get to bat or field... or even advance a base. Klee had been a star halfback at the Ohio State University and later was a high school football coach. Unfortunately, we don't know when or why he picked up the nickname Babe.
OF Babe Bigelow: -0.2 bWAR
Maybe the Boston Red Sox thought they'd reversed the curse in 1929 when they signed a left-handed power hitter nicknamed Babe. Elliot Allardice Bigelow had been a minor league sensation, tearing up the Florida State League, the South Atlantic League, and the Southern Association. Between 1924 and 1928, his lowest batting average was .349. Supposedly the right-field fence in Chattanooga was so deep that only three balls had ever been hit over it... two of them by Bigelow. Of course if he'd played today, they'd call him Bam-Bam, but in 1926, you call a guy like that Babe. In Boston, the 31-year-old rookie would hit a respectable .284 with a .357 OBP, but only one home run in 211 ABs. In addition to his lack of power, his other problem was, in those pre-DH days, Bigelow was just too slow and awkward to play the field. After one season in the Show, he returned to the minors to terrorize the pitchers of the Southern Association. In 12 seasons in the minors -- 1,473 games -- Bigelow hit .349!
P Babe Sherman: -0.2 bWAR
Lester Daniel Sherman had twice as many nicknames -- Babe or General -- as he did games played. He pitched in just one game, facing three batters -- getting one out and walking two -- as a 23-year-old pitcher for Chicago in the Federal League in 1914. He would pitch sporadically in the minors after that, going 10-15 in 44 games. Maybe they called him Babe because of his youth, or his size -- he was listed at 5'6" and 145 pounds.
P Babe Picone: -0.3 bWAR
Another guy who we don't know where the nickname came from. Mario Peter Picone played pro ball for 13 seasons, but had only 40 innings in the bigs, scattered between 1947 and 1954. The righty went 0-2 with a 6.30 ERA and 1.700 WHIP in three starts and 10 relief appearances.
1B Babe Butka: -0.4 bWAR
A war-time replacement, Edward Luke Butka hit just .220 in 50 ABs between 1943 and 1944. He got the nickname Babe as a teenager playing semi-pro baseball in Pennsylvania in the 1930s because of his impressive home run power. Butka, the son of Polish immigrants, wanted to fight in World War II but was ruled 4-F because of a punctured ear drum; he tried to enlist more than once, but was always turned away. After the veteran players returned from the war, Butka kicked around the minors for awhile and later became a player-manager.
OF Babe Martin: -0.6 bWAR
Boris Michael Martinovich was born in 1920, the son of a Montenegro-born professional wrestler known as Iron Mike Martin. The youngest of five children, Boris was called Baby for years, and the nickname stuck; when he grew into a man, it soon became the more baseball-friendly nickname of Babe. He spent most of his professional career in the minors, though he did get 185 at-bats with the St. Louis Browns in 1945, hitting .200/.245/.281. In Double-A in 1944, he hit .350/.418/.580 in 386 AB, and in Triple-A in 1947 he hit .319/.383/.555.
OF Babe Barna: -0.7 bWAR
Herbert Paul Barna was a three-sport star at West Virginia University in the 1930s, excelling in football, basketball, and baseball; the Philadelphia Eagles wanted him, but instead he signed with the Philadelphia Athletics. West Virginia University also was where he got the nickname Babe, presumably because of his size (6'2", 210 pounds) and because he was a left-handed power hitter. The outfielder may have had a better career in the NFL, as he hit .232/.311/.346 in five MLB seasons.
UT Babe Ellison: -0.9 bWAR
Herbert Spencer Ellison would hit .216/.282/.284 in 348 AB between 1916 and 1920; despite his poor hitting, he was a useful utility man, seeing time at every position except pitcher and catcher! After a standout freshman year for the University of Arkansas baseball team, at the age of 18 he turned pro, playing for the Clinton Pilots in the Central Association. We can speculate he got the name Babe because he was so very young. A year later he would make his MLB debut with the Detroit Tigers, where he'd play his entire five-year MLB career. After that, he would be a star in the Pacific Coast League; he and Babe Pinelli were teammates on the 1927 San Francisco Seals. It's possible he was known as Babe before that other Babe was too widely known; we can speculate he got the nickname because he was so young when he turned pro.
OF Babe Nelson: -1.0 bWAR
Another big left-handed outfielder, Robert Sidney Nelson hit just .205/.295/.254 in 122 AB with the Baltimore Orioles between 1955 and 1957. He got the nickname Babe because of his prodigious power in high school -- he was known as "The Babe Ruth of Texas." After he joined the Orioles, he was given another nickname -- Tex -- by his roommate, future Hall of Famer Brooks Robinson. Nelson was pretty much on the bench for three years, then went to the minors where he had some good seasons, but some bad ones too. He was out of baseball in 1961, at the age of 24. He would never hit a home run in the bigs, but he did have 75 of them in the minors.
And finally... Who had more bWAR, Babe Ruth, or the 30 other Babes combined?
Babe Ruth: 182.4 bWAR 30 Other Babes: 149.5 bWAR
The King of Crash also is the King of Babes!
submitted by sonofabutch to baseball [link] [comments]

How To Win Big On Football Bets - (How To Bet On Football) HighRoller Tips- get the best sport betting picks 10 Sports Betting Tips to Make Better Sports Picks in 2020 NFL Betting Strategies Football betting strategy ( that works ) Prematch and live betting tips HIGH SUCCESS RATE

Use the basic NFL betting strategies below to help you on your way to a profiting NFL season. #1 NFL Betting Strategy – Money/Bankroll Management When you are betting on the NFL season you will want to set aside a certain amount of money to bet with that you can afford to lose, known as your “bankroll”. NFL Betting Systems: The Definitive Guide to the Top Strategies. How big is the football betting market? Forget baseball. America’s favorite pastime is football. The proof is in the pudding. And the Vegas sportsbooks. Football is by far the most bet on sport in the United States. To be specific, the Super Bowl. When it comes to betting on NFL games, following the trends isn’t a bad idea — patterns sometimes provide valuable information. For example, from 2010 to 2018, the Bears went 12-5 ATS when coming off a bye week, while the 49ers, on the other hand, were just 5-11 ATS in that same time frame. Here are five NFL betting strategies you need to start using that no one else uses. 1 – Defensive Drive Killer Plays. Every game in the NFL is a constant battle between the offense and defense. The offense has four downs to get 10 yards, but the truth is that most NFL coaches are so conservative that they only have three downs to get 10 yards. How NFL Betting Works. This tutorial has two sections. The first contains the most common NFL bets. These include the spread, total and moneyline bets. Winning sports bettors stick these bets. They’re the most profitable in the long haul. The second section outlines exotic NFL bets. These include the parlay, teaser, if bet, parlay card and props.

[index] [46074] [12679] [50498] [6899] [10233] [41803] [46911] [42094] [43145] [10845]

How To Win Big On Football Bets - (How To Bet On Football)

Subscribe to this channel for more betting strategies for all sports. Always make sure both teams have similar stats. If you want to bet over 2.5 goals in the match you need both teams to have ... Handicapper Rich Allen talks winning sports betting strategy. Win your NFL picks by using sports betting tips from his award winnig sports betting systems. Category If you want winning sports betting picks, betting tips, sports betting strategies, sports betting 101 and winning picks that would make vip sports las vegas jealous, then you need to visit us at... sport betting picks - Expert sport betting picks nfl - Now avail top sport betting picks in your mobile from expert sports handicappers and place winning bets easily To offer bettors with ... The question of how to win football betting is not easy to answer. While over $ 500 billion is wagered annually on football worldwide, very few bettors actually make money from gambling in the game.