Suppose I am using what I call "best spot" handicapping
where I try to identify situations where the selected player has
clearly "one, and only one" best chance for a win in
the entire performance.
I determine that Mongo's best chance is in game 5 post 3 partnered
with Brutus. Now if game 1 is singles and Mongo:
A - has unfavorable post #
B - is not a particularly good singles player
C - is a slow starter anyway, whether it be singles, doubles,
triples, or whatever
D - faces superior talent in the low posts
E - fits any reasonable blend of A-B-C-D
then, when he does nothing whatsoever in that game I absolutely
DO NOT count it as a demerit.
Next, in game 2 post 6, paired with one of his least productive
partners, he scores 3 straight points before losing to the 1 who
wins once more before losing to the 4 who then goes out ending
up with 416. That tells me that Mongo was sharp, was "going
for it", but did not get a second chance on the court. Interestingly,
there is a whole class of numbers, eg 215, 317, etc that can be
interpreted as providing a possibly stroboscopic picture of who-did-what
in the first round. So when Tiger states that you would have to
be watching to use this angle, well, not always.
Next, let's say that Mongo sits out game 3, but then in game
4 post 8 he gets to game point before losing to post 3 who goes
on to win. 384 is another Strobo-Cop number that would usually
be associated with 3 winning 2nd time up, and thus suggesting
that again Mongo was denied a second chance on the court.
So, what do we have?
Game 1 singles - objection, irrelevant
Game 3 "winning effort" that did not result in a
win
Game 4 another potentially "winning effort" that
fell short due to no 2nd time up
For me, basically "camping out" and waiting for g5
p3 Mongo-Brutus to arrive, this is an ideal wagering situation.
A - Mongo showed me that he is in sizzling form, even with
his weaker partners.
B - He didn't quite win, so no letup is expected. Instead we
are hoping he is in a "Hungry, like the wolf" condition.
Anyway, this is a provocative way of looking at jai-alai, owing
to what it implies.
Namely that focus/effort/intensity/condition are not necessarily
constant from day to day or from game to game. It also implies
that if I can identify Mongo's best spot, so can he. He is capable
of having the thought, "Wow, I've got all crap posts and
crap partners tonight except for one case, game 5. Looks like
it's do or die, right there." And somehow that awareness
manifests itself into a smell-the-win extra effort.
OTOH, maybe it's not that provaocative after all. If you have
read the various discussion boards over the years, you might have
seen quotes from actual players where they state that they are
"more comfortable" with certain partners. So why wouldn't
they be more able to play at their top level in those cases?
