Hooligans Sportsbook

Recent Trends vs. historical trends

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    22 Replies •
  • Views 1,807 Views
Follow
mcbaseball10

mcbaseball10

Outnumbered
Since
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
7,524
Score
939
Tokens
0
When you guys weight the strength of your plays based off numbers, how do you differentiate between a last 10 game trend vs. an historical trend? I am weighing a few factors on a play that I see a big edge on recently, but historically it is not that significant. Baseball is a streaky game so I am wondering how the experienced gambler would evaluate these things.
 
On a sidenote, I struggled with whether to say "an historical trend" or "a historical trend." I was pleased to find I am not the only one who is conflicted with the use of "a" or "an" before an 'H' word.

http://grammartips.homestead.com/historical.html

Long article short-"a historical" is properly the correct American way to say it. Just doesn't sound right to me.
 
I give quite a bit more weight to long-term historical trends with large samples of data. That is always my starting point. I use recent trends much less. The actual ratio depends on the game. Some sports I go 100% with long-term trends. Baseball is the one game where I give the most weight to (some) recent trends but still, everything starts with long-term data for me.




I definitely go with "a historical." The important factor to me is if the h is silent. Like I would say "an honest man" or "an hour and a half" but if you pronounce the "h" I use "a" such as "a hamburger" or "a hill of beans."

I'm glad we had this talk.
 
If you see something that's working short-term but hasn't worked long-term, I'd want you to have a really good explanation for why that would be before expecting a +EV bet. Preferably, you would have come up with the explanation before finding the trend, as it's often too easy to come up with something to explain an enticing looking find.

It's a lot better to have a theory first, and then find results to support it, than the other way around. But, the other way around is usually what you see when people look into short-term trends.
 
I'm in the short term trends category. Not because I want to be contrarian but because things evolve, players change, situations differ. a team historically has owned another team and while it's well documented and there is evidence to indicate why it HAS been that way doesn't take into consideration what may be different now. Maybe a team has added a new player who is having a career season and regardless of what the history between the two teams has been it's not the same teams today.

Obviously I don't exclude historical trends in certain situations. In a golf Major history dictates that the edge favors a player who is experienced in such situations.

MacB, I am not trying to argue for short term stats nor against historical data. I think they both have distnct value. I know I kid around about how I pick games and while on occasion I do just see something and go with a hunch I do generally take things a tad bit more serious than I let on. There is merit in both approaches.
 
MrX
If you see something that's working short-term but hasn't worked long-term, I'd want you to have a really good explanation for why that would be before expecting a +EV bet. Preferably, you would have come up with the explanation before finding the trend, as it's often too easy to come up with something to explain an enticing looking find.

It's a lot better to have a theory first, and then find results to support it, than the other way around. But, the other way around is usually what you see when people look into short-term trends.
Click to expand...

Mr. X, thank you. Your rationale is very clear and helps put things into perspective.
 
I have no opinion or insight about trends.

But I'm intrigued by Muddy's and MrX's posts - unless I'm mistaken you guys seem to be referring to specific situational trends that have occurred and still occur at a reasonable frequency. Now if you put your money on historical trends, you're basically saying that the market isn't efficient - otherwise it would've corrected itself a long time ago, no?

I can see how there would still be opportunity to profit off of these if the bookmakers intentionally and consistently open with significantly skewed odds that you guys are able to spot, and pound, before the self-correcting market comes in to smooth out the inefficiency. I guess that would be the key?
 
Most short term trends are simply a product of random walk and have zero statistical significance. After five spins of roulette, the ball lands on red five times. Would you expect the odds that the next spin lands on red to be any different? Similarly, if a guy hits 4 home runs in the last 10 games but previously had 9 home runs in a 12 year career, would you expect him to keep hitting home runs at that pace?
 
The roulette logic actually came to mind after I posed the question.

Your example is an extreme case of a short term trend as home runs would have to be one of the more difficult things to predict. Your sample size would be extremely small.
I was looking at a team's Batting average vs. Left handed pitchers over a ten game period which would stretch out quite a bit of time as they haven't faced many LH pitchers throughout the season in relation to team BA vs. right handed pitchers over the same time period. Team runs per game vs. LH and RH was also a big difference as I looked at the numbers. This particular situation may not be that big of a deal, but it led me to the question about how others weigh the recent trends vs. trends as a whole. It was just a thought provoking thing for me as I continue to learn.
 
Found this article just a few minutes ago on Cincinnati.com. Nothing to do with anything I said earlier, just found it interesting how many guys are performing above their career averages this season for the Reds.

HITTERS

UP (current BA/career BA entering season)

Brandon Phillips .282 / .265

Jay Bruce .265 / .240

Joey Votto .324 / .310

Jonny Gomes .262 / .241

Scott Rolen .302 / .284

Ramon Hernandez .303 / .262

Miguel Cairo .295 / .266

Laynce Nix . 284 / .236

Ryan Hanigan .284 / .266

Paul Janish .291 / .205

DOWN (current / entering season)

Orlando Cabrera .260 / .275

Drew Stubbs .237 / .267

PITCHERS

LOWER (current ERA / career ERA entering season)

Bronson Arroyo 3.87 / 4.23

Johnny Cueto 3.38 / 4.61

Homer Bailey 4.92 / 5.45

Nick Masset 3.83 / 3.97

Arthur Rhodes 1.37 / 4.15

HIGHER (current/ entering season)

Aaron Harang 5.02 / 4.24

Francisco Cordero 3.98 / 3.18

Edinson Volquez 4.98 / 4.37

Carlos Fisher 5.68 / 4.47

SAME

Bill Bray 3.86 / 3.86
 
mcbaseball10
The roulette logic actually came to mind after I posed the question.

Your example is an extreme case of a short term trend as home runs would have to be one of the more difficult things to predict. Your sample size would be extremely small.
I was looking at a team's Batting average vs. Left handed pitchers over a ten game period which would stretch out quite a bit of time as they haven't faced many LH pitchers throughout the season in relation to team BA vs. right handed pitchers over the same time period. Team runs per game vs. LH and RH was also a big difference as I looked at the numbers. This particular situation may not be that big of a deal, but it led me to the question about how others weigh the recent trends vs. trends as a whole. It was just a thought provoking thing for me as I continue to learn.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's an extreme example. However, while the probability of hitting a home run in any particular game isn't as clear cut as simply looking at historical frequency, no matter what the time constraint, a 12 year career of at-bats is not a small sample size.
 
MonkeyF0cker
Yes, it's an extreme example. However, while the probability of hitting a home run in any particular game isn't as clear cut as simply looking at historical odds, no matter what the time constraint, a 12 year career of at-bats is not a small sample size.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more about contributing factors to a win/loss over/under than a specific occurrence. How recent performance is evaluated in the overall scheme of things.
 
mcbaseball10
I was thinking more about contributing factors to a win/loss over/under than a specific occurrence. How recent performance is evaluated in the overall scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Let's say you have a player who has consistently hit around .220 in his 4 year career against LHP. However, in his last 10 games against LHP, he has hit .680. What does his recent performance indicate to you?
 
I'm not sure one players stats is going to impact how I would bet on a particular game, but I understand your point.
So your answer to my original question would be that a recent trend is not going to have any impact on how you look at a particular game.
 
mcbaseball10
I'm not sure one players stats is going to impact how I would bet on a particular game, but I understand your point.
So your answer to my original question would be that a recent trend is not going to have any impact on how you look at a particular game.
Click to expand...

Does it matter if it's one player or the team as a whole? What's the difference? What I'm asking is WHY a player or a team of players' stats are different in the short term. I'm trying to get your rationalization.

I'm not going to give you an answer without making you think about it.
 
Could be any number of factors I suppose that by itself would not be a telling stat without weighing others into the equation:
Strength of opponents, at home vs. on the road, injuries.

This what you are getting at? The stat itself hasn't had enough time to revert to the average because other factors would impact it in the short term?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.