Snell typically averages 19.6 pitches an inning. Lol 4 innings 100 pitches not unusual.Originally Posted by Dan Druff
He is efficient tonight so he may stretch this out which of course is good for you
Snell typically averages 19.6 pitches an inning. Lol 4 innings 100 pitches not unusual.
He is efficient tonight so he may stretch this out which of course is good for you
Brutal 1-4 day yesterday.
None of these losses were blowouts, either.
Milwaukee lost 3-2. The same game had 3 runs in the first and couldn't cover Over 7.5. The Atlanta pick was up 3-0, then tied 3-3 for a long time, before finally falling apart at the end. The Texas under got off to a horrendous start, but ended up only losing by 1 run.
Only that Boston under managed to cover, though barely.
I'm coming back with Milwaukee today:
Milwaukee (Guerra) +155 at Cubs (Quintana)
Guerra has been a pleasant surprise in 2018. He was a sleeper in 2016, was awful in 2017, and has pitched well in 2 starts this year.
Quintana has a 7.79 ERA after a terrible April, which not uncommon for him. April is the worst month of his career. Yes, it's still barely April, but it's clear once again that he hasn't warmed up yet.
Game starts 11:20am PDT
Chalk? Did someone say Chalk?
Boston/Indians pays +110
I got +119
In
I'm confused what you're betting. The Indians are playing Seattle
I said....I'm confused what you're betting. The Indians are playing Seattle
Not...
Understand now?
Try to keep up. Stupidity Wagering is the first thing you check every day.I'm confused what you're betting. The Indians are playing Seattle
Daly made Chalk Parlays the trendy new fashion.
Daly made polka dots a thing too but that’s old news
What exactly do you and your friends talk about when you go out? How does this not come up?
Everyone’s doing it. That’s why it’s chalk.
Last edited by Sanlmar; 04-28-2018 at 11:59 AM.
Chalk parlays are a thing this year because there are a lot of big favorite games this year (thanks to the tanking), and some of them seem to have value despite being very public.
If you stay away from the ones involving sleeper pitchers, these might actually be profitable, at least for now.
Quintana has to pick today to finally pitch well.
And poor Guerra is losing despite pitching very well himself.
Wind is howling in at Wrigley today. Always have to take that into account with Cubs home games. Completely changes the game.Quintana has to pick today to finally pitch well.
And poor Guerra is losing despite pitching very well himself.
So we bet against the Indians and Red Sox?Try to keep up. Stupidity Wagering is the first thing you check every day.
Daly made Chalk Parlays the trendy new fashion.
Daly made polka dots a thing too but that’s old news
What exactly do you and your friends talk about when you go out? How does this not come up?
Everyone’s doing it. That’s why it’s chalk.
Take Sawks & IndiansSo we bet against the Indians and Red Sox?
You take both the heavy favorites and package them into a 2 team parlay. Two pieces of overpriced shit that are individually -200 get magically transformed into 1 bet that yields you even money.
It’s like what Moody’s did with subprime mortgages in 2006.
Hopefully not the same outcome.
If Daly likes it you pretty much blind bet it. He does not shoot out picks. That’s my job.
In this instance philosophical and religious prejudice prevent me from rooting for the Sawks. I also don’t like anything that happening there these past few games. But this is a rare instance where it’s not about me.
Sorry to Daly and the other chalkers.
I've run very bad this week, and my bad luck extended to my betting of Daly's chalk picks.
Good grief. I didn’t see the scores yet.
Subprime indeed
It was a joke. I unfortunately did.Take Sawks & Indians
*giggling*
Bit of a fools logic here but we had the second best result today with the chalk parlay.
We bet $100 to win $110 and lost.
We could have bet $220 to win $100 and $240 to win $100 and be in the hole for $460. Or if you want to right size it for the size of our bet $230.
Rarely does it make sense to pay big $$ in baseball. Too much risk in a sport where bad teams in bad spots still win 30% of the time.
I really don’t see the Red Sox loss as variance Daly.
I could go on and on.
Here’s one
They have taken an aggressive offensive approach. Attack first pitch - you know what I mean. Paid off huge in a world (other than a few like Astros) that take pitches and draw walks and wear out picher to get to bullpen.
I believe the Red Sox struck out for the 3rd out in 7 innings today. Think about how that melds with their new and now known approach.
Now they have to adjust and they are losing as they sort it out.
Sawks middle relief has been atrocious. I’ll give you numbers if challenged. Lol Johnson with 87 mph fastball. 4 or 5 runs
So don’t confuse the public money with an upset
Don’t shrug and say, “oh well, variance”. They are in a funk for a reason. They may or may not adjust but the trend was there pregame.
I love Druff and he contributes a lot to my life but the poker player writing losses off to variance because they don’t understand is a habit that you must work to avoid
It’s a hard game. A given uniform fields a different team every night. That is unusual in sport
Last edited by Sanlmar; 04-28-2018 at 06:29 PM.
I think we are saying the same thing just from different point of views. I don't view the Red Sox loss today as some sort of once of month tragic event. That said I think in this spot if they played it 162 times they end up a 108 win team. Ok that's probably a bit high but home vs this team vs a rookie pitcher with supposedly an "Ace" (we could have a field day with that comment, I know) on the mound it's a decent spot.
I really don’t see the Red Sox loss as variance Daly.
I could go on and on.
Here’s one
They have taken an aggressive offensive approach. Attack first pitch - you know what I mean. Paid off huge in a world (other than a few like Astros) that take pitches and draw walks and wear out picher to get to bullpen.
I believe the Red Sox struck out for the 3rd out in 7 innings today. Think about how that melds with their new and now known approach.
Now they have to adjust and they are losing as they sort it out.
Sawks middle relief has been atrocious. I’ll give you numbers if challenged. Lol Johnson with 87 mph fastball. 4 or 5 runs
So don’t confuse the public money with an upset
Don’t shrug and say, “oh well, variance”. They are in a funk for a reason. They may or may not adjust but the trend was there pregame.
I love Druff and he contributes a lot to my life but the poker player writing losses off to variance because they don’t understand is a habit that you must work to avoid
I bet if we throw the Sawks in an excell sheet at closing odds the res of the way out they end up a looser.
This is well said..
I really don’t see the Red Sox loss as variance Daly.
I could go on and on.
Here’s one
They have taken an aggressive offensive approach. Attack first pitch - you know what I mean. Paid off huge in a world (other than a few like Astros) that take pitches and draw walks and wear out picher to get to bullpen.
I believe the Red Sox struck out for the 3rd out in 7 innings today. Think about how that melds with their new and now known approach.
Now they have to adjust and they are losing as they sort it out.
Sawks middle relief has been atrocious. I’ll give you numbers if challenged. Lol Johnson with 87 mph fastball. 4 or 5 runs
So don’t confuse the public money with an upset
Don’t shrug and say, “oh well, variance”. They are in a funk for a reason. They may or may not adjust but the trend was there pregame.
I love Druff and he contributes a lot to my life but the poker player writing losses off to variance because they don’t understand is a habit that you must work to avoid
It’s a hard game. A given uniform fields a different team every night. That is unusual in sport
Also never bet against a winning streak of 3 or more in baseball lol. TB is on a 8 game winning streak now.
Yankees catch Sawks. At this point in time opposite trends.
Yankees 10-0 after 3 Amazing
There are currently 11 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 11 guests)
Reply With Quote
