[fearless]

Bet the best pitchers in baseball in featured games at the betting exchanges (WSEX, tradesports, etc.). Only bet these pitchers (Beckett, Peavy, Webb, etc.) when they're pitching against real clowns (say ERA 4.5 or more). Here's the system...

Start with a position on the dominant pitcher's team. If the other team scores first or takes the lead during the game, consider it a loss and sell immediately. You'll lose 10-15% of your money. However, very frequently in these situations, the team with the dominant pitcher will never trail. These pitchers will be big favorites however (-200 to -300+) in these situations so you'll have to be careful and extremely disciplined. However, IMHO, this is a golden sure-fire baseball system and I'm looking forward to trying it next year.

Please prove me wrong.

[isetcap]

It should work. Make sure you bet big. If you lose a bet then double up. Easy money!

[Ganchrow]

Bet the best pitchers in baseball in featured games at the betting exchanges (WSEX, tradesports, etc.). Only bet these pitchers (Beckett, Peavy, Webb, etc.) when they're pitching against real clowns (say ERA 4.5 or more). Here's the system...

Start with a position on the dominant pitcher's team. If the other team scores first or takes the lead during the game, consider it a loss and sell immediately. You'll lose 10-15% of your money. However, very frequently in these situations, the team with the dominant pitcher will never trail. These pitchers will be big favorites however (-200 to -300+) in these situations so you'll have to be careful and extremely disciplined. However, IMHO, this is a golden sure-fire baseball system and I'm looking forward to trying it next year.

Please prove me wrong.

That is most likely the wrong approach to take to quantitative/scientific analysis.

One shouldn't simply assert a hypothesis and demand others disprove it; rather one should state a hypothesis, present one's own positive proof of that hypothesis (or at least a reasonable amount of evidence in support thereof), and only then ask others to find flaws in one's reasoning or methodology.

I might as well state, "I've seen a werewolf," or "The world will end on March 28^th, 2073," or "My dog and I have traveled to Titan, a moon of Saturn, by way of a chrono-synclastic infundibulum," and then demand others prove me wrong. Rather it's up to the one making the claim, the one stating the affirmative hypothesis, to first present evidence or (better yet) a proof in support of that claim and not the other way around.

As we know, proving a negative assertion can be quite a difficult endeavor indeed. This is related to the concept of the "Black Swan", a summary of which I excerpt from a Wikipedia article on the concept Black Swans as it relates to Nassim Nicholas Taleb's titular book, "The term black swan comes from the ancient Western conception that all swans were white. In that context, a black swan was a metaphor for something that could not exist. The 17th Century discovery of black swans in Australia metamorphosed the term to connote that the perceived impossibility actually came to pass."

[Willie Bee]

Please prove me wrong.

Tell you what, next April when the game gets cranking again, you come back in here and prove yourself right. How's that?

[isetcap]

Speaking of "black swans"; I was recently introduced to Longbets and there are some entertaining arguments made for and against the various wagers listed there.

By 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotless planes.

[fearless]

That is most likely the wrong approach to take to quantitative/scientific analysis.

One shouldn't simply assert a hypothesis and demand others disprove it; rather one should state a hypothesis, present one's own positive proof of that hypothesis (or at least a reasonable amount of evidence in support thereof), and only then ask others to find flaws in one's reasoning or methodology.

I might as well state, "I've seen a werewolf," or "The world will end on March 28^th, 2073," or "My dog and I have traveled to Titan, a moon of Saturn, by way of a chrono-synclastic infundibulum," and then demand others to be proven wrong. Rather it's up to the one making the claim, the one stating the affirmative hypothesis, to first present evidence or (better yet) a proof in support of that claim and not the other way around.

As we know, proving a negative assertion can be quite a difficult endeavor indeed. This is related to the concept of the "Black Swan", a summary of which I excerpt from a Wikipedia article on the concept Black Swans as it relates to Nassim Nicholas Taleb's titular book, "The term black swan comes from the ancient Western conception that all swans were white. In that context, a black swan was a metaphor for something that could not exist. The 17th Century discovery of black swans in Australia metamorphosed the term to connote that the perceived impossibility actually came to pass."

You're right but I was just looking to make conversation! I offended one of the few guys guy who could really give me insight into whether my system is ok... sorry, I was just trying to stir up a reaction.

[fearless]

Tell you what, next April when the game gets cranking again, you come back in here and prove yourself right. How's that?

Sorry, I'm confident in this system. Geez, you try and make a good, interesting thread and try and make it interesting and it blows up in your face...

[Ganchrow]

You're right but I was just looking to make conversation! I offended one of the few guys guy who could really give me insight into whether my system is ok... sorry, I was just trying to stir up a reaction.

If you were referring to me then you're very much mistaken. You didn't offend me in the least. I certainly didn't mean to pick on you either.

I'm just trying to make the epistemological point that when first presenting a hypothesis
its proof/rationale is at least as important (at least initially) as the hypothesis itself.

Think about what you've suggested. For your claim to true, then one or both of the following must also be true: A) a bet on a "dominant pitcher's team" is +EV; B) that an in-game ML bet against a "dominant pitcher's team" is +EV if the opposing takes the lead. Furthermore, if only one of the two are true then it must also be true that C) the -EV bet must not be so negative as to wipe out the +EV bet's profits (otherwise the strategy would reduce to just playing A or B naked).

OK fair enough. Those are legitimate claims to make. But after making such claims it would then behoove the claimer to prove (or at least present evidence for) at least two of claims A), B), and C). If he can't convincingly argue why a fantastic hypothesis is likely to be true, he really can't expect others to attempt to convincingly prove it untrue.

[VegasDave]

Hate to be a killjoy rainbow, but why not pull up the boxscores of all the games these guys pitched in last season and crunch the numbers? You won't have to wait til April to see if you might really be on to something.

[fearless]

If you were referring to me then you're very much mistaken. You didn't offend me in the least. I certainly didn't mean to pick on you either.

I'm just trying to make the epistemological point that when first presenting a hypothesis
its proof/rationale is at least as important (at least initially) as the hypothesis itself.

Think about what you've suggested. For your claim to true, then one or both of the following must also be true: A) a bet on a "dominant pitcher's team" is +EV; B) that an in-game ML bet against a "dominant pitcher's team" is +EV if the opposing takes the lead. Furthermore, if only one of the two are true then it must also be true that C) the -EV bet must not be so negative as to wipe out the +EV bet's profits (otherwise the strategy would reduce to just playing A or B naked).

OK fair enough. Those are legitimate claims to make. But after making such claims it would then behoove the claimer to prove (or at least present evidence for) at least two of claims A), B), and C). If he can't convincingly argue why a fantastic hypothesis is likely to be true, he really can't expect others to attempt to convincingly prove it untrue.

You're right, nice analysis. I sound like a fool now. But, maybe I'll be a money making fool come next season.

[fearless]

Hate to be a killjoy rainbow, but why not pull up the boxscores of all the games these guys pitched in last season and crunch the numbers? You won't have to wait til April to see if you might really be on to something.

All the games don't matter, only the games that are "featured" because that's the only time you have enough liquidity to pull this off. I only trade at tradesports and I'd say you'd have at least one featured game a week that meets the above criteria. I'm really interested in this and I'm itching to try it. I'd start small and see how it works out.

[Willie Bee]

You're right but I was just looking to make conversation! I offended one of the few guys guy who could really give me insight into whether my system is ok... sorry, I was just trying to stir up a reaction.

Didn't offend me either, and you accomplished the stirring up of reactions. I also saw the "when they're pitching against real clowns (say ERA 4.5 or more)" and thought that was the primary qualifier, did not understand from your initial post that there was going to be quite a bit more to the game selection process down to just possibly one play per week.

What would be your list of starting pitchers going into 2008 that you would include in your 'best pitchers' category?

[BuddyBear]

Well, what's nice about your question is that it is an empirical one. Meaning that we can present evidence to either support it or reject it.

That being the case, before you open up the link below, I strongly encourage you to identify the top 25-50 pitchers in the league (Peavy, Santana, Webb, Beckett, Sheets, etc...).

After you've done that, find where each one is on the list, note their $ and then add it up. If it adds up a positive number, you've failed to reject your hypothesis. If it is negative then the hypothesis is rejected and you need to rethink the theory behind your hypothesis.

Here you go, enjoy!

http://www.covers.com/pageLoader/pag...b_regular.html

[Ganchrow]

The full description:

CHRONO-SYNCLASTIC INFUNDIBULA—Just imagine that your Daddy is the smartest man who ever lived on Earth, and he knows everything there is to find out, and he is exactly right about everything, and he can prove he is right about everything. Now imagine another little child on some nice world a million light years away, and that little child’s Daddy is the smartest man who ever lived on that nice world so far away. And he is just as smart and just as right as your Daddy is. Both Daddies are smart, and both Daddies are right.

Only if they ever met each other they would get into a terrible argument, because they wouldn’t agree on anything. Now, you can say that your Daddy is right and the other little child’s Daddy is wrong, but the Universe is an awfully big place. There is room enough for an awful lot of people to be right about things and still not agree.

The reason both Daddies can be right and still get into terrible fights is because there are so many different ways of being right. There are places in the Universe, though, where each Daddy could finally catch on to what the other Daddy was talking about. These places are where all the different kinds of truths fit together as nicely as the parts in your Daddy’s solar watch. We call these places chrono-synclastic infundibula.

The Solar System seems to be full of chrono-synclastic infundibula. There is one great big one we are sure of that likes to stay between Earth and Mars. We know about that one only because an Earth man and his Earth dog ran right into it.

You might think it would be nice to go to a chrono-synclastic infundibulum and see all the different ways to be absolutely right, but it is a very dangerous thing to do. The poor man and his poor dog are scattered far and wide, not just through space, but through time, too.

Chrono (kroh-no) means time. Synclastic (sin-classtick) means curved towards the same side in all directions, like the skin of an orange. Infundibulum (in-fun-dib-u-lum) is what the ancient Romans like Julius Caesar and Nero called a funnel. If you don’t know what a funnel is, get Mommy to show you one.

--A Child’s Cyclopedia of Wonders and Things to Do, Doctor Cyril Hall

(taken from The Sirens of Titan by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)

[atakdog]

In my classes, I teach a reading comprehension passage that relies on the "all swans are white" example for a discussion of determinist versus contingent views of biology. I do mention in class that of the seven (arguably -- depends on whether the lumpers or the splitters are in power) species of swans in the world, one is black and another has a black neck. About one student in fifty knows this (about the black swan, anyway). Always disturbed me a bit, but then people are mostly ignorant of the natural world, except aspects thereof that are right under their noses (and sometimes those, too).

[Chi_archie]

did you try this yet?