Editor’s Note: Since November 2018, Joe has been publishing picks here and back at All Things NIT, our former site. Overall, the results have been mixed, with an average return on investment, per pick, of -2.9% when weighting by confidence (1 for low, 2 for medium, 3 for high) across 3,062 published picks, not including pending futures, and an average return on investment, per pick, of 0.3% across 762 completed high and medium-confidence picks (low confidence picks, these days, are in experimental markets for us).
Use these picks at your own risk. Only you are responsible for any money you lose, and you should not bet more than you can afford to lose. If you have a gambling problem, get help.
Lines for these come from the Vegas consensus or the closest approximation available at the time picks are written, unless otherwise noted. For futures bets and motorsports bets, odds are taken from the better option between Bovada and BetOnline as our best approximation of the Vegas consensus, which isn’t currently/accurately available online. FanGraphs is heavily used in making MLB picks.
Hockey hedging, MLB futures. For futures context: The MLB portfolio started with 520 units, with another 520 in reserve in case we need them for hedging. The NHL portfolio started with 100 units, with another 100 in reserve in case we needed them for hedging (we did, and do).
NLCS
For the first time possibly all year, there’s positive value on the Mets in this market, and we’ll happily grab it. Hopefully it lasts (because we could use more on these guys), but regardless, this is helpful.
Pick: New York to win +400. Medium confidence.
Pick: New York to win +400. Medium confidence.
Colorado @ Tampa Bay
Ok, a little meta here before we get into the picks themselves. As it says up above in that big blob of italicized text, we get our odds from different places for single games than we do for futures. The reason for this is that there aren’t good, updated, accurate futures consensus odds available like there are for single games. The industry just hasn’t gotten to that point, for a variety of reasons. So, we use two prominent offshore sportsbooks to source our futures odds, since they’re theoretically available to the highest number of our readers, making them the most effective equivalent of a consensus. For the daily odds, we use the Vegas consensus itself. This doesn’t cause issues until the very end of our futures efforts, normally. At the end, though, we might bet on an individual game, and that’s when it gets funky. Because of all of this, we have different odds on the moneyline here than we do below. That’s what’s happening here. Now, the picks themselves:
For the first time all playoffs, Gelo sees positive value on the Avalanche, and while it’ll be funny if this backfires on us, we’ll take it. Simultaneously, it sees the game going over six goals again. 6.20’s its number.
Pick: Colorado to win -110. Low confidence.
Pick: Over 6 (+101). Low confidence.
Game 3: Colorado @ Tampa Bay (futures portfolio)
Again, this is silly, but different odds here. We’re hoping to get to a spot where we can bet enough on the Avalanche that them winning the series becomes a decently profitable outcome, but for the time being, we’re just trying to halve our current liability, in a continuation of our recent approach. 21 units.
Pick: Colorado to win +100. Low confidence. x21
