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% when weighting by confidence (1 for low, 2 for medium, 3 for high) across 7,925 published picks, not including pending futures; and an average return on investment, per pick, of +1% across 2,399 completed high and medium-confidence picks. The low confidence picks are the problem. Most of our picks are in the low confidence category.
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’re afraid you might have a gambling problem, seek help.
Odds for these come from the better option between Bovada and BetOnline. We used to use the Vegas Consensus, but it’s no longer consistently available in an accurate form online. We rely heavily on FanGraphs for all our MLB action. We rely heavily on Nate Silver’s presidential election model for our election futures. For college football bets, we primarily use our own model. For NFL bets, we lean on ESPN’s FPI.
Active markets are MLB futures and single-game NFL.
The context on each market:
MLB futures – In four of the five years we’ve done these, we’ve profited, twice by large margins. We began this season with 750 units in our portfolio. We placed two medium confidence bets most weekdays throughout the regular season, as usual, then pivoted to placing a more variable number throughout the playoffs, as usual. We’re currently big fans of the Tigers, Padres, and Mets, and we do not want the Dodgers to win it all.
Single-game NFL bets – We published these for the first time last year, and they went terribly. So far this year, though, we’re 10–5 and up 4.34 units.
NLDS: Los Angeles vs. San Diego
Our MLB futures portfolio entered today with no pending bets on the Dodgers. We didn’t place an NLCS or World Series futures on the Dodgers all year. For every other remaining team, we saw value in both those markets at least once.
So, with value available on Los Angeles to win the NLDS, we’re going to take it. It’s narrow, but both the FanGraphs Playoff Odds (don’t consider pitching matchups) and ZiPS (do consider pitching matchups) have LA favored, and while Freddie Freeman’s injury status is concerning, so is Xander Bogaerts’s.
This is only ten units. We’d lose 82 units if the Dodgers won the NLCS and 238 if the Dodgers won the World Series (if we didn’t place any more bets). But this chips away at the liability, and it doesn’t meaningfully hurt our Padres upside.
Here’s where the portfolio now stands, considering only series in which the given team could play (e.g., the Tigers’ number doesn’t consider the Phillies/Mets NLDS). It’s rounded to the nearest whole unit. Through division titles and the Wild Card Series, we’re down 36.21 units so far.
| Team | Remaining Upside/Downside |
| Guardians | 26 |
| Yankees | -32 |
| Padres | 611 |
| Mets | 258 |
| Phillies | -67 |
| Dodgers | -308 |
| Tigers | 1110 |
| Royals | 34 |
Pick: Los Angeles to win +100. Medium confidence. x5
New Orleans @ Kansas City
We saw something yesterday about how bad the public’s record has been on NFL games so far this year. I didn’t write it down or fact-check it, but if it’s true, it might explain some of why we’ve had success simply rolling with FPI.
Tonight, the public is fairly split. Action Network says 55% of bets are on the Saints, but given how far the line has fallen, I’m not sure if that means 55% of bets at 5.5 points are on the Saints or if it means 55% of bets at all lines, from 8 to 5, are on the Saints. Either way, we’re not changing our approach when it’s been working so well. We’ll go with FPI again, which has the line at 4.7 using even a full 2.0-point home-field advantage. (I don’t know what FPI uses for home-field advantage, so our “process” has involved guessing some on that front.)
Pick: New Orleans +5.5 (–113). Low confidence.
