| This piece is an excerpt of Tony Stoffo’s | | | | Not all days will be like this one, as you'll see, but |
| highly regarded Money Management Book for the | | | | there are upsets almost every day in baseball, |
| novice and professional gambler. It focuses on 12 | | | | and with The Baseball Underdog System, you |
| betting systems, charts, analysis and wagering | | | | zero in on teams with the best chances to pull |
| professionals. | | | | them off. |
| Baseball Underdog System | | | | Note that in the Pittsburgh and Milwaukee games, |
| Spreading the Truth About Point Spreads | | | | we stay away from potential losses because we |
| Gamblers love their favorites. Oddsmakers set a | | | | stick with our criteria -- the Pirates were on a |
| point spread on a game, and the natural tendency | | | | losing streak, and Milwaukee was too much of a |
| of even many longtime bettors is to think this | | | | long-shot underdog. |
| represents how much a team is "favored" over | | | | DAY 2, Tuesday, May 13, 2003 |
| another to win the game. | | | | Houston (-120, Redding) at Pittsburgh (+100, |
| Of course, it often has little to do with that, since | | | | Suppan) |
| oddsmakers set the spreads based on public | | | | Result Houston 6, Pittsburgh 3, for a $20 loss. |
| perception with the sole goal of getting 50% of | | | | Chicago (-125, Estes) at Milwaukee (+115, |
| bettors to wager on each team, so "the house" | | | | Quevedo) |
| comes out ahead no matter whether the favorite | | | | Result Chicago 7, Milwaukee 2, for a $20 loss. |
| or the underdog triumphs. | | | | Cincinnati (+150, Wilson) at St. Louis (-160, |
| A prime example is the 2003 Super Bowl, on | | | | Simontacchi) |
| which oddsmakers all across the country made | | | | Result Cincinnati 7, St. Louis 2, for a $30 profit. |
| the aging yet offensive-oriented Oakland Raiders | | | | Montreal (+130, Ohka) at San Francisco (-140, |
| 4.5-point favorites over the young, | | | | Ainsworth) |
| defense-minded Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Avid | | | | Result Montreal 6, San Francisco 4, for a $26 |
| followers of football saw great value in this | | | | profit. |
| spread, knowing that defense most often wins big | | | | Atlanta (Ortiz) at Los Angeles (Ishii) |
| contests. But fans love offense, not defense, and | | | | Result Atlanta 3, Los Angeles 1, for a profit of |
| fans who gamble love favorites. | | | | $20 on the under total of 7.5, since both pitchers |
| So, many bettors stuck their heads in the sand | | | | were in the Top 20. |
| and plunked down their money on the Raiders. | | | | Florida (+100, Penny) at San Diego (-110, |
| Some sportsbooks reported bets on Oakland -4.5 | | | | Lawrence) |
| outweighing those on Tampa Bay +4.5 by an | | | | Result San Diego 6, Florida 5, for a $20 loss. |
| astounding 9-1 ratio. In the end, the Buccaneers | | | | Tampa Bay (+150, Kennedy) at Toronto (-160, |
| blasted the Raiders, and most books made out | | | | Sturtze) |
| like bandits, because too few gamblers put | | | | Result Tampa Bay 7, Toronto 5, for a $30 profit. |
| enough stock in the value of underdogs. | | | | Texas (+140, Thomson) at Boston (-150, Burkett) |
| At +4.5, Tampa Bay virtually settled the affair | | | | Result Boston 5, Texas 4, for a $20 loss. |
| before halftime, mounting a 17-point lead, since | | | | Results |
| the only time a Super Bowl team has rallied from | | | | DayUnderdog RecordUnderdog ProfitUnder |
| a 10-point deficit to win was in 1988, when | | | | RecordUnder ProfitTotal Profit |
| Washington scored the final six touchdowns in a | | | | 23-4$61-0$20$26 |
| 42-10 trouncing of Denver. | | | | Note that even though you go 3-4 on Day 2, you |
| Of course, sports fans and gamblers can be | | | | still show a profit because of the favorable |
| forgiven if they have a deeply ingrained | | | | underdog odds. And the "under" pick also earns |
| misconception of what point spreads represent. | | | | you a tidy profit. |
| Remember, the media -- especially TV and radio | | | | DAY 3, Wednesday, May 14, 2003 |
| broadcasters -- must tap-dance around the issue | | | | New York Mets (+100, Seo) at Colorado (-120, |
| of gambling, since it's illegal in 99% of the U.S. In | | | | Oliver) |
| fact, if broadcasters mention the point spread at | | | | Result Colorado 6, New York 5, for a $20 loss. |
| all, it may be in passing, such as, "The Vikings are | | | | Montreal (+140, Vargas) at San Francisco (-150, |
| favored by a touchdown over the Packers." | | | | Foppert) |
| The big hypocrisy is that point spreads, especially | | | | Result Montreal 6, San Francisco 3, for a $28 |
| on football and basketball, can be found in almost | | | | profit. |
| every newspaper in the country, even those | | | | Arizona (Schilling) at Philadelphia (Myers) |
| hundreds of miles from the nearest legal casino or | | | | Result Arizona 2, Philadelphia 0, for a $20 profit on |
| sportsbook. | | | | the under total of 7.5 since Myers was a Top 20 |
| Shopping For Baseball Bargains | | | | pitcher and Schilling was also highly ranked in a |
| When I was extolling the virtues of gambling on | | | | fewer-innings category after returning from an |
| baseball (and hockey) in the previous chapter, I | | | | injury. |
| intentionally neglected to mention that much of | | | | Kansas City (+130, Hernandez) at Minnesota (-145, |
| the value on betting moneylines comes from the | | | | Reed) |
| financial upside of going with underdogs. I waited | | | | Result Minnesota 7, Kansas City 0, for a $20 loss. |
| to get into this until now, knowing that this | | | | Results |
| chapter is devoted entirely to the topic. | | | | DayUnderdog RecordUnderdog ProfitUnder |
| I never fully understood the power of underdogs | | | | RecordUnder ProfitTotal Profit |
| until I met Andrew in Vegas. He's a professional | | | | 31-2$-121-0$20$8 |
| gambler but "works" only 6 months a year, during | | | | You suffer what is only 1 of 3 losing days of the |
| baseball season. Andrew lives -- and lives well -- | | | | week on your main underdog wagers, yet the |
| on the money he makes during the season, | | | | small loss is more than offset by the winning |
| averaging about $20,000 profit per month. | | | | "under" pick. |
| Remarkably enough, he doesn't even work that | | | | DAY 4, Thursday, May 15, 2003 |
| hard on making money during baseball season. All | | | | Houston (-150, Oswalt) at Pittsburgh (+140, |
| told, it takes Andrew about 15 minutes each | | | | Benson) |
| morning to make his picks for the day, then he | | | | Result Houston 6, Pittsburgh 2, for a $20 loss. |
| goes and plays a round of golf and is home with | | | | Kansas City (+150, Asencio) at Minnesota (-160, |
| the wife and kids by mid-afternoon. | | | | Rogers) |
| Once I saw the kind of money he was making | | | | Result Kansas City 9, Minnesota 5, for a $30 |
| and how effortless he seemed to be doing it, I | | | | profit. |
| told Andrew I had to know his method. At first | | | | Day Underdog Profit Under Record Profit Today's |
| he was reluctant, like a grandmother with her | | | | Total Record Record Profit Profit 4 1-1 $10 0-0 |
| secret, prize-winning peach pie recipe. But, like | | | | $0 $10 $159 |
| most people with a great secret, he eventually | | | | Results |
| spilled the beans. | | | | DayUnderdog RecordUnderdog ProfitUnder |
| It turns out, he bets only on baseball and he bets | | | | RecordUnder ProfitTotal Profit |
| only on underdogs. And, like I said, it takes him | | | | 41-1$100-0$10$10 |
| less time to determine who he's betting each day | | | | Some days are light, like this one, when a lot of |
| than it does for him to get from the first tee to | | | | Top 20 pitchers are on the mound and all the |
| the second hole on the golf course. Much less | | | | major league teams seem to be on streaks, |
| time, in fact, since he's not much of a golfer. | | | | either winning or losing. If you're like me, you'll |
| Now I'm going to teach you his secret, which I've | | | | take a profit by going just 1-1 any day, though. |
| modified slightly to maximize profits. I call it, | | | | DAY 5, Friday, May 16, 2003 |
| fittingly, The Baseball Underdog System. | | | | Atlanta (-160, Hampton) at San Diego (+140, |
| The Set-Up | | | | Peavy) |
| Each of my 12 Money-Management Programs are | | | | Result Atlanta 6, San Diego 4, for a $20 loss. |
| composed of a Series of bets that are either | | | | Pittsburgh (Wells) at Arizona (Batista) |
| predetermined by me or can be quickly calculated | | | | Result Pirates 8, Arizona 5, for a $22 loss on a |
| by you using a Formula I'll provide you. | | | | total of 8. |
| For the purposes of our examples in this chapter, | | | | Chicago Cubs (Clement) at St. Louis (Williams) |
| all bets are at varying moneyline odds, which will | | | | Result St. Louis 7, Chicago 4, for a $22 loss on a |
| be explained with each scenario. | | | | total of 8. |
| The Program | | | | Philadelphia (-115, Padilla) at Houston (+105, |
| The Baseball Underdog System is based on a law | | | | Robertson) |
| of averages showing that, over the long term, | | | | Result Houston 4, Philadelphia 2, for a $21 profit. |
| MLB underdogs beat favorites about 4 games out | | | | Chicago White Sox (+110, Buehrle) at Minnesota |
| of 9 (or 44% of the time). Even with moneyline | | | | (-120, Radke) |
| odds on underdogs earning you better than even | | | | Result Minnesota 18, Chicago 3, for a $20 loss. |
| money -- meaning that at +130 you lay $10 to | | | | Toronto (+105, Hendrickson) at Kansas City (-115, |
| win $13 -- you need to rack up better than a | | | | George) |
| record of 4 wins and 5 losses every day to | | | | Result Toronto 18, Kansas City 1, for a $21 profit. |
| make substantial profits. | | | | Oakland (Mulder) at Cleveland (Sabathia) |
| For example, let's assume you bet $10 on each | | | | Result Cleveland 2, Oakland 1, for a $20 profit on |
| of 9 underdogs today, with each getting +130 | | | | a total of 7.5. Day Underdog Profit Under Record |
| moneyline odds. If you win 4 games, you profit | | | | Profit Today's Total Record Record Profit Profit 5 |
| $13 each or $52 total. But the $50 you lose when | | | | 2-2 $2 1-2 -$24 -$22 $137 |
| 5 favorites win gives you a slim $2 profit overall. | | | | Results |
| So instead of simply betting on the underdogs in | | | | DayUnderdog RecordUnderdog ProfitUnder |
| every game, you must weed out about | | | | RecordUnder ProfitTotal Profit |
| two-thirds of the games by following my 3 simple | | | | 52-2$21-2$-24$-22 |
| criteria: | | | | This is your worst day of the week, and you still |
| First, eliminate games in which the underdog has | | | | post a small profit on your underdog wagers. |
| lost 3 or more games in a row and/or the | | | | Meanwhile, this is the 1 single day of the week |
| favorite has won 3 or more games in a row. This | | | | with a losing record for picking "unders." This is |
| prevents you from throwing away money on an | | | | why I always combine those picks with my |
| underdog on a bad skid or an underdog facing a | | | | selections in The Baseball Underdog System, since |
| red-hot offensive team whose bats may more | | | | great pitching almost always triumphs over good |
| than make up for its own mediocre pitching. | | | | hitting, especially in the first two-thirds of the |
| Second, eliminate games in which the moneyline | | | | season, before starters' arms begin to tire. |
| odds on the underdog are greater than +150 or | | | | DAY 6, Saturday, May 17, 2003 |
| so. If the odds are any higher than this, there's | | | | Cincinnati (-130, Austin) at Milwaukee (+120, |
| undoubtedly a good reason, most probably that | | | | Rusch) |
| the underdogs are seriously out-manned. So | | | | Result Milwaukee 8, Cincinnati 6, for a $24 profit. |
| scratch such games and move on. | | | | Philadelphia (+115, Duckworth) at Houston (-125, |
| Third, eliminate games in which the underdog is | | | | Linebank) |
| facing one of the Top 20 pitchers in the league, | | | | Result Philadelphia 9, Houston 4, for a $23 profit. |
| according to earned-run average (ERA). While | | | | Pittsburgh (+125, Torres) at Arizona (-130, |
| various newspapers and Internet Web sites can | | | | Capuano) |
| provide you with ERA statistics, I strongly | | | | ResultPittsburgh 8, Arizona 5, for a $25 profit. |
| encourage you to use the adjusted (or | | | | Tampa Bay (+140, Gonzalez) at Baltimore (-150, |
| "normalized") ERA rankings compiled by Jeff | | | | Hentgen) |
| Sagarin(R) and displayed on USA Today's Web | | | | Result Baltimore 2, Tampa Bay 0, for a $20 loss. |
| site at SAGARIN RATINGS in which Sagarin uses | | | | Oakland (-160, Halama) at Cleveland (+150, |
| somewhat complicated data to assign each | | | | Rodriguez) |
| pitcher in the league a number for what his ERA | | | | Occasionally, such as in this game, the underdog |
| "should be." He determines an ERA for every | | | | pitcher is ranked fairly high, in this case No. 28 in |
| pitcher as compared to other pitchers' | | | | the AL. These games are usually particular |
| performances from 1946-1999, resulting in a stat | | | | bargains. Result Cleveland 4, Oakland 2, for a $30 |
| he has dubbed an NPERA (or "normalized | | | | profit. |
| predicted earned-run average"). | | | | Toronto (-120, Halladay) at Kansas City (+110, |
| When you go the USA Today's site, you'll notice | | | | Affeldt) |
| that it lists the American and National Leagues | | | | Result Toronto 4, Kansas City 2, for a $20 loss. |
| separately, and also that it breaks pitchers into | | | | Anaheim (+110, Washburn) at Boston (-120, |
| categories according to number of innings pitched. | | | | Lowe) |
| For each pitcher ranked, there is much | | | | This is yet another example of when an underdog |
| information included, but you're primarily interested | | | | pitcher is ranked, this time No. 14! Result Anaheim |
| in the first 5 columns, which list the pitcher's rank | | | | 6, Boston 2, for a $22 profit. |
| in the entire league, his name, his team, whether | | | | Chicago White Sox (+130, Garland) at Minnesota |
| he's a righty or a lefty, and his NPERA: Rank | | | | (-140, Mays) |
| Name Team R/L NPERA #1 Mike Mussina NYY R | | | | Because the favored pitcher is ranked No. 23, I'd |
| 1.99 | | | | pass on this pick but will include it for our |
| Because ranked pitchers are broken into | | | | example's purposes. Result Minnesota 3, Chicago 1, |
| categories according to number of innings pitched, | | | | for a $20 loss. |
| make sure you don't overlook a pitcher who's | | | | Texas (+215, Valdes) at New York Yankees |
| been injured or just moved from a reliever to a | | | | (-235, Pettitte) |
| starter role or otherwise hasn't racked up enough | | | | As I mentioned in detail in the last chapter, |
| innings to make the primary list. He still could be | | | | oddsmakers go overboard in favoring the |
| among the league's better pitchers yet is ranked | | | | Yankees. At this point of the 2003 season, for |
| highly in a category of lesser innings pitched | | | | example, the Yankees were playing |
| further down the screen. This applies mostly early | | | | uncharacteristically bad baseball and Pettitte was in |
| in the season. | | | | the midst of the worst losing streak of his career, |
| Following the 3 primary criteria, on a day with a | | | | so this wasn't a bad underdog play. Still, I will NOT |
| full slate of as many as 15 games, you should be | | | | include it in your profits, but show it here just so |
| left with between 3 and 9 underdogs on which to | | | | you realize that you should look beyond the |
| wager. Using our example Formula, you will put | | | | numbers to the true game situations, because |
| $20 on each game's moneyline. | | | | logic can occasionally overrule the "rules." Result |
| Don't forget that all bettors should have access | | | | Texas 5, New York Yankees 2. |
| to more than one sportsbook -- local bookies and | | | | Day Underdog Profit Under Record Profit Today's |
| or online gambling sites -- and it's never more | | | | Total Record Record Profit Profit 6 5-3 $54 0-0 |
| important than when betting on the moneyline. | | | | $0 $54 $191 |
| Odds can vary wildly from one bookie or site to | | | | Results |
| the next, and you should shop around for the | | | | DayUnderdog RecordUnderdog ProfitUnder |
| ones giving you the best possible odds on any | | | | RecordUnder ProfitTotal Profit |
| particular game. For instance, if you're betting 5 | | | | 65-3$540-0$0$54 |
| games on a particular day, you may want to | | | | This is the kind of day you expect by selectively |
| spread those wagers over 2 Web sites and 3 | | | | picking underdogs, and it could have been even |
| local bookies, depending on who's giving the best | | | | better had I excluded the loss with Chicago and |
| odds on each underdog. | | | | included the win with Texas, which didn't quite |
| The Goal | | | | meet our criteria. As you become comfortable |
| The simple objective is to bet only on baseball | | | | with the System, you'll undoubtedly get a good |
| underdogs that haven't lost 3 or more games in a | | | | sense of when to stray slightly from the Rules. |
| row and are playing against favorites that haven't | | | | DAY 7, Sunday, May 18, 2003 |
| won 3 or more games in a row and are starting | | | | Chicago Cubs (+120, Estes) at St. Louis (-130, |
| mediocre pitchers. | | | | Simontacchi) |
| The Series | | | | Result St. Louis 6, Chicago 3, for a $20 loss. |
| Unlike in most of my Programs, there is no set | | | | Montreal (+120, Ohka) at Colorado (-130, Chacon). |
| Series for this System. Instead, your bets will be | | | | Again, Colorado's pitcher was ranked No. 25, so |
| based on a percentage of your Personal Betting | | | | this is an iffy play, but I'll include it. Result Colorado |
| Bankroll, the Formula for which is below. Of | | | | 4, Montreal 0, for a $20 loss. |
| course, the percentage will increase as your | | | | New York Mets (+130, Glavine) at San Francisco |
| Bankroll builds. | | | | (-140, Ainsworth) |
| The Formula | | | | Result New York 5, San Francisco 1 for a $26 |
| The simple Formula for setting the Series | | | | profit. |
| Amounts in The Baseball Underdog System is | | | | Pittsburgh (Suppan) at Arizona (Webb) |
| .0125 x your Bankroll = Series Amount. | | | | Result Arizona 8, Pittsburgh 6, for a $22 loss on a |
| This means you bet 1.25% of your Bankroll on | | | | total of 8. |
| every game. So, if your Bankroll is $1,600, you | | | | Anaheim (+125, Lackey) at Boston (-135, Burkett) |
| would bet $20 on every game. By playing an | | | | Result Boston 5, Angels 3, for a $20 loss. |
| average of 5 games per day, that means you'll | | | | Tampa Bay (+130, Kennedy) at Baltimore (-140, |
| be betting $100 a day. | | | | Daal) |
| This protects your Personal Betting Bankroll in the | | | | Result Tampa Bay 9, Baltimore 8, for a $26 |
| same way as dividing it into 4 Betting Blocks. In | | | | profit. |
| fact, you would have to go 0 wins and 80 losses | | | | Chicago White Sox (Loaiza) at Minnesota (Lohse) |
| -- or 16 days without a win -- to entirely deplete | | | | Result Minnesota 3, Chicago 2, for a $20 profit on |
| your Bankroll. | | | | a total of 8. |
| If you think this starting Series Amount is too low | | | | Results |
| -- and, frankly, with a $1,600 Bankroll, it may be -- | | | | DayUnderdog RecordUnderdog ProfitUnder |
| you can raise it to 2.5% of your Bankroll. This | | | | RecordUnder ProfitTotal Profit |
| means you would have to go 0 wins and 40 | | | | 72-3$-81-1$-2$-10 |
| losses -- or 8 days without a win -- to go through | | | | As I note above, I would stay away from the |
| your whole Bankroll. | | | | Montreal pick with the highly ranked Chacon on |
| The Rules | | | | the mound, which would have given us a winning |
| 1) Each day, check the American and National | | | | day overall, and only 2 losing underdog days |
| League schedules and automatically eliminate any | | | | among 7 in the System. Look for the games |
| games in which the moneyline odds on the | | | | where a pitcher ranked right on the fringe of the |
| underdogs are greater than +150 or so. | | | | Top 25 is pitching, and make sure there are |
| 2) Of the games that remain, eliminate any | | | | additional reasons to bet on the underdog, other |
| games in which the underdogs have lost 3 or | | | | than the attractive odds. |
| more games in a row or the favorites have won | | | | So, how have you done for the week? |
| 3 or more games in a row. (This information is | | | | Results |
| included in almost all newspapers' daily MLB | | | | DaysUnderdog RecordUnderdog ProfitUnder |
| standings.) | | | | RecordUnder ProfitTotal Profit |
| 3) Of the games that are left, eliminate any | | | | 1-718-15$1475-3$34$181 |
| games in which the favored team's pitcher is | | | | The 3 key criteria for selecting games in The |
| among the Top 20 of the AL or NL in ERA, or | | | | Baseball Underdog System has helped you pick 18 |
| NPERA, as determined by Jeff Sagarin(R) on USA | | | | winners in 33 games (for a .545 winning |
| Today's Web site (see above for a further | | | | percentage), which is a distinct improvement on |
| explanation). | | | | the overall average of underdogs winning 4 of |
| 4) On a day with a full slate of games, you should | | | | every 9 games (or .444). |
| be left with 3 to 9 games to bet on between the | | | | Meanwhile, the 1 criteria for selecting "under" |
| AL and NL. Make $20 wagers (according to our | | | | games -- 2 pitchers in the Top 20 ERA or NPERA |
| example Bankroll) on the underdog in each game, | | | | list dueling it out -- has produced a .625 winning |
| shopping around at all your favorite bookmakers | | | | percentage. |
| for the best possible moneyline odds. | | | | Tips |
| 6) Before making the next day's bets, roll your | | | | 1) Again, when playing moneylines, always use |
| profits into your Personal Betting Bankroll and | | | | more than one bookmaker, whether you play |
| increase your wagers accordingly, putting 1.25% | | | | with local bookies or on the Internet, so you can |
| of your Bankroll on each game. | | | | shop around for the best odds on every single |
| Under the Gun (and the Total) With Two Great | | | | game. |
| Pitchers | | | | 2) In addition to the 3 primary criteria of this |
| When betting on The Baseball Underdog System, | | | | System -- excluding games with a favored Top |
| I always incorporate a second set of plays every | | | | 20 pitcher, favored teams on 3-game winning |
| day on games in which both pitchers are ranked | | | | streaks or underdogs on 3-game losing streaks, |
| in the Top 20 in the league -- always on the | | | | and underdogs with moneylines odds over +150 |
| "under" total set by oddsmakers. As you might | | | | or so -- you may come up with more of your |
| expect, these "pitchers duels" often go under the | | | | own to filter out other "bubble" games. Research |
| total set by oddsmakers, usually somewhere | | | | may show an underdog pitcher has never won |
| between 7.5 and 9 runs. | | | | against his opponent, which would certainly red |
| To help you see how this works, I've included | | | | flag that game. You can never do too much |
| them in the real-life examples below, which | | | | homework. And trust your gut. If your underdog |
| feature an entire week from an actual MLB | | | | team has a pitcher on a woeful losing streak |
| season using The Baseball Underdog System. | | | | playing against a hot offensive team with a |
| The Proof | | | | pitcher ranked No. 24, your instincts are probably |
| Rather than merely give you hypothetical | | | | right to pass on that match-up. |
| examples of how to win using The Baseball | | | | 3) You may want to consider excluding games |
| Underdog System, I am including actual examples | | | | with favorite pitchers ranking in the Top 30 of the |
| of a full week of bets on MLB play from Monday, | | | | league -- which would average out to the best 2 |
| May 12, 2003, to Sunday, May 18, 2003. | | | | pitchers on each team. Also, if you wish to play |
| Note that this week was chosen entirely at | | | | even fewer games, you could lower your cutoff |
| random as my collaborator, Nelson Williams, and I | | | | on underdogs to those with moneyline odds of |
| finalized this book for publication, not because it | | | | +140 or so instead of +150. |
| proved the System any better or worse than | | | | 4) If any games feature 2 pitchers that are both |
| any other week might have. For the sake of | | | | on his league's Top 20 list, seriously consider |
| tallying profits, all moneyline wagers on underdogs | | | | playing the game's total as an "under." Again, do |
| are $20 and all "totals" bet on the "under" are $22 | | | | some homework and determine how each team |
| (to win $20). | | | | has done against the other pitcher, and what their |
| You'll see that for Day 1, a Monday with a light | | | | recent run productions are like. Teams, like |
| MLB slate, I've included all the scheduled games, | | | | individual players, go through slumps and streaks |
| with explanations of why each game was either | | | | at the plate. |
| wagered on or eliminated, to help you get a | | | | 5) An ideal System to combine with The Baseball |
| complete understanding of how to determine if | | | | Underdog System is the Parlay Version of The |
| games meet the System's criteria. After Day 1, | | | | Set Monthly-Income System (Chapter 15), which |
| I've included only the games that were "plays," | | | | could end up making you incredible profits if you |
| and their results. Following each team in | | | | bet on baseball every day. |
| parentheses is its moneyline odds and starting | | | | 6) If your Bankroll permits, you may want to run |
| pitcher. | | | | several Series simultaneously. |
| DAY 1, Monday, May 12, 2003 | | | | 7) As always, don't forget to keep track of your |
| Houston (-115, Lindenbrook) at Pittsburgh (+105, | | | | bets using the handy Chart at the end of this |
| Torres) | | | | chapter. |
| The underdog Pittsburgh had lost 3 in a row | | | | Summing It All Up |
| coming into this game, so there is no play. Result | | | | Baseball history shows that in 4 of 9 games, |
| Houston 9, Pittsburgh 4. | | | | underdogs beat favorites. Alone, this doesn't give |
| Chicago Cubs (-240, Prior) at Milwaukee (+200, | | | | you enough of an advantage over your |
| Rusch) | | | | bookmakers, but with the 3 key criteria in The |
| Prior is in the Top 20 and the moneyline odds on | | | | Baseball Underdog System, you'll have the edge |
| Milwaukee are too high, so there is no play. Result | | | | you should need to consistently pick winners. |
| Chicago 11, Milwaukee 5. | | | | Since you have better than even-money odds on |
| New York Mets (+105, Trachsel) at Colorado | | | | your side, you don't have to pick much better |
| (-115, Young) | | | | than 47% underdog winners to post a substantial |
| Since neither team is on a streak, neither pitcher | | | | profit. Taking the example week above, with your |
| is in the Top 20, and the moneyline odds are | | | | profits of $147, and multiplying that by 24 weeks |
| +150 or below, there is a $20 play on New York | | | | of baseball, you can realistically expect to make |
| +105. Result New York 9, Colorado 6, for a $21 | | | | up to $3,500 or more by betting just $20 a game |
| profit. | | | | during baseball season. |
| Florida (+115, Phelps) at San Diego (-125, Condrey) | | | | Here's a quick overview of The Baseball Underdog |
| Again, neither team is on a streak, neither pitcher | | | | System: |
| is in the Top 20, and the moneyline odds aren't | | | | 1) Each day, check the American and National |
| too high, so the $20 play is Florida +115. Result | | | | League schedules and automatically eliminate any |
| Florida 6, San Diego 1, for a $23 profit. | | | | games in which the moneyline odds on the |
| Atlanta (+120, Reynolds) at Los Angeles (-130, | | | | underdogs are greater than +150 or so. |
| Nomo) | | | | 2) Of the games that remain, eliminate any |
| Once again, none of the excluding criteria has | | | | games in which the underdogs have lost 3 or |
| been met, so the $20 play is on Atlanta +120. | | | | more games in a row or the favorites have won |
| Result Atlanta 11, Los Angeles 4, for a $24 profit. | | | | 3 or more games in a row. (This information is |
| Montreal (+130, Day) at San Francisco (-140, | | | | included in almost all newspapers' daily MLB |
| Moss) | | | | standings.) |
| Both pitchers are in the Top 20, which means it is | | | | 3) Of the games that are left, eliminate any |
| not a traditional play. But I'd play it as a $22 | | | | games in which the favored team's pitcher is |
| "under" wager on the day's total of 7.5. Result | | | | among the Top 20 of the AL or NL in ERA, or |
| Montreal 4, San Francisco 3, for a $20 profit. | | | | NPERA, as determined by Jeff Sagarin(R) on USA |
| Kansas City (+135, Affeldt) at Minnesota (-145, | | | | Today's Web site (see above for a further |
| May) | | | | explanation). |
| As neither pitcher is in the Top 20 or on a streak, | | | | 4) On a day with a full slate of games, you should |
| and the odds are favorable, the play is on Kansas | | | | be left with 3 to 9 games to bet on between the |
| City + 135. Result Kansas City 3, Minnesota 2, for | | | | AL and NL. Make $20 wagers (according to our |
| a $27 profit. | | | | example Bankroll) on the underdog in each game, |
| Results | | | | shopping around at all your favorite bookmakers |
| DayUnderdog RecordUnderdog ProfitUnder | | | | for the best possible moneyline odds. |
| RecordUnder ProfitTotal Profit | | | | 6) Before making the next day's bets, roll your |
| 14-0$951-0$20$115 | | | | profits into your Personal Betting Bankroll and |
| This day couldn't prove the System any better, | | | | increase your wagers accordingly, putting 1.25% |
| as you go 4-0 on underdogs and 1-0 on unders. | | | | of your Bankroll on each game. |