[ManOfValue]

How much , or how strong of a correlation is it if I'm able to bet parlays with team A 1st 5 innings on the moneyline to "team A's pitcher won't allow a home run in the game" .

It surely seems like you have an edge in doing that I would just like to know what the numbers say...

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by ManOfValue

How much , or how strong of a correlation is it if I'm able to bet parlays with team A 1st 5 innings on the moneyline to "team A's pitcher won't allow a home run in the game" .

It surely seems like you have an edge in doing that I would just like to know what the numbers say...

I don't personally keep data on first 5 inning MLs, but what did the stats indicate when you looked at them?

[ManOfValue]

Thats the thing , I don't keep 1st five inning stats either..I know a guy that is convinced that there is very little correlation and would not mind taking those plays..
And I have this other guy who thinks its a HUGE correlation, I'm kinda in the middle..

If you think about it , your pitcher not allowing a HR in the 1st 5 does help you to win that team's moneyline 1st 5..However I thought that since, a single ,double,triple, pass ball ,sac fly can all score runs then the correlation was not much..

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by ManOfValue

Thats the thing , I don't keep 1st five inning stats either..I know a guy that is convinced that there is very little correlation and would not mind taking those plays..
And I have this other guy who thinks its a HUGE correlation, I'm kinda in the middle..

If you think about it , your pitcher not allowing a HR in the 1st 5 does help you to win that team's moneyline 1st 5..However I thought that since, a single ,double,triple, pass ball ,sac fly can all score runs then the correlation was not much..

So perhaps you should initially look at the correlation between winning the 1st 5 and not allowing a HR irrespective of price?

[smitch124]

Does anyone have the correlation between the pitcher not giving up a home run and a team winning the full game?

I would imagine if the pitcher is the starting pitcher the correlation would be at least as high for 5 innings as it would be for the entire game.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by smitch124

Does anyone have the correlation between the pitcher not giving up a home run and a team winning the full game?

From the 1990 - 2007 seasons, over 41,015 decided games, the winning team did not give up a defensive home run 49.24% of the time with a standard error of 0.25%.

Data source: retrosheet.org game logs.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

From the 1990 - 2007 seasons, over 41,015 decided games, the winning team did not give up a defensive home run 49.24% of the time with a standard error of 0.25%.

Data source: retrosheet.org game logs.

Broken down per year:

Year	N	Coinc.	Std. Err
1990	2,105	42.33%	1.08%
1991	2,104	43.35%	1.08%
1992	2,106	38.08%	1.06%
1993	2,268	46.96%	1.05%
1994	1,599	52.78%	1.25%
1995	2,016	50.79%	1.11%
1996	2,266	54.99%	1.05%
1997	2,266	49.96%	1.05%
1998	2,430	51.73%	1.01%
1999	2,427	55.50%	1.01%
90s Tot	21,587	48.73%	0.34%
2000	2,428	56.71%	1.01%
2001	2,428	55.07%	1.01%
2002	2,425	51.75%	1.01%
2003	2,429	52.16%	1.01%
2004	2,428	53.62%	1.01%
2005	2,430	49.88%	1.01%
2006	2,429	53.48%	1.01%
2007	2,431	51.38%	1.01%
00s Tot	19,428	53.01%	0.36%
Grd Tot	41,015	50.76%	0.25%

[smitch124]

Certainly no correlation there, at least without knowing the price, especially in the 2000s.

[ManOfValue]

OK , so for there to be a correlation what does the percentage have to be ? above 60 ?

[ICE-BLOOD]

i would say you could find a real lot of good plays over the course of a full mlb season if you could get that parlay booked on a daily basis for all games

[ManOfValue]

I think you're right Ice-Blood...I'm looking at those numbers and 1994 stands out..Anybody know why so few games were played that year ?

[ICE-BLOOD]

1994, 2000whatever, if you're not allowing a hr within the 1st five your more than likely leading
apply the other handicapping factors and odds and that guy wont be letting you make that bet within a couple weeks

[smitch124]

Originally Posted by ManOfValue

I think you're right Ice-Blood...I'm looking at those numbers and 1994 stands out..Anybody know why so few games were played that year ?

They went on Strike that year, early August if I remember right...

[RickySteve]

Originally Posted by ManOfValue

I think you're right Ice-Blood...I'm looking at those numbers and 1994 stands out..Anybody know why so few games were played that year ?

You're kidding, right?

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by ManOfValue

OK , so for there to be a correlation what does the percentage have to be ? above 60 ?

You're missing the point.

We have that for all else being equal (which in general isn't a valid assumption, btw) the probability of the winning pitcher not giving up a home run is 49.24%.

So at 4.545% juice on the ML we'd need, all else being equal, a decimal line of about 1/(49.24%*(1-4.545%)) ≈ on the ML to breakeven on the correlated parlay.

This should give you a good starting point from which to begin to consider individual matchup specifics (i.e., where the "all else equal" assumption breaks down).

Originally Posted by ManOfValue

I think you're right Ice-Blood...I'm looking at those numbers and 1994 stands out..Anybody know why so few games were played that year ?

Strike.

[Data]

I looked at my spreadsheet of roughly 20,000 games and I see this: the probability of a team not allowing a home run is 35% while the probability of a team not allowing a home run and winning after 5 inning is 44%. This translates to a large advantage.

[ICE-BLOOD]

the wording of this get rich quick parlay is tricky
i think team A's pitcher means starting pitcher no hr allowed, not team's pitchers allows hr

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by ICE-BLOOD

the wording of this get rich quick parlay is tricky
i think team A's pitcher means starting pitcher no hr allowed, not team's pitchers allows hr

I wouldn't read too deeply into this. The reason why this may well be a get-rich-quick parlay without blatantly violating market efficiency is because while one might find many locals and D-rated books that'd take it, no serious book ever would (at least without upping the parlay vig).

[ICE-BLOOD]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

I wouldn't read too deeply into this. The reason why this may well be a get-rich-quick parlay without blatantly violating market efficiency is because while one might find many locals and D-rated books that'd take it, no serious book ever would (at least without upping the parlay vig).

completely agree

probably was 1 isolated local book at the corner bar who was winning and thought he could attract more action by offering outrageous prop parlays

[pico]

Originally Posted by Data

I looked at my spreadsheet of roughly 20,000 games and I see this: the probability of a team not allowing a home run is 35% while the probability of a team not allowing a home run and winning after 5 inning is 44%. This translates to a large advantage.

where can you buy/get these type of data, data?

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by picoman

where can you buy/get these type of data, data?

Try retrosheet.org.

[pico]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

Try retrosheet.org.

wow, thanks. now i can run simulations.