MLB losing streaks

[SkyBlues42]

I know the idea is to stay away from losing streaks, as in, not trying to pick when it will end. But the Mariners are on a 7-game losing streak with Felix on the mound as a big favorite.

Anyone following the losing streak, or trying to guess when it'll end?

[Beyond the Bets]

Welp, so much for that. Mariners win.

But on the other end of the spectrum, how about the Astros? Riding hot (check out their bullpen!) and have won five straight. Hate to say it, but a sliver of value on them today at +130.

[LineProjector]

(05-06-2012 11:54 AM)Beyond the Bets Wrote:  Welp, so much for that. Mariners win.

But on the other end of the spectrum, how about the Astros? Riding hot (check out their bullpen!) and have won five straight. Hate to say it, but a sliver of value on them today at +130.

Houston O3.5 for even money really stood out to me. Houston has only scored less than that one time in it's last 10 games. Houston's bats have been hot, especially at home.

[ChiefZilla]

Speaking of losing streaks, fade the Red Sox?

They've lost five in a row and are now -123 favorites AT the Royals with some guy named Doubront (never faced any Royals hitters) on the hill. I'm thinking about the Over 9. Betting the royals makes me nervous every time with that terrible pitching staff.

It's two guys with a 5+ ERA going against above-average lineups. Wind is blowing in slightly from left (13 mph) so that might have something to do with why it's getting juiced to the under.

These just seem like two good over teams colliding.

[mount187]

I wish I had kept better track of the research I did on W/L streaks, but the forum I posted it to no longer exists. I went back five seasons (this was last year), and tallied how many streaks reached certain lengths, and the way it turned out, chasing W/L streaks to bet when they end has no value at all.

I started with a theory that if you started betting the opposite side of a W or L streak once it had reached 7 games, you could chase that bet for a short enough period of time to not risk too much money, and get a "guaranteed" payoff (the streak would end at some point). I also figured that there would be enough 7 game streaks that if you did chase all of them out, you could make a reasonable unit count without having to put any thought into it what-so-ever.

My theory of how many units you could make was correct; there were enough W/L streaks in range to make a decent profit every season. However, what I also found was that on average, there were around 8-10 streaks of W's or L's that went into the 11-12-13 range every season. Chasing 5-6-7 games deep into a streak gets into an ROI on your bets that's not even worth discussing.

My next theory was to just move the streak range out to 10 or 11, thus reducing the number of games you had to chase, and bringing the ROI back into line with what it should be for a chase system. However, there weren't enough potential plays in a season (8-10) to create enough wealth to offset the case where you get into a streak that goes 14-15-16 games (wasn't likely, but it did happen, and obviously could happen again).

The other thing you get into is, what if W/L streaks run concurrently? Your unit size would have to be small enough to be able to "chase" multiple streaks at the same time. At that point, with a small unit size, you run back into the ROI problem, and you're back to it not being worth it again.

[SkyBlues42]

I've thought about this numerous times. I really wish you could find that forum post.

[mount187]

(05-08-2012 10:18 AM)SkyBlues42 Wrote:  I've thought about this numerous times. I really wish you could find that forum post.

It's gone forever; the site shut down, and I don't have the information saved off anywhere. Maybe if I get bored sometime I'll re-do it, but you'll have to take my word for it for now that it's not worth it.

[Edit] Starting a Google Doc. *sigh* I'll post the URL when I'm done.

[SkyBlues42]

(05-08-2012 10:26 AM)mount187 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:18 AM)SkyBlues42 Wrote:  I've thought about this numerous times. I really wish you could find that forum post.

It's gone forever; the site shut down, and I don't have the information saved off anywhere. Maybe if I get bored sometime I'll re-do it, but you'll have to take my word for it for now that it's not worth it.

[Edit] Starting a Google Doc. *sigh* I'll post the URL when I'm done.

Your word is good enough for me.

[ChiefZilla]

Were you using Martingale style wagering in that study, mount?

[mount187]

OK, here is the doc:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?...utput=html

Make of it what you will, but here is what I took out of it (as stated before):

If you started your streak at either 7 W's or 7 L's, and chased the opposite (so if a team has won 7 in a row, you bet them to lose game 8), you would get roughly 10 chances per season to win a "guaranteed" unit. +10u is a decent return, until you start factoring the risk. On average, you'd have to chase a bet for 5 games, twice per season (see below for 5 game chase scenario), and once you would have had to chase SEA to game 17, which I'd venture to guess is impossible for most everyone. You could argue that the 17 games an outlying case, but don't forget the Moneyball season (2002) 20 game W streak by OAK. All it takes is for it to happen once, and your bankroll is completely shot, and that has happened 2x's in 9 years. Having your bankroll wiped 2x's in that span isn't worth trying to gain 10u per season.

Looking at the numbers, if you tried to back it down to gain more units per season, the most you would be looking at is about 13u per season from the 6-streak average (the 5 or less looks like 16, until you realize it includes everything included in 2-5). Anyways, even at 13u per season, you'd have to have a 10% unit amount to cover one of the two bankrupters, and at 10%, you could never chase multiple streaks concurrently (or a streak longer than 2-3 games).

I hope this information proves useful to everyone.

@ ChiefZilla: Yes, Martingale wagering. The goal there is to bet an amount, and if it loses, your next wager covers the last loss, AND profits you the original amount you were trying to win. Here is an example for everyone:

Your goal in this example is to win a $100 unit from the chase, at which point, you're done chasing.

MIN +100 vs SEA - Risking $100 to win $100; Game loses -$100 total.
MIN +150 vs SEA - Risking $133 to win $200; Game loses -$233 total.
MIN -115 vs SEA - Risking $383 to win $333; Game loses -$616 total.
MIN +130 vs LAA - Risking $551 to win $716; Game loses -$1,167 total.
MIN -110 vs LAA - Risking $1,394 to win $1,267

If the bet wins, you've netted $100 ($1,267 you won - the $1,167 you lost in the previous four bets).
If the bet loses, you're out $2,561 at which point you cry in your beer for having risked $2,561 to win $100, or you keep chasing with your infinite bankroll.

As you can see by this example, if you had started on the 7's streaks, you're on game 12 in the last bet, which I pointed out happens on average twice a season. It's just not sustainable.

[ChiefZilla]

got it. Thanks, mount. How fast can you put something like that together? I ask because I've always been curious about the opposite ... Once a team hits a 5 game losing streak, or 7 game winning streak, or whatever, can you make money by fading/tailing those teams until the streak ends? Ride the hot teams and fade the cold ones?

Don't worry about it if it's too much effort.

[mount187]

(05-08-2012 01:09 PM)ChiefZilla Wrote:  got it. Thanks, mount. How fast can you put something like that together? I ask because I've always been curious about the opposite ... Once a team hits a 5 game losing streak, or 7 game winning streak, or whatever, can you make money by fading/tailing those teams until the streak ends? Ride the hot teams and fade the cold ones?

Don't worry about it if it's too much effort.

The data in the sheet shows how often each occurrence of a streak happens, so you can do the math on it from there, starting at W6/L6 (sorry, I grouped 5 or less together).

For instance, if a team has a W7 on the sheet, they had to have started at a W6, so to find the total, you would add up all the streak columns more than W6 up to the point you want (if you're looking at finding streaks from 6-9, you'd add up the W7, W8, W9 columns), and then subtract the W6's (because they lost the W7 game, obviously, or the streak would have moved past 6), and that should give you the number you want.