What do y'all think of THIS pattern? Posted on April 20, 2019 at 12:47:11 PM by Craig G
Ok, we go way back, to the days of handicapped post position assignments.
We think about 2 players in particular - Zulaika at Milford, and a very young Arregui at Palm Beach.
Zulaika, as one of the top late fronts, was mostly seeing a lot of 5-6-7. The occasional 4 or 8 would be his most favorable posts.
I believe the same applied for Arregui, but even if it didn't, I am sure that he received post 8 regularly.
My point here is that in doubles, both of these guys were serve-grabbers extraordinaire. Which means that in a handicapped posts era, they were both made for post 8.
Because if they were in the 8, then no matter how many strong, statistically-appealing teams you put in the 5-6-7 zone, our guys would only have to face one of them. And if they shredded the serve, then it's "Hey top teams, eat my dust!" And they would then proceed to buzz thru the comparative weakies in the "low zone". (1-2-3)
Anyone believe this? Anyone think it's BS?
If I'm right, and the pattern wasn't totally obvious to the betting public - owing to them not wearing blinkers and isolating the pattern down to its core mechanism - then that means that if you had bet that type of scenario exclusively, well, percentage-wise, you would have hugely outperformed what most people think is possible.
BTW, since I live less than 15 minutes from Palm Beach Jai-Alai, and went there plenty, I can tell you with certainty that if it was a weekend matinee, and the closing game had Arregui in post 8, once he got that first point, you could pretty much count on the main building lights being turned off just a few minutes later.
Anyway, as simple as this idea is, it still touches on some key elements of jai-alai hcap theory. So a few opinions, pro or con, would be appreciated.