[DuncHen22]

Here is my strategy I thought of that I'm backtesting now, but I wanted to know if anyone has ever heard of it or used it before.

-Using a variation of the Martingale betting strategy, I bet on the home team in every 3-4 game series.

-I always start to win 1 unit

-When the home team wins a game in the series, I stop betting on that series.

-If the home team loses, I bet on the same team the next game in the series only I increase my bet to be up 1 unit total on the series.

-The idea behind it is teams rarely get swept at home, no matter how good their opponent is.


Example:
Scenario 1:
1.2 unit on Team A -120 (at home, vs Team B)
Team A wins, I win 1 unit, no more plays in this series

Scenario 2:
1.2 unit on Team A -120 (at home, vs Team B)
Team A loses
2.2 units on Team A +100 (at home, vs Team B)
Team A wins, I win 2.2 units, up 1 unit on the series, no more plays in this series

Scenario 3:
1.2 unit on Team A -120 (at home, vs Team B)
Team A loses
2.2 units on Team A +100 (at home, vs Team B)
Team A loses
6.16 units on Team A -140 (at home, vs Team B)
Team A wins, I win 4.4 units, up 1 unit on the series

Scenario 4:
1.2 unit on Team A -120 (at home, vs Team B)
Team A loses
2.2 units on Team A +100 (at home, vs Team B)
Team A loses
6.16 units on Team A -140 (at home, vs Team B)
Team A loses, I lost 9.56 units in this series, start back at 1 next series

There are some other caveats but I won't go into too much detail. I'm only through checking the AL from last season right now but it seems to be quite profitable.

Hopefully that made sense. Has anyone heard of this strategy before? Is it legit?

[DuncHen22]

I want to test all of the teams but here are a look at a few of them:
If you played every home series for these teams here is how you would have fared:

Baltimore: +9.66 units
Boston: +20.67 units
Yankees: +18 units
Rays: +19.55 units
Toronto: -3.69 units
AL EAST Total: +67.88 units

AL Central is a bit more ugly due to the Indians (-12.5 units) and Royals (-21.8), but ends up +3.85 as a whole thanks to the White Sox (+20.44) and Tigers (+14.98). Twins ended up +2.75.

[5050]

I seen someone do this for the playoffs and it worked very well past couple seasons. Worth a shot if but some advice to you would be not to chase if things start to go wrong. Stick with it and let the sytem ride.

[bluefish]

tough to follow

[DuncHen22]

I seen someone do this for the playoffs and it worked very well past couple seasons. Worth a shot if but some advice to you would be not to chase if things start to go wrong. Stick with it and let the sytem ride.

Right, but this is different than a normal Martingale system in that there is a cap on how high you go. After 3 games you go back to 1 unit so it can't get too out of control. You just have to trust that it will come back and if you play enough good teams they should cover it anyway.

[DuncHen22]

tough to follow

What is tough to follow?

[Ian]

Please don't do this. Any strategy that depends solely on the manipulation of bet sizes is doomed. Since you will mostly be betting favorites (by virtue of betting on the home team) you will lose big when you get swept and win small when you win. Trust me, if it was this easy to beat baseball there would be a lot more pro handicappers out there.

[whatsgood5]

Please don't do this. Any strategy that depends solely on the manipulation of bet sizes is doomed. Since you will mostly be betting favorites (by virtue of betting on the home team) you will lose big when you get swept and win small when you win. Trust me, if it was this easy to beat baseball there would be a lot more pro handicappers out there.

Agreed.

[DuncHen22]

Please don't do this. Any strategy that depends solely on the manipulation of bet sizes is doomed. Since you will mostly be betting favorites (by virtue of betting on the home team) you will lose big when you get swept and win small when you win. Trust me, if it was this easy to beat baseball there would be a lot more pro handicappers out there.

I know what you're saying and I agree it needs some work to minimize risk, but I'm just saying if I used this system last season on the AL East alone, I would have been up 65 units at the end of the season. Total number of sweeps by the opponents in all 5 AL East teams all season: 3 (Orioles twice, Blue Jays once). Even though the Orioles had 2 sweeps they were up 10 units by the end. And it works for underdogs just as well as favorites . Teams rarely get swept at home, no matter how bad they are or how good their opponent is.

I know you are trying to help me and I appreciate that, but I still think this may be a good start to a promising system. I just need to figure out ways to make it less risky. Also remember that I'm in the preliminary research part of this system so don't assume I was ready to jump on board tomorrow.

[egr99]

Good luck... Stay away from martingale... building a better MM strategy is very important.

Also try to filter out some teams without DATA MINING... Playing less series with a good filter might produce less losses. The concept is good but I think it is a little too vague. Might be able to make same overall units with alot less chases making your ROI better. Look for a good angle and exploit it more in detail. Backtest it over several years 5+ is best...

I just started working on MLB for the upcoming season myself... I will keep an eye out on this thread and if I come across anything I will gladly post.

egr99

[Ian]

I know what you're saying and I agree it needs some work to minimize risk, but I'm just saying if I used this system last season on the AL East alone, I would have been up 65 units at the end of the season. Total number of sweeps by the opponents in all 5 AL East teams all season: 3 (Orioles twice, Blue Jays once). Even though the Orioles had 2 sweeps they were up 10 units by the end. And it works for underdogs just as well as favorites . Teams rarely get swept at home, no matter how bad they are or how good their opponent is.

I know you are trying to help me and I appreciate that, but I still think this may be a good start to a promising system. I just need to figure out ways to make it less risky. Also remember that I'm in the preliminary research part of this system so don't assume I was ready to jump on board tomorrow.

From a scientific standpoint, you are testing your system incorrectly. In science you can't use the same data to test a hypothesis that you used to formulate your hypothesis. Also, even if this were not the case your sample size is way too small.

Instead of looking at it from the standpoint of series (what's the plural of series ) look at it from the standpoint of individual games. Assume for the sake of argument that the line on each game is correct. Say you bet on 200 games at random. At the end of the season you would, on average, break even minus the juice, and therefore end with a small loss.

Now imagine you bet on another 200 games with correct lines, only you do it using your system. Even though the games you bet are no longer random, you will still, on average, break even minus the juice. The order you bet them will not change this. By increasing certain bet sizes you will not change this, but what you will do is increase your variance by betting larger amounts.

The way to beat baseball is to make sure that you are betting on incorrect lines (and there are other ways too like by aggressively hitting bonuses). Betting varying amounts against correct lines will not work.

[DuncHen22]

Good luck... Stay away from martingale... building a better MM strategy is very important. Also try to filter out some teams without DATA MINING... Playing less series with a good filter might produce less losses. The concept is good but I think it is a little too vague. Might be able to make same overall units with alot less chases making your ROI better. Look for a good angle and exploit it more in detail. Backtest it over several years 5+ is best... I just started working on MLB for the upcoming season myself... I will keep an eye out on this thread and if I come across anything I will gladly post. egr99

I agree, and yes, I'm trying to reduce the chases and find less risky angles but you cant argue with the fact that most teams win at least 1 game in a series. That is my foundation I want to build off of. And I will back test it a long ways.

I'd love to hear any advice or strategies you come up with. Thanks!

[DuncHen22]

From a scientific standpoint, you are testing your system incorrectly. In science you can't use the same data to test a hypothesis that you used to formulate your hypothesis. Also, even if this were not the case your sample size is way too small.

I didn't formulate my hypothesis from the data; the hypothesis came from general observation, which I then used the data to verify. The hypothesis was that most teams do not get swept in home game series. So far, my hypothesis stands strong but I'm still testing it. My current sample size is too small, but I'm not done testing. I was going to go back a few years.

And I have to disagree with you taking out the series aspect of my system because that is what this is based upon. I understand what you're saying about playing random games and ending up even minus juice but this isn't random. I will bet on a team that I may expect to lose 2 of the 3 games, but all I need is 1. And if they win the 1st game I don't play the next 2.

Anyway, like I have said many times this is a bare bones, system-from-scratch beginning. I just posted it on here to get other peoples' reactions and advice to help me mold and change it.

I don't know much about correct/incorrect lines, or bonuses, though. If you have any advice on that I'd love to hear it!

[mlb]

I like this strategy, but you need more COMMON SENSE as well as just putting this system on every home team. I do something similar, but I look at pitching matchups, trends and other such information to pick my team. I do not do every home series and I pick and choose the series I like for the team to at least win one game. I feel this system works, but you have to pick the right team... You cannot just pick the home team because they are the home team and they should win at least one game. Not the best strategy... IMO

[EXhoosier10]

I used this last year with a filter of winning 2 of their last 3 (as long as they are coming off of a 3 or 4 game series. i ignored the 2 game series thinking that the extra travel might be harmful).

[rob11234]

Perhaps use this strategy but only bet when the home team is the the underdog. I remember reading somewhere that over a period of decades, betting on the home dog has consistently been profitable.

[Rainman328]

Don't do it, last year was probably a fluke. One year doesn't mean anything. Trends must occur for at least 3 seasons to be considered, and i require 5 seasons before i trust them. If this strategy turned a positive profit for each of the last 5 seasons, i would trust it, but i find that very highly unlikely. Another flaw is the variance of units. The fluctuation is too great and you can get BURNED in a bad year. Don't do this system

[BigdaddyQH]

The problem is that if your team gets swept, it will take you 9 series to get even. The poor teams can really cost you some money.

[DuncHen22]

Perhaps use this strategy but only bet when the home team is the the underdog. I remember reading somewhere that over a period of decades, betting on the home dog has consistently been profitable.

That's one thing I have been noticing. Not only does it generally hold up to my hypothesis but I also lose less when I get swept (since I would bet a max of 1 unit, 2 units, 4 units) and win more when I win.

Another possible trend I'm seeing, is when a home underdog wins the 1st game of the series and is still an underdog in the next game, they generally lose the 2nd or 3rd game. In other words, you could fade the home dog after a 1st-game-in-the-series win (if they're still the dog in the next game).

It's just something I noticed but will have to look more into, so don't quote me on that.

[DuncHen22]

Don't do it, last year was probably a fluke. One year doesn't mean anything. Trends must occur for at least 3 seasons to be considered, and i require 5 seasons before i trust them. If this strategy turned a positive profit for each of the last 5 seasons, i would trust it, but i find that very highly unlikely. Another flaw is the variance of units. The fluctuation is too great and you can get BURNED in a bad year. Don't do this system

I know one season doesn't mean anything, that is why I am looking into more seasons than just one. I also understand there is a huge risk involved, which is why I'm looking for different angles to take but use this same knowledge that a home team will, more often than not, win at least one game. one game out of 3 in a series is all you need to be a long term winner in baseball betting, as long as you know how to play them right. That's the part I'm still trying to figure out.

Also, I just want to add that, when talking about something pertaining to statistics and probabilities (such as sports betting), you should be careful of some words you throw around, such as "probably." You can't say "last year was probably a fluke," because you have no basis for such a claim. You can say it was maybe a fluke, or it could have been a fluke. But unless you've done the research, then you can't say "probably." I don't mean to sound rude or anything, it's just a pet peeve of mine.

[Rainman328]

I know one season doesn't mean anything, that is why I am looking into more seasons than just one. I also understand there is a huge risk involved, which is why I'm looking for different angles to take but use this same knowledge that a home team will, more often than not, win at least one game. one game out of 3 in a series is all you need to be a long term winner in baseball betting, as long as you know how to play them right. That's the part I'm still trying to figure out.

Also, I just want to add that, when talking about something pertaining to statistics and probabilities (such as sports betting), you should be careful of some words you throw around, such as "probably." You can't say "last year was probably a fluke," because you have no basis for such a claim. You can say it was maybe a fluke, or it could have been a fluke. But unless you've done the research, then you can't say "probably." I don't mean to sound rude or anything, it's just a pet peeve of mine.

Fair enough. Let me know what your research reveals

[mlb]

I combine this strategy with simple common sense of the game and I am setting out to proove it this year.... I will be using series betting like this but w general knowledge!

[DuncHen22]

I combine this strategy with simple common sense of the game and I am setting out to proove it this year.... I will be using series betting like this but w general knowledge!

See, that sounds like a great strategy and to me, I think it will pay off. The greatest flaw in any system is the human factor. I think the best thing you can do is follow the league closely and play the series to your advantage.

Anyway, best of luck to you!