1
00:00:00,400 --> 00:00:02,440
Speaker 1: The Action Network Podcast.

2
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:12,000
Speaker 2: I'm just about that, Action Boss.

3
00:00:14,640 --> 00:00:18,799
Speaker 3: Welcome to The Action Network Podcast presented by bet MGM.

4
00:00:18,960 --> 00:00:21,840
Speaker 3: This is our Best Bets episode for the twenty twenty

5
00:00:21,920 --> 00:00:25,720
Speaker 3: four Masters t and off this week at Augusta National.

6
00:00:25,800 --> 00:00:28,440
Speaker 3: My name is Maria Marino, and joining me are two

7
00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:33,159
Speaker 3: very special guests. Spencer Agiar, golf betting expert and co

8
00:00:33,240 --> 00:00:36,319
Speaker 3: host of Links and Locks, the golf Betting podcast from

9
00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:41,839
Speaker 3: the Action Network and NFL Network. Cynthia Freeland, analytics expert,

10
00:00:41,960 --> 00:00:45,920
Speaker 3: passionate model maker and the newest Action Network contributor for

11
00:00:46,080 --> 00:00:49,480
Speaker 3: all Things Golf. These two will be examining their respective

12
00:00:49,560 --> 00:00:53,080
Speaker 3: models and delivering the biggest edges they're seeing for this

13
00:00:53,159 --> 00:00:56,120
Speaker 3: week at Augusta. But before we dive into those, for

14
00:00:56,240 --> 00:01:00,480
Speaker 3: our listeners who may not bet golf on a regular basis, Spencer,

15
00:01:00,480 --> 00:01:03,840
Speaker 3: I'll start with you, what makes the Masters a unique

16
00:01:03,840 --> 00:01:07,360
Speaker 3: tournament from a golf modeling or gambling perspective.

17
00:01:08,160 --> 00:01:11,000
Speaker 1: I think the Masters delivers a really unique outlook from

18
00:01:11,000 --> 00:01:15,200
Speaker 1: a statistical perspective when you dive into the data. Like obviously,

19
00:01:15,240 --> 00:01:16,960
Speaker 1: part of that answer is going to stem from the

20
00:01:16,959 --> 00:01:19,760
Speaker 1: fact that it's the only major championship that takes place

21
00:01:19,800 --> 00:01:22,720
Speaker 1: at the same track yearly. It's always nice when you

22
00:01:22,720 --> 00:01:25,280
Speaker 1: can pull one hundred years of expected returns at a

23
00:01:25,319 --> 00:01:28,399
Speaker 1: venue with about twenty of those outcomes yielding top notch

24
00:01:28,480 --> 00:01:32,520
Speaker 1: statistical expectations after shot tracking got added to the equation.

25
00:01:33,600 --> 00:01:35,840
Speaker 2: You know, Cynthia, you know this. I'm sure like not.

26
00:01:35,880 --> 00:01:40,480
Speaker 1: Having to extrapolate out expectations typically helps the process of

27
00:01:40,520 --> 00:01:44,399
Speaker 1: rendering predictability when you run a model that is not

28
00:01:44,680 --> 00:01:47,920
Speaker 1: necessarily too dissimilar to other courses on tour that have

29
00:01:47,960 --> 00:01:49,639
Speaker 1: been inside the rotation for a while.

30
00:01:49,920 --> 00:01:52,200
Speaker 2: You look at any of your run of the mill events.

31
00:01:52,320 --> 00:01:55,600
Speaker 1: But I think the real separating quality that makes Augusta

32
00:01:55,680 --> 00:01:59,040
Speaker 1: National the most predictable venue on tour in terms of

33
00:01:59,120 --> 00:02:03,400
Speaker 1: rollover success, that's really stems from two main points. One,

34
00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:06,360
Speaker 1: we get these sub ninety man fields every year that

35
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:09,600
Speaker 1: generates about thirty percent of the participants who will land

36
00:02:09,680 --> 00:02:10,840
Speaker 1: under one of two issues.

37
00:02:10,880 --> 00:02:12,160
Speaker 2: When you look at past results.

38
00:02:12,480 --> 00:02:14,360
Speaker 1: The first would be only one golfers ever won this

39
00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:16,600
Speaker 1: event over the age of forty five. That was Jack

40
00:02:16,720 --> 00:02:18,760
Speaker 1: Nicholas in nineteen eighty six. When you won at the

41
00:02:18,760 --> 00:02:22,280
Speaker 1: age of forty six, you know, don't shoot the messenger here.

42
00:02:22,360 --> 00:02:25,800
Speaker 1: That would remove seven players. That's going to include Tiger Woods.

43
00:02:26,040 --> 00:02:29,280
Speaker 1: Phil Mickelson from the Mix. I think the problem in

44
00:02:29,320 --> 00:02:31,440
Speaker 1: that area, if you're really trying to find from an

45
00:02:31,440 --> 00:02:34,919
Speaker 1: analytical standpoint of why it doesn't work, there's massive undulation

46
00:02:35,040 --> 00:02:37,680
Speaker 1: at this property. It takes a toll on your body

47
00:02:37,720 --> 00:02:40,200
Speaker 1: having to walk and play this venue over four days.

48
00:02:40,400 --> 00:02:41,800
Speaker 2: And then the second part.

49
00:02:41,639 --> 00:02:43,960
Speaker 1: Of that equation comes down to that we've only had

50
00:02:44,000 --> 00:02:47,079
Speaker 1: one first time winner since nineteen seventy nine. That would

51
00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:50,560
Speaker 1: be Fuzzy Zeller. I do believe this year probably delivers

52
00:02:50,600 --> 00:02:53,280
Speaker 1: the best crop of participants in that area in a while.

53
00:02:53,600 --> 00:02:57,080
Speaker 1: You have names like Ludwig Oberg, Wyndham Clark. Those are

54
00:02:57,200 --> 00:02:59,680
Speaker 1: high end names that you don't typically see playing their

55
00:02:59,680 --> 00:03:03,120
Speaker 1: first with this much past success. But even if we

56
00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:04,520
Speaker 1: want to keep them in the mix and say that

57
00:03:04,520 --> 00:03:06,920
Speaker 1: those are names that have a potential to win, we're

58
00:03:06,960 --> 00:03:10,400
Speaker 1: still talking about an additional twenty percent of participants that

59
00:03:10,680 --> 00:03:13,480
Speaker 1: likely if we're shooting for pure inequity in this situation,

60
00:03:14,040 --> 00:03:16,920
Speaker 1: lose a lot of that discussion. And really it's the

61
00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:20,280
Speaker 1: ladder of that explanation of the first timers that we're

62
00:03:20,320 --> 00:03:24,880
Speaker 1: talking about with trying to find demonstrating predictability here of

63
00:03:25,440 --> 00:03:28,480
Speaker 1: there are so many nuances of Augusta National that's going

64
00:03:28,560 --> 00:03:31,800
Speaker 1: to take time to learn, multiple tiered perspective on the

65
00:03:31,800 --> 00:03:35,000
Speaker 1: putting surfaces that's going to produce nearly sixty percent more

66
00:03:35,040 --> 00:03:38,280
Speaker 1: three puts than average. You have all these runoff locations

67
00:03:38,320 --> 00:03:41,720
Speaker 1: on the surface. This is a very fun track because

68
00:03:41,720 --> 00:03:44,119
Speaker 1: we have all the data that we can possibly look

69
00:03:44,160 --> 00:03:46,800
Speaker 1: for at this venue. I think we can talk about aggression,

70
00:03:46,800 --> 00:03:48,320
Speaker 1: and it's something that I'll get into a little bit

71
00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:51,760
Speaker 1: later where I think certain guys like Bryson Deshamba, they

72
00:03:51,800 --> 00:03:54,120
Speaker 1: look at this wide open facility and they believe that

73
00:03:54,160 --> 00:03:57,080
Speaker 1: there's the potential to just bomb away here. But that's

74
00:03:57,080 --> 00:04:00,360
Speaker 1: not necessarily the best blueprint for success. You're gonna have

75
00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:01,800
Speaker 1: to be good around the green, You're gonna have to

76
00:04:01,840 --> 00:04:03,680
Speaker 1: be good with your putter. You're gonna have to have

77
00:04:03,760 --> 00:04:07,600
Speaker 1: strategy at this course besides just having distance. So uh,

78
00:04:07,720 --> 00:04:10,680
Speaker 1: it's a very nuanced facility that makes for a fun

79
00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:12,520
Speaker 1: betting board at the biggest event of the year.

80
00:04:13,320 --> 00:04:16,160
Speaker 4: I love everything you said. Obviously, the core stuff makes

81
00:04:16,200 --> 00:04:21,119
Speaker 4: it analytically speaking, very I'm not getting easy, but more

82
00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:24,279
Speaker 4: the comps are really direct because you have the comps

83
00:04:24,360 --> 00:04:26,919
Speaker 4: right here. But ultimately, what I'm looking at in this

84
00:04:27,120 --> 00:04:32,400
Speaker 4: year's specifically is really the impact now we have Live coming,

85
00:04:32,560 --> 00:04:35,240
Speaker 4: Like what is going on with that? So I'm kind

86
00:04:35,240 --> 00:04:37,160
Speaker 4: of looking at all, right, we have this rich database

87
00:04:37,160 --> 00:04:41,279
Speaker 4: of historical perspectives. Usually have recent form and everyone's sort

88
00:04:41,279 --> 00:04:45,000
Speaker 4: of plus or minus a match here or there in

89
00:04:45,040 --> 00:04:48,760
Speaker 4: the same sort of recent form. Well this is completely different.

90
00:04:49,080 --> 00:04:51,279
Speaker 4: So let's see. Now we get to test that. We

91
00:04:51,320 --> 00:04:53,680
Speaker 4: need to test drive some of our models to see

92
00:04:53,760 --> 00:04:56,680
Speaker 4: if you know, like you know, does the you know

93
00:04:56,680 --> 00:04:59,000
Speaker 4: ways are about fading right, like it's not good for

94
00:04:59,080 --> 00:05:02,320
Speaker 4: foods if you're a a ghosta And is that true?

95
00:05:02,360 --> 00:05:03,039
Speaker 2: Does that hold?

96
00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:05,520
Speaker 4: Especially now that these guys who've been playing on Live

97
00:05:05,560 --> 00:05:08,160
Speaker 4: have like different experiences with that, They're coming off of

98
00:05:08,400 --> 00:05:11,520
Speaker 4: a different set of circumstances. So just like I mean,

99
00:05:11,640 --> 00:05:14,480
Speaker 4: Spencer put it so perfectly, like we I totally agree

100
00:05:14,480 --> 00:05:16,599
Speaker 4: with you. But now we're just adding in this extra

101
00:05:16,680 --> 00:05:19,599
Speaker 4: element of these people not playing in the same form,

102
00:05:19,680 --> 00:05:22,040
Speaker 4: Like even you know, John Rahm, who I'm gonna talk

103
00:05:22,040 --> 00:05:24,240
Speaker 4: about here in a second, but that's going to be

104
00:05:24,279 --> 00:05:27,880
Speaker 4: an interesting note coming off of what he's been doing

105
00:05:27,920 --> 00:05:31,240
Speaker 4: at Live. Do those data points do they kind of

106
00:05:31,440 --> 00:05:33,200
Speaker 4: line up, we'll see.

107
00:05:34,360 --> 00:05:38,760
Speaker 3: It's so interesting that there's a narrative situation here that

108
00:05:38,800 --> 00:05:41,800
Speaker 3: you can factor into how you want to bet this.

109
00:05:42,080 --> 00:05:46,320
Speaker 3: And Spencer also thought it was interesting, like how you

110
00:05:46,360 --> 00:05:50,120
Speaker 3: talked about the older golfers, you know, struggling at this

111
00:05:50,240 --> 00:05:53,600
Speaker 3: course because it is so taxing on your body, but

112
00:05:53,640 --> 00:05:58,120
Speaker 3: also some more experienced golfers with this tricky course that

113
00:05:58,480 --> 00:06:00,880
Speaker 3: you know, knowing how to play, it might become a

114
00:06:00,920 --> 00:06:04,520
Speaker 3: factor as well. That being said, let's get right into

115
00:06:04,920 --> 00:06:08,240
Speaker 3: our best bets and or biggest edges.

116
00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:09,960
Speaker 4: So Spencer, where you go in first?

117
00:06:10,800 --> 00:06:14,280
Speaker 1: So my models seem to believe that multiple things are

118
00:06:14,320 --> 00:06:17,320
Speaker 1: occurring on this board that are likely in overreaction to

119
00:06:17,480 --> 00:06:21,400
Speaker 1: certain group think mentalities. I will keep this answer strictly

120
00:06:21,480 --> 00:06:24,719
Speaker 1: towards betting here over any of the DFS portions of

121
00:06:24,760 --> 00:06:25,880
Speaker 1: the discussion that we'd.

122
00:06:25,640 --> 00:06:26,120
Speaker 2: Want to have.

123
00:06:26,240 --> 00:06:30,000
Speaker 1: But I'm always going to trust my math in these spots.

124
00:06:30,400 --> 00:06:33,400
Speaker 1: I understand that there's a belief that certain players can't

125
00:06:33,480 --> 00:06:37,120
Speaker 1: win because of past mistakes, But if we go into

126
00:06:37,200 --> 00:06:40,880
Speaker 1: this tournament under that assumption, like who are we truly

127
00:06:41,040 --> 00:06:44,160
Speaker 1: left with that can capture this title? Like Scotti Scheffler

128
00:06:44,160 --> 00:06:47,640
Speaker 1: five to one. Sure, I mean he's playing historically great

129
00:06:47,680 --> 00:06:50,279
Speaker 1: golf when you look at the ball striking numbers. John

130
00:06:50,400 --> 00:06:54,280
Speaker 1: Rahm in that twelve to one territory defending champion makes

131
00:06:54,279 --> 00:06:57,320
Speaker 1: a lot of sense. For that reason, Brooks Kepka twenty

132
00:06:57,400 --> 00:07:00,840
Speaker 1: to one. My model's always been lower on Kepka than

133
00:07:00,839 --> 00:07:03,280
Speaker 1: public consensus. I think that's been one of those weak

134
00:07:03,360 --> 00:07:07,479
Speaker 1: or blind spots where my math just cannot properly equate

135
00:07:07,600 --> 00:07:12,400
Speaker 1: this increase output that we get from him in major championships.

136
00:07:12,400 --> 00:07:14,480
Speaker 1: I mean, he's produced victories out of it, so I

137
00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:16,600
Speaker 1: don't necessarily want to take that away from him. But

138
00:07:16,720 --> 00:07:18,760
Speaker 1: like you can sell me on any of those three

139
00:07:18,760 --> 00:07:22,400
Speaker 1: options being worth considering. But the point remains to this

140
00:07:22,480 --> 00:07:25,240
Speaker 1: discussion that I'm having. If the math dictates that there

141
00:07:25,240 --> 00:07:27,840
Speaker 1: are more than three people who can win, there are

142
00:07:27,960 --> 00:07:29,960
Speaker 1: naturally going to be a handful of golfers that are

143
00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:32,880
Speaker 1: drifting way too far up this board because of these

144
00:07:32,960 --> 00:07:37,400
Speaker 1: preconceived notions from past struggles. The very first outright bet

145
00:07:37,400 --> 00:07:39,560
Speaker 1: that I placed was on Xander Schaffley at twenty two

146
00:07:39,560 --> 00:07:42,480
Speaker 1: to one. That number has trickled down more into the

147
00:07:42,640 --> 00:07:46,000
Speaker 1: sixteen to eighteen to one range since reopening on Monday.

148
00:07:46,040 --> 00:07:49,040
Speaker 1: But I actually still think there's a little value to

149
00:07:49,040 --> 00:07:51,360
Speaker 1: be had at the price. This is an argument that

150
00:07:51,400 --> 00:07:54,120
Speaker 1: I've made a few times already this week. But give

151
00:07:54,240 --> 00:07:57,400
Speaker 1: Xander a single victory at any point this year, and

152
00:07:57,440 --> 00:07:59,800
Speaker 1: that is what we are lacking from the profile. I

153
00:08:00,080 --> 00:08:02,960
Speaker 1: think he's twelve to one in this tournament, and without

154
00:08:02,960 --> 00:08:05,800
Speaker 1: that victory, we don't have it right now. But like,

155
00:08:06,200 --> 00:08:08,240
Speaker 1: I know what I'm signing up for when it comes

156
00:08:08,240 --> 00:08:12,120
Speaker 1: to my outright card, there's clearly gonna be this public

157
00:08:12,160 --> 00:08:15,640
Speaker 1: disdain that turns into any of these wagers where all

158
00:08:15,720 --> 00:08:18,240
Speaker 1: you hear is this I told you so rebuttal when

159
00:08:18,920 --> 00:08:21,520
Speaker 1: when or if Xander goes out there and doesn't win

160
00:08:21,560 --> 00:08:26,440
Speaker 1: this tournament, it's much easier to punch these reduced price

161
00:08:26,520 --> 00:08:30,720
Speaker 1: tickets on. I don't want to necessarily throw out individual

162
00:08:30,800 --> 00:08:32,880
Speaker 1: names here in like cherry pick options, but I think

163
00:08:32,880 --> 00:08:34,400
Speaker 1: there's a lot of options that make sense. But like

164
00:08:34,640 --> 00:08:38,680
Speaker 1: take a Jordan's speed for example, you have this built

165
00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:41,959
Speaker 1: in tax that's coming into play because of this past

166
00:08:41,960 --> 00:08:43,760
Speaker 1: success that we have seen at the Masters.

167
00:08:44,040 --> 00:08:46,320
Speaker 2: In a vacuum situation. I like him this week.

168
00:08:46,360 --> 00:08:47,720
Speaker 1: I think he makes a lot of sense for anybody

169
00:08:47,760 --> 00:08:50,120
Speaker 1: that wants to bet him, but it's one of those

170
00:08:50,120 --> 00:08:53,760
Speaker 1: situations where people are more willing to overpay and get

171
00:08:53,800 --> 00:08:56,560
Speaker 1: a worse price on somebody like Jordan's speech, just because

172
00:08:56,600 --> 00:08:58,959
Speaker 1: you can point to the narrative he's a major champion,

173
00:08:59,240 --> 00:09:02,320
Speaker 1: he's won the Mass before, he's always competing at Augusta

174
00:09:02,440 --> 00:09:06,160
Speaker 1: versus this like getting caught in a web of going

175
00:09:06,200 --> 00:09:10,000
Speaker 1: against the perceived grain here, and when Xander doesn't produce

176
00:09:10,080 --> 00:09:12,440
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, you have a problem. But according

177
00:09:12,440 --> 00:09:15,240
Speaker 1: to my model, that's where the value really comes into play.

178
00:09:15,320 --> 00:09:18,680
Speaker 1: So I always run my model to project three separate outcomes.

179
00:09:19,040 --> 00:09:21,480
Speaker 1: I want pure upside that's going to remove any of

180
00:09:21,520 --> 00:09:25,880
Speaker 1: your non statistical downside traits. I want safety that's essentially

181
00:09:25,880 --> 00:09:28,360
Speaker 1: going to highlight made cut equity for this tournament. And

182
00:09:28,400 --> 00:09:31,920
Speaker 1: then I also want an overall grade that helps form

183
00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:35,800
Speaker 1: the primary blueprint of my projection that I'm using most

184
00:09:35,800 --> 00:09:39,600
Speaker 1: heavily here. Naturally, Scotty Scheffler, top ranked player in this model,

185
00:09:40,080 --> 00:09:42,120
Speaker 1: I think you're making massive errors with the way that

186
00:09:42,120 --> 00:09:43,839
Speaker 1: you're building your math if you're coming out with.

187
00:09:43,760 --> 00:09:44,880
Speaker 2: Any other answer than that.

188
00:09:45,000 --> 00:09:47,840
Speaker 1: But I do want to note because it's very noteworthy

189
00:09:47,880 --> 00:09:50,880
Speaker 1: for this tournament Shockley was the first man in almost

190
00:09:50,880 --> 00:09:53,320
Speaker 1: a year that when I ran this purely from an

191
00:09:53,400 --> 00:09:57,440
Speaker 1: upside perspective, actually graded higher than Scotty Scheffler. For me,

192
00:09:57,720 --> 00:09:59,200
Speaker 1: you add in some of these other weights, and all

193
00:09:59,200 --> 00:10:00,959
Speaker 1: of a sudden, Scotty jumps back into the mix to

194
00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:04,640
Speaker 1: number one. But my model places Shoftly first in this

195
00:10:04,679 --> 00:10:07,480
Speaker 1: field for proximity over two hundred yards in twenty twenty four.

196
00:10:07,800 --> 00:10:11,120
Speaker 1: He's also first in all these additional categories weighted proximity

197
00:10:11,120 --> 00:10:12,680
Speaker 1: from one hundred and fifty to one hundred and seventy

198
00:10:12,679 --> 00:10:15,600
Speaker 1: five yards over a two year running perspective, expected Par

199
00:10:15,760 --> 00:10:19,720
Speaker 1: three and Par four scoring, weighted scrambling, and then projected

200
00:10:19,720 --> 00:10:22,480
Speaker 1: strokes gaining total, which is just recalculating the data to

201
00:10:22,480 --> 00:10:25,840
Speaker 1: fit augustin National. Here, I get the risk. I get

202
00:10:25,880 --> 00:10:27,720
Speaker 1: this as a golfer that has not one since July

203
00:10:27,800 --> 00:10:30,600
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty two. But I think we've gotten too

204
00:10:30,679 --> 00:10:33,160
Speaker 1: caught up in this narrative that Xander can't get across

205
00:10:33,160 --> 00:10:37,280
Speaker 1: the finish line. And from a mathematical perspective, my model

206
00:10:37,360 --> 00:10:38,480
Speaker 1: really likes Shoftley.

207
00:10:38,480 --> 00:10:38,920
Speaker 2: This week.

208
00:10:40,200 --> 00:10:43,440
Speaker 4: My model agrees, and I like Shaffy too, And I'm

209
00:10:43,480 --> 00:10:47,439
Speaker 4: with you on Scheffler being number one for most I do.

210
00:10:47,720 --> 00:10:50,480
Speaker 4: I do a couple versions of models too. I do,

211
00:10:50,559 --> 00:10:52,720
Speaker 4: like depends on how I want to do it. But

212
00:10:53,000 --> 00:10:55,319
Speaker 4: I've been up to like five sometimes because I'm crazy,

213
00:10:56,160 --> 00:10:59,080
Speaker 4: But ultimately I was kind of like, well, where is

214
00:10:59,080 --> 00:11:01,640
Speaker 4: is there some value? It's boring to take skyty sheffeys. Okay,

215
00:11:01,640 --> 00:11:03,920
Speaker 4: maybe it's not boring, Maybe that's fun. I don't know.

216
00:11:03,960 --> 00:11:07,240
Speaker 4: But I'm looking back at the John Rahm situation, and

217
00:11:07,320 --> 00:11:10,360
Speaker 4: of course I'm looking at the driving statistics from Live Okay,

218
00:11:10,440 --> 00:11:14,160
Speaker 4: so back back up one step here, back to back champs.

219
00:11:14,160 --> 00:11:14,520
Speaker 2: We get it.

220
00:11:14,559 --> 00:11:16,520
Speaker 4: There's only been three that's not a lot.

221
00:11:16,720 --> 00:11:18,320
Speaker 2: But I don't.

222
00:11:18,120 --> 00:11:20,680
Speaker 4: Necessarily think that that is a that to me is

223
00:11:20,720 --> 00:11:23,480
Speaker 4: not very predictive at all. I think recent form is

224
00:11:23,559 --> 00:11:26,480
Speaker 4: very interesting, and it really was his driving statistic that

225
00:11:26,520 --> 00:11:30,040
Speaker 4: put enough risk into my model where he could have

226
00:11:30,200 --> 00:11:33,679
Speaker 4: a good upside. Do I necessarily like, do I think

227
00:11:33,679 --> 00:11:35,640
Speaker 4: he should be the odds on favor twit now? But

228
00:11:35,720 --> 00:11:39,160
Speaker 4: I think that he should ultimately be in consideration, especially

229
00:11:39,280 --> 00:11:41,439
Speaker 4: you know DFS formats. I think that the price and

230
00:11:41,520 --> 00:11:44,800
Speaker 4: the return on in your investment there is very very smart.

231
00:11:45,160 --> 00:11:47,600
Speaker 4: And then I'm looking at like you know, look what

232
00:11:47,720 --> 00:11:50,600
Speaker 4: he's done over eight starts and live. I mean, he

233
00:11:50,720 --> 00:11:53,679
Speaker 4: leads them all in driving. It's it's a different format,

234
00:11:53,760 --> 00:11:56,439
Speaker 4: so it's very hard to kind of recalibrate it for

235
00:11:56,920 --> 00:11:59,280
Speaker 4: you know, I come from football, right, so it's very

236
00:11:59,320 --> 00:12:03,319
Speaker 4: similar to so kind of recalibrating like the college quarterback

237
00:12:03,400 --> 00:12:07,040
Speaker 4: rating to the passer rating to the NFL passer rating

238
00:12:07,040 --> 00:12:09,079
Speaker 4: and trying to figure that out. It's very that's kind

239
00:12:09,080 --> 00:12:13,280
Speaker 4: of the analogy I'll draw there. But I think that

240
00:12:13,520 --> 00:12:16,360
Speaker 4: if someone's poised to have some good upset and make

241
00:12:16,400 --> 00:12:19,480
Speaker 4: them be the fourth backs back winner, that could be

242
00:12:19,920 --> 00:12:21,040
Speaker 4: you know, Genrem.

243
00:12:21,679 --> 00:12:23,720
Speaker 1: You know what we're talking about here with Jen Ram,

244
00:12:24,000 --> 00:12:27,720
Speaker 1: it's an overcorrection to the market where I don't think

245
00:12:27,760 --> 00:12:30,040
Speaker 1: that if you look directly at Scotti Scheffler at five

246
00:12:30,080 --> 00:12:32,400
Speaker 1: to one in Jen Ram at twelve to one, there's

247
00:12:32,480 --> 00:12:35,040
Speaker 1: that big of a disparity between those two players. But

248
00:12:35,080 --> 00:12:37,440
Speaker 1: it's one of those situations of out of sight, out

249
00:12:37,440 --> 00:12:39,880
Speaker 1: of mind, playing a tour that people want to call

250
00:12:39,920 --> 00:12:42,199
Speaker 1: whatever whatever names of an exhibition or whatever we want

251
00:12:42,240 --> 00:12:43,800
Speaker 1: to put to it. At the end of the day,

252
00:12:44,720 --> 00:12:47,000
Speaker 1: I think that it's it's one of those situations where

253
00:12:47,000 --> 00:12:49,000
Speaker 1: this price is drifted a little bit too much, and

254
00:12:49,360 --> 00:12:51,080
Speaker 1: I do tend to agree with you, Like he's the

255
00:12:51,160 --> 00:12:53,440
Speaker 1: second ranked player in my model. From an overall sense,

256
00:12:53,480 --> 00:12:56,120
Speaker 1: there's a ton to like about his game here, and

257
00:12:57,000 --> 00:12:59,800
Speaker 1: I'm always looking for the drift to occur in a

258
00:12:59,800 --> 00:13:02,960
Speaker 1: more can. I'm trying to find the reverse narrative of

259
00:13:03,000 --> 00:13:05,440
Speaker 1: what the public is saying and where can the value

260
00:13:05,480 --> 00:13:08,679
Speaker 1: actually be found on this board? And for me, rom

261
00:13:08,760 --> 00:13:10,760
Speaker 1: is one of those names that I do believe he's

262
00:13:10,800 --> 00:13:13,439
Speaker 1: drifted too far up this board away from the Scottie Shufflers.

263
00:13:13,480 --> 00:13:15,800
Speaker 1: I know what Shuffler's doing is historic, but I don't

264
00:13:15,800 --> 00:13:17,720
Speaker 1: know if it's as big of a difference as public

265
00:13:17,760 --> 00:13:19,120
Speaker 1: perception would lead you to believe.

266
00:13:19,120 --> 00:13:24,040
Speaker 4: Here. Yeah, it's interesting, especially you know the way that

267
00:13:24,080 --> 00:13:27,000
Speaker 4: I look at this and try to characterize it and

268
00:13:27,040 --> 00:13:31,959
Speaker 4: look for differences in volatility. I just to me, volatility

269
00:13:32,040 --> 00:13:33,959
Speaker 4: is like, okay, what are the like if are you

270
00:13:34,040 --> 00:13:37,000
Speaker 4: reaching certain thresholds? Like you can't be below x of

271
00:13:37,040 --> 00:13:39,880
Speaker 4: a putter, right, not like just not gonna happen. You

272
00:13:39,880 --> 00:13:43,120
Speaker 4: can't believe below x strokes gained on your approach just

273
00:13:43,200 --> 00:13:45,720
Speaker 4: not gonna happen here? What's your reason? Form with iron play,

274
00:13:45,880 --> 00:13:49,080
Speaker 4: what's your reason form strokes gained t degree, like, what

275
00:13:49,160 --> 00:13:51,080
Speaker 4: is going on with that? And then driving to me,

276
00:13:51,600 --> 00:13:56,440
Speaker 4: I do tend to I probably overestimate accuracy at the Masters,

277
00:13:56,440 --> 00:13:58,520
Speaker 4: maybe a bit more than other people, at least other

278
00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:01,120
Speaker 4: models that I've been able to see, but I actually

279
00:14:01,200 --> 00:14:03,800
Speaker 4: do think that it matters. And then later on we'll

280
00:14:03,800 --> 00:14:05,920
Speaker 4: talk about a good a decent comp for it for

281
00:14:05,960 --> 00:14:08,880
Speaker 4: like some of your undervalued or maybe like surprise candidates.

282
00:14:08,920 --> 00:14:11,800
Speaker 4: But as I'm I don't know, I'm I'm big on

283
00:14:11,960 --> 00:14:14,000
Speaker 4: Ram this week, I'm all in on Raw. I like

284
00:14:14,080 --> 00:14:16,160
Speaker 4: it sounds good.

285
00:14:16,440 --> 00:14:19,080
Speaker 3: Rom with top tens in five of the past six

286
00:14:19,200 --> 00:14:22,680
Speaker 3: years at Augusta National now Spencer for your next bet,

287
00:14:23,000 --> 00:14:26,040
Speaker 3: you're looking at someone to finish in the top twenty.

288
00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:30,360
Speaker 1: I love Cynthia's answer of volatility. That's something that I

289
00:14:30,400 --> 00:14:33,320
Speaker 1: want to touch on later in the show because volatility

290
00:14:33,400 --> 00:14:36,640
Speaker 1: is oftentimes looked at in the wrong direction when you're

291
00:14:36,680 --> 00:14:39,560
Speaker 1: talking about numbers and models here. But I'm going to

292
00:14:39,640 --> 00:14:41,560
Speaker 1: go with a player that I actually think is safe

293
00:14:41,720 --> 00:14:44,800
Speaker 1: in this perspective. He has a bunch of inequity inside

294
00:14:44,800 --> 00:14:47,800
Speaker 1: of my sheet though too. That's Matthew Fitzpatrick plus one

295
00:14:47,800 --> 00:14:50,320
Speaker 1: point thirty for a top twenty. I also played this

296
00:14:50,400 --> 00:14:52,600
Speaker 1: early in the week as an outright at fifty to one.

297
00:14:52,640 --> 00:14:54,680
Speaker 1: It's dropped more into that forty to one range. Now

298
00:14:55,040 --> 00:14:58,480
Speaker 1: still think that's a perfectly acceptable price. He greater within

299
00:14:58,520 --> 00:15:00,920
Speaker 1: the top ten, win equity care and it it's inside of

300
00:15:00,920 --> 00:15:03,920
Speaker 1: my model. Delivered a positive trajectory of finishes at this

301
00:15:04,000 --> 00:15:06,680
Speaker 1: course over the past four years. Two of those results

302
00:15:06,880 --> 00:15:09,440
Speaker 1: that we're looking at most recently fourteenth and tenth on

303
00:15:09,480 --> 00:15:13,480
Speaker 1: the leaderboard, we have seen him undergo extensive training throughout

304
00:15:13,520 --> 00:15:15,600
Speaker 1: the past year to add extra distance to his game.

305
00:15:16,000 --> 00:15:18,120
Speaker 1: I once again agree with Cynthia here what I don't

306
00:15:18,120 --> 00:15:21,240
Speaker 1: think distance is the only prerequisite that you need for success.

307
00:15:21,360 --> 00:15:25,360
Speaker 1: I do think accuracy and that like I kind of

308
00:15:25,400 --> 00:15:27,200
Speaker 1: mentioned this with the shambo, and I think it comes

309
00:15:27,240 --> 00:15:29,920
Speaker 1: into play with Rory in some ways also, And I'll

310
00:15:29,960 --> 00:15:33,240
Speaker 1: talk about Rory later, but almost like too much aggression

311
00:15:33,240 --> 00:15:35,560
Speaker 1: and too much distance sometimes can be a negative in

312
00:15:35,640 --> 00:15:38,160
Speaker 1: this spot, and I think that's why, like that overall

313
00:15:38,240 --> 00:15:41,080
Speaker 1: safety and finding fairways does have some merit here, But

314
00:15:41,560 --> 00:15:43,440
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, I also still want

315
00:15:43,480 --> 00:15:46,200
Speaker 1: golfers that are going to have a certain prerequisite in

316
00:15:46,240 --> 00:15:50,120
Speaker 1: my model, it's reaching that threshold amount that I need

317
00:15:50,320 --> 00:15:52,560
Speaker 1: to actually find the success rate that I want. And

318
00:15:52,600 --> 00:15:54,880
Speaker 1: for me, if you're outside of the top fifty in

319
00:15:54,960 --> 00:15:58,440
Speaker 1: my model in strokes gained off the tee or from

320
00:15:58,520 --> 00:16:01,800
Speaker 1: driving distance, those are two points for me that become

321
00:16:01,840 --> 00:16:05,680
Speaker 1: a problem. And we have seen Fitzpatrick here extensive training

322
00:16:05,760 --> 00:16:07,640
Speaker 1: the past year to add extra distance to his game.

323
00:16:08,000 --> 00:16:10,560
Speaker 1: I think that marginally held him back from starting this

324
00:16:10,640 --> 00:16:15,000
Speaker 1: season with proper form, and the reason behind that comes

325
00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:17,720
Speaker 1: down to he added a four gram weight to his driver.

326
00:16:18,160 --> 00:16:20,680
Speaker 1: He had forgotten to remove it for almost a year.

327
00:16:21,320 --> 00:16:24,600
Speaker 1: That is a shockingly bad mistake for someone who is

328
00:16:24,640 --> 00:16:26,160
Speaker 1: tracking every single.

329
00:16:25,880 --> 00:16:28,600
Speaker 2: Shot that he does in his notebook. But it also

330
00:16:28,640 --> 00:16:29,560
Speaker 2: helps to explain this.

331
00:16:29,600 --> 00:16:33,920
Speaker 1: Erratic nature he's experienced since his RBC Heritage victory last season.

332
00:16:34,400 --> 00:16:36,360
Speaker 1: The data is going to pretty much tell the entire

333
00:16:36,440 --> 00:16:39,160
Speaker 1: story there, since he's removed the weight and he's gotten

334
00:16:39,200 --> 00:16:42,000
Speaker 1: it more to his natural field feel. There, he's gained

335
00:16:42,080 --> 00:16:44,520
Speaker 1: zero point nine to one strokes off the te per

336
00:16:44,560 --> 00:16:47,400
Speaker 1: event over his past six starts. That compares to losing

337
00:16:47,520 --> 00:16:51,120
Speaker 1: zero point eight seven five in the eight appearances before that.

338
00:16:51,880 --> 00:16:54,640
Speaker 1: If you're going to give real driving returns back to

339
00:16:54,720 --> 00:16:56,760
Speaker 1: one of the better short game players in the world.

340
00:16:57,040 --> 00:16:59,720
Speaker 1: We know how he finds success at these hard courses

341
00:17:00,120 --> 00:17:03,560
Speaker 1: every single time he plays them. I truly believe the

342
00:17:03,680 --> 00:17:05,760
Speaker 1: sky is the limit here for him.

343
00:17:06,400 --> 00:17:09,280
Speaker 4: I love that. I was just looking to see about

344
00:17:09,320 --> 00:17:11,359
Speaker 4: my next pick here to make sure he this. I

345
00:17:11,359 --> 00:17:14,440
Speaker 4: wanted to see his exact age twenty six for the Gala.

346
00:17:14,440 --> 00:17:15,840
Speaker 4: Are we good with that? I mean, you die in

347
00:17:15,880 --> 00:17:18,119
Speaker 4: your forties, right, I should be on the lookout. I

348
00:17:18,160 --> 00:17:22,920
Speaker 4: don't know, but my next VIC is the Gala. Obviously,

349
00:17:23,000 --> 00:17:26,520
Speaker 4: last year was his debut. I wasn't on him. I'm

350
00:17:26,520 --> 00:17:29,040
Speaker 4: gonna say I was completely wrong about him. Last year

351
00:17:29,119 --> 00:17:32,680
Speaker 4: he finished number nine, which was a really nice debut

352
00:17:33,119 --> 00:17:35,280
Speaker 4: for me. I'm looking at his last you know, the

353
00:17:35,600 --> 00:17:39,680
Speaker 4: recent form, so nine starts four top tens. The recent

354
00:17:39,920 --> 00:17:42,600
Speaker 4: form with his driver we talked about we keep going

355
00:17:42,640 --> 00:17:44,720
Speaker 4: back to this, but you know it's and you talk

356
00:17:44,760 --> 00:17:47,879
Speaker 4: about that aggression that doesn't seem to be the way

357
00:17:47,920 --> 00:17:52,000
Speaker 4: that he earns his hay right like, it's more of

358
00:17:52,040 --> 00:17:56,000
Speaker 4: the accuracy and the ability that the driver is giving you.

359
00:17:56,000 --> 00:17:58,560
Speaker 4: You know, strokes gaze with your driver basically over the

360
00:17:58,600 --> 00:18:02,200
Speaker 4: past other past several weeks. So for me, when I'm

361
00:18:02,240 --> 00:18:04,720
Speaker 4: looking at like recent form coming into this someone that

362
00:18:04,720 --> 00:18:07,600
Speaker 4: could surprise you. In fact, it's sort of surprised me

363
00:18:07,760 --> 00:18:10,320
Speaker 4: because in my model, the GOLLA ends up in your

364
00:18:10,320 --> 00:18:13,680
Speaker 4: top ten in like forty five percent of simulations, which

365
00:18:14,080 --> 00:18:18,080
Speaker 4: I'm a conservative modeler, so that probably for some other

366
00:18:18,119 --> 00:18:21,000
Speaker 4: people would be closer to fifty five percent, because like

367
00:18:21,040 --> 00:18:24,000
Speaker 4: I just everything looks low in my models. I never

368
00:18:24,080 --> 00:18:26,520
Speaker 4: really have a scenario where someone's like ninety and then

369
00:18:26,560 --> 00:18:28,960
Speaker 4: doesn't have you know, like that just doesn't happen. So

370
00:18:29,359 --> 00:18:33,520
Speaker 4: it's a really strong DFS play and a really strong,

371
00:18:33,720 --> 00:18:36,480
Speaker 4: like very nice I mean, of course he could win,

372
00:18:36,560 --> 00:18:40,040
Speaker 4: but I'm more projecting a potential top ten finished for

373
00:18:40,080 --> 00:18:42,600
Speaker 4: this and in the number for you know, top twenty

374
00:18:42,720 --> 00:18:44,919
Speaker 4: is in the high sixties, so that is to me,

375
00:18:45,280 --> 00:18:46,760
Speaker 4: I don't know, I think that's a fun one.

376
00:18:47,119 --> 00:18:50,040
Speaker 1: He is inside of the top thirteen of my model

377
00:18:50,080 --> 00:18:53,480
Speaker 1: and projected win equity in this tournament, and that number

378
00:18:53,520 --> 00:18:55,639
Speaker 1: gets even better when we start talking about some of

379
00:18:55,640 --> 00:18:58,560
Speaker 1: those safety ratings. So that would be you know, cash

380
00:18:58,600 --> 00:19:01,600
Speaker 1: game plays for DFS SA matchup wagers in some of

381
00:19:01,600 --> 00:19:05,440
Speaker 1: those placement market bets that Cynthia just alluded to right there.

382
00:19:05,880 --> 00:19:09,200
Speaker 1: Usually when I have negative trajectory in my model for upside,

383
00:19:09,600 --> 00:19:12,240
Speaker 1: those players become better suited as a placement bet.

384
00:19:12,240 --> 00:19:15,480
Speaker 2: And maybe we're a year or two too early here.

385
00:19:15,320 --> 00:19:18,320
Speaker 1: On the GALLA actually having the capabilities to win. You're

386
00:19:18,440 --> 00:19:19,920
Speaker 1: I'd like to see him here for two or three

387
00:19:19,920 --> 00:19:22,040
Speaker 1: more years, and I think at some point this is

388
00:19:22,080 --> 00:19:23,639
Speaker 1: one of the better chances he has to win a

389
00:19:23,680 --> 00:19:26,560
Speaker 1: major title. But the safety ratings in my model and

390
00:19:26,600 --> 00:19:30,040
Speaker 1: the way that he produced, it's an intriguing return when

391
00:19:30,080 --> 00:19:34,239
Speaker 1: you're talking about still top thirteen win equity projections with

392
00:19:34,480 --> 00:19:36,159
Speaker 1: top seven safety marks.

393
00:19:36,160 --> 00:19:38,320
Speaker 2: So it's a very nice profile there.

394
00:19:38,320 --> 00:19:41,879
Speaker 4: Fran boring, are you calling me boring on our first podcast?

395
00:19:41,920 --> 00:19:42,080
Speaker 3: Now?

396
00:19:42,560 --> 00:19:44,320
Speaker 2: I would never do such a thing.

397
00:19:44,800 --> 00:19:48,800
Speaker 4: Spencer, It's okay. Sometimes I'm boring. It's cool. Sometimes you

398
00:19:48,840 --> 00:19:52,280
Speaker 4: need a few safe asset's in your DFS portfolio, you know,

399
00:19:52,600 --> 00:19:54,360
Speaker 4: you just need That's.

400
00:19:54,119 --> 00:19:57,360
Speaker 1: How you build your bank role in general, like we want,

401
00:19:57,600 --> 00:20:01,119
Speaker 1: I am all about the safer market, like how I

402
00:20:01,200 --> 00:20:05,080
Speaker 1: build my portfolio, and betting comes from matchups and placement bets.

403
00:20:05,480 --> 00:20:07,919
Speaker 1: That's how my ROI increases throughout the year. It's not

404
00:20:08,000 --> 00:20:10,720
Speaker 1: necessarily hitting a bunch of outrights. It is nice when

405
00:20:10,840 --> 00:20:13,000
Speaker 1: I come on an Action Network show I mentioned Wyndom

406
00:20:13,040 --> 00:20:14,600
Speaker 1: Clark the win the US Open and.

407
00:20:14,840 --> 00:20:17,480
Speaker 2: It ends up happening for you. Yeah.

408
00:20:17,560 --> 00:20:19,560
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean like Windom Clark seems to be the

409
00:20:19,640 --> 00:20:22,840
Speaker 1: name that has consistently produced a bunch of great results

410
00:20:22,880 --> 00:20:25,080
Speaker 1: when I have given picks on Action Network shows. But

411
00:20:25,480 --> 00:20:28,160
Speaker 1: it's those safer profiles of how we're going to build

412
00:20:28,160 --> 00:20:31,600
Speaker 1: our bankroll and how we're going to increase our money. So, uh,

413
00:20:31,680 --> 00:20:33,720
Speaker 1: there is nothing wrong Cynthia with safety.

414
00:20:34,600 --> 00:20:36,239
Speaker 4: For your birthday this year, I'm going to get you

415
00:20:36,280 --> 00:20:38,320
Speaker 4: like a snow globe with Windhom Clark in it, and

416
00:20:38,320 --> 00:20:40,040
Speaker 4: when every time you're picking me, it'd be like it's

417
00:20:40,200 --> 00:20:43,840
Speaker 4: the Windom Clerk crystal ball. I'm gonna find one. They

418
00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:45,680
Speaker 4: somebody somewhere has to make that.

419
00:20:46,160 --> 00:20:48,560
Speaker 2: Yeah, it'll be my most treasured possession. If that does

420
00:20:48,720 --> 00:20:52,600
Speaker 2: end up happening, I can feel it.

421
00:20:53,280 --> 00:20:56,320
Speaker 3: Speaking of what's gonna happen, Spencer, your next best.

422
00:20:56,119 --> 00:20:59,320
Speaker 1: Bet, let's talk a little bit more about these safety

423
00:20:59,400 --> 00:21:02,480
Speaker 1: markets and transition here into Austin Eckro to make the

424
00:21:02,560 --> 00:21:05,919
Speaker 1: cut at minus one ten. I talked a little bit

425
00:21:05,920 --> 00:21:08,480
Speaker 1: about extrapolating out this data, and I do think you

426
00:21:08,600 --> 00:21:11,600
Speaker 1: have to be very careful here with the projections. This

427
00:21:11,720 --> 00:21:15,359
Speaker 1: is a first time participant at Augusta National. It's funny

428
00:21:15,400 --> 00:21:17,680
Speaker 1: because if it wasn't a course that demanded such a

429
00:21:17,760 --> 00:21:21,120
Speaker 1: specific skill set and just took the field and threw

430
00:21:21,160 --> 00:21:23,959
Speaker 1: them into any random event, let's just say the former's

431
00:21:24,000 --> 00:21:24,640
Speaker 1: insurance open.

432
00:21:24,760 --> 00:21:25,920
Speaker 2: Just for a basic answer.

433
00:21:26,000 --> 00:21:28,480
Speaker 1: I still think there's some course predictability there, but my

434
00:21:28,640 --> 00:21:30,560
Speaker 1: model would push this more out into the minus one

435
00:21:30,680 --> 00:21:33,320
Speaker 1: fifty range as being the proper price, just because of

436
00:21:33,400 --> 00:21:36,440
Speaker 1: this recent onslaught of production that we've gotten from him.

437
00:21:36,880 --> 00:21:39,520
Speaker 1: Eleven made cuts in twelve tournaments, a victory at the

438
00:21:39,600 --> 00:21:43,440
Speaker 1: Cognizant Classic in March thirty seven spot increase in expected

439
00:21:43,480 --> 00:21:46,000
Speaker 1: strokes gained around the green When you compare that to

440
00:21:46,119 --> 00:21:49,800
Speaker 1: his two year baseline with just the twenty twenty four

441
00:21:49,840 --> 00:21:52,879
Speaker 1: stats that I ran, I did try to suppress the

442
00:21:52,960 --> 00:21:55,760
Speaker 1: returns a little bit. I gave him a sixty fifth

443
00:21:55,840 --> 00:22:00,480
Speaker 1: place projection for course production here. I do think that

444
00:22:00,600 --> 00:22:05,760
Speaker 1: the lack of historical productivity that he has obviously hurts

445
00:22:05,840 --> 00:22:08,360
Speaker 1: him a little bit, but the fact that he's still

446
00:22:08,440 --> 00:22:10,800
Speaker 1: grated as a value even when I took it in

447
00:22:10,880 --> 00:22:14,119
Speaker 1: that direction. All of a sudden showed that when I

448
00:22:14,320 --> 00:22:17,040
Speaker 1: said that in my model, he's a fringe top fifty

449
00:22:17,119 --> 00:22:19,200
Speaker 1: player on a course, and that just moves him into

450
00:22:19,280 --> 00:22:21,600
Speaker 1: you know, give him a couple made cuts here which

451
00:22:21,640 --> 00:22:23,320
Speaker 1: he doesn't have, and all of a sudden, it changes

452
00:22:23,359 --> 00:22:25,720
Speaker 1: the trajectory in my model. All of a sudden, that

453
00:22:25,840 --> 00:22:27,359
Speaker 1: moved him as the best value that I had on

454
00:22:27,440 --> 00:22:30,159
Speaker 1: the board to make the cut. So I think similar

455
00:22:30,240 --> 00:22:32,600
Speaker 1: comp courses, he looks great. He is a top fifteen

456
00:22:32,760 --> 00:22:34,680
Speaker 1: projection on these more challenging.

457
00:22:34,359 --> 00:22:35,159
Speaker 2: Par four holes.

458
00:22:35,560 --> 00:22:40,200
Speaker 1: That's something that's going to help to reduce those bogie

459
00:22:40,320 --> 00:22:42,600
Speaker 1: making potentials that come into play on some of those

460
00:22:42,640 --> 00:22:45,200
Speaker 1: longer par fours. I think there's enough floor here that

461
00:22:45,280 --> 00:22:47,920
Speaker 1: he gets himself into the weekend. Don't really need any

462
00:22:48,000 --> 00:22:49,919
Speaker 1: of that ceiling. Just make the cut and we can

463
00:22:49,960 --> 00:22:52,280
Speaker 1: go from there. But thought minus one ten was too

464
00:22:52,920 --> 00:22:55,800
Speaker 1: short of a price, just really because he's a first

465
00:22:55,840 --> 00:22:58,480
Speaker 1: timer here at the Masters in the market over corrected itself.

466
00:22:58,520 --> 00:23:00,639
Speaker 1: And as you guys can tell, that's kind of the

467
00:23:00,800 --> 00:23:03,200
Speaker 1: blueprint to a lot of my model here. It's when

468
00:23:03,240 --> 00:23:06,280
Speaker 1: you get these extreme deviations from the norm of what

469
00:23:06,440 --> 00:23:09,000
Speaker 1: numbers are spitting out that to me is where the

470
00:23:09,119 --> 00:23:11,320
Speaker 1: value is always going to come into place. So if

471
00:23:11,359 --> 00:23:13,480
Speaker 1: I can find things that I disagree with on the market,

472
00:23:13,600 --> 00:23:15,760
Speaker 1: I thought at minus one ten he get about thirty

473
00:23:15,840 --> 00:23:16,960
Speaker 1: to forty points of value.

474
00:23:18,320 --> 00:23:18,720
Speaker 2: I love that.

475
00:23:18,840 --> 00:23:20,399
Speaker 4: So I'm going with a volas whole one here, or

476
00:23:20,440 --> 00:23:22,840
Speaker 4: one that in my model has a bit more volatility.

477
00:23:22,920 --> 00:23:25,719
Speaker 4: And that's Hideki Matsiyama, when you're looking at him, especially

478
00:23:25,760 --> 00:23:28,959
Speaker 4: in DFS lineups, is kind of an expensive one at

479
00:23:29,080 --> 00:23:31,760
Speaker 4: least I mean, I don't know, so that's kind of

480
00:23:31,800 --> 00:23:34,280
Speaker 4: what it comes up for me and in my DFS models.

481
00:23:34,520 --> 00:23:37,720
Speaker 4: But ultimately, when I'm looking at this one, it's very

482
00:23:38,080 --> 00:23:43,399
Speaker 4: It's very interesting because usually I think like petting when

483
00:23:43,440 --> 00:23:46,000
Speaker 4: I think about him, and that hasn't necessarily in recent

484
00:23:46,080 --> 00:23:50,120
Speaker 4: form been his strongest attribute. But the greens and regulation,

485
00:23:50,520 --> 00:23:53,240
Speaker 4: all of the thresholds he meets kind of the areas

486
00:23:53,280 --> 00:23:56,840
Speaker 4: where I think you need like some good threshold values

487
00:23:56,880 --> 00:23:59,480
Speaker 4: to be a top ten or top twenty finisher, and

488
00:23:59,800 --> 00:24:02,200
Speaker 4: in he comes up as both of those for me,

489
00:24:02,480 --> 00:24:04,640
Speaker 4: and almost at the same level some of the more

490
00:24:04,880 --> 00:24:10,080
Speaker 4: expensive guys, like in fact, he has a better chance,

491
00:24:10,320 --> 00:24:13,800
Speaker 4: better odds of making the being in the top ten

492
00:24:14,400 --> 00:24:16,639
Speaker 4: than Rory, So I thought that was kind of like

493
00:24:16,720 --> 00:24:20,879
Speaker 4: a cool comp there again, it could go south though, Like,

494
00:24:21,080 --> 00:24:23,560
Speaker 4: this is not safe. This is the unsafe. This is

495
00:24:23,600 --> 00:24:26,240
Speaker 4: the unboring Cynthia, this is not the boring person. But

496
00:24:26,640 --> 00:24:28,879
Speaker 4: you know, because it could go either really well or

497
00:24:28,920 --> 00:24:31,000
Speaker 4: really poorly. So this would be a tournament play if

498
00:24:31,040 --> 00:24:33,840
Speaker 4: you're using it in DFS. That for me, it's not

499
00:24:33,960 --> 00:24:37,040
Speaker 4: a that's not I'm building. I'm thinking about using as

500
00:24:37,080 --> 00:24:39,120
Speaker 4: a building block. This safety is off.

501
00:24:39,359 --> 00:24:39,879
Speaker 5: So like, my.

502
00:24:40,000 --> 00:24:44,000
Speaker 4: Volatility rating on him is about like of the of

503
00:24:44,119 --> 00:24:47,600
Speaker 4: the guys in that similar kind of tier, it's it's

504
00:24:47,760 --> 00:24:50,840
Speaker 4: about as high as you can get. So I thought

505
00:24:50,880 --> 00:24:52,760
Speaker 4: that was interesting, though unboring.

506
00:24:52,880 --> 00:24:56,400
Speaker 3: Pick though, we're getting a little bit of everything from

507
00:24:56,440 --> 00:24:59,720
Speaker 3: you today. Cynthia las Yama of course won the Master's

508
00:24:59,760 --> 00:25:01,320
Speaker 3: back in twenty twenty one.

509
00:25:01,480 --> 00:25:03,159
Speaker 4: Okay, Spencer, who else you like?

510
00:25:04,359 --> 00:25:06,320
Speaker 2: So this is a safe space, right?

511
00:25:07,359 --> 00:25:10,480
Speaker 4: Yeah, of course, yes, I want to.

512
00:25:10,480 --> 00:25:11,600
Speaker 2: Talk about volatility.

513
00:25:11,640 --> 00:25:13,360
Speaker 1: I was gonna save it for the end of the show,

514
00:25:13,440 --> 00:25:16,280
Speaker 1: but Cynthia keeps me, say I messed you up.

515
00:25:16,359 --> 00:25:19,040
Speaker 4: I'm I'm you know, I'm that's fine. We love we

516
00:25:19,160 --> 00:25:20,159
Speaker 4: love some volatility.

517
00:25:20,720 --> 00:25:24,040
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure I mean, we can ask Matt Mitchell

518
00:25:24,160 --> 00:25:26,040
Speaker 1: on this. I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to talk

519
00:25:26,080 --> 00:25:28,560
Speaker 1: about Rory McElroy at the Masters anymore on an Action

520
00:25:28,720 --> 00:25:31,200
Speaker 1: Network show. If you want to hear the deep dive

521
00:25:31,240 --> 00:25:32,880
Speaker 1: of it, maybe I can sneak it into the Links

522
00:25:32,920 --> 00:25:35,119
Speaker 1: and Locks podcast that I do. But I've done this

523
00:25:35,200 --> 00:25:37,680
Speaker 1: three consecutive year years at the Masters. I know people

524
00:25:37,800 --> 00:25:41,480
Speaker 1: have gone a lot deeper than that. I'll save the

525
00:25:41,520 --> 00:25:44,399
Speaker 1: full answer there, but I think people hear volatility and

526
00:25:44,520 --> 00:25:47,080
Speaker 1: always think of the worst with that answer. But it

527
00:25:47,240 --> 00:25:50,560
Speaker 1: really does play both ways. Like the high upside marks

528
00:25:50,600 --> 00:25:53,360
Speaker 1: for Rory and my sheet love him. I don't think

529
00:25:53,359 --> 00:25:56,040
Speaker 1: it's for the faint of heart. I understand the downside.

530
00:25:56,119 --> 00:25:58,480
Speaker 1: I understand that this is what's happening when you're trying

531
00:25:58,520 --> 00:26:02,440
Speaker 1: to capture the career Grand Slam here and pressure comes

532
00:26:02,480 --> 00:26:06,000
Speaker 1: into play, and maybe that's the unquantifiable factor that you

533
00:26:06,200 --> 00:26:08,040
Speaker 1: just cannot get to in a model. But you know,

534
00:26:08,160 --> 00:26:09,879
Speaker 1: one point eight to eight strokes aren per round at

535
00:26:09,880 --> 00:26:12,600
Speaker 1: the Valero with his approach game. That's the best output

536
00:26:12,680 --> 00:26:14,280
Speaker 1: in five years that I had for him since the

537
00:26:14,320 --> 00:26:17,679
Speaker 1: Wells Fargo in twenty nineteen. Only also had six events

538
00:26:17,720 --> 00:26:19,879
Speaker 1: in general that grated better than that.

539
00:26:20,080 --> 00:26:21,240
Speaker 2: Four of those six came.

540
00:26:21,200 --> 00:26:24,479
Speaker 1: During McElroy's prime in twenty thirteen or prior, so I'm

541
00:26:24,520 --> 00:26:26,960
Speaker 1: gonna leave it there. Don't want to lose my work

542
00:26:27,000 --> 00:26:29,280
Speaker 1: here at Action Network. I apologize to everybody that I

543
00:26:29,359 --> 00:26:32,280
Speaker 1: did go down this rory route, but I'm gonna go

544
00:26:32,320 --> 00:26:35,000
Speaker 1: with Harris English here for a top twenty at plus

545
00:26:35,080 --> 00:26:38,000
Speaker 1: three forty five course History's okay. I don't think it's

546
00:26:38,000 --> 00:26:41,359
Speaker 1: anything the rite home about necessarily, but three made cuts

547
00:26:41,359 --> 00:26:45,160
Speaker 1: in four attempts nothing better than a twenty first place finish. However,

548
00:26:45,520 --> 00:26:48,520
Speaker 1: the interesting note to that factor is that this season's

549
00:26:48,520 --> 00:26:50,200
Speaker 1: gonna be the first time that he's ever gotten a

550
00:26:50,280 --> 00:26:52,280
Speaker 1: chance to play the Masters in back to back years.

551
00:26:52,760 --> 00:26:55,160
Speaker 1: Maybe there's something he can build off of in that area.

552
00:26:55,640 --> 00:26:58,280
Speaker 1: I know the Valero Texas Open worried some people last

553
00:26:58,320 --> 00:27:01,240
Speaker 1: week after we provided a miscut perform lost four point

554
00:27:01,359 --> 00:27:04,840
Speaker 1: three strokes ball striking, but this has also turned into

555
00:27:04,880 --> 00:27:08,000
Speaker 1: one of those other over corrections to the market because

556
00:27:08,000 --> 00:27:10,479
Speaker 1: of the one off result. I'm gonna trust this four

557
00:27:10,520 --> 00:27:13,440
Speaker 1: top twenty one that he'd produced before that. He averaged

558
00:27:13,440 --> 00:27:15,760
Speaker 1: three point three to five shots TA green during those

559
00:27:15,800 --> 00:27:19,240
Speaker 1: starts we also get short game mastery here of a

560
00:27:19,320 --> 00:27:21,920
Speaker 1: golfer that ranked inside of the top ten producers for

561
00:27:22,040 --> 00:27:25,480
Speaker 1: me and expected short game around the green and expected

562
00:27:25,520 --> 00:27:28,640
Speaker 1: putting for this course. Like, there's a handful of golfers.

563
00:27:28,680 --> 00:27:31,120
Speaker 1: I've mentioned a few of them, but like Austin Echroade,

564
00:27:31,119 --> 00:27:34,720
Speaker 1: Harris English, Chris Kirk, Taylor Moore, Adam Shank, Sewoo Kim

565
00:27:35,119 --> 00:27:37,400
Speaker 1: these were all names for me. And I know even

566
00:27:37,440 --> 00:27:39,400
Speaker 1: the next name that Cynthia is going to talk about later,

567
00:27:39,720 --> 00:27:41,720
Speaker 1: that's another name that fit into the mix for me.

568
00:27:41,760 --> 00:27:44,680
Speaker 1: There there are these players deeper down the board that

569
00:27:44,840 --> 00:27:47,359
Speaker 1: have real potential to be used in different avenues of

570
00:27:47,480 --> 00:27:50,000
Speaker 1: this market. It's just kind of mixing and matching and

571
00:27:50,080 --> 00:27:52,080
Speaker 1: finding where that correct spot is to do it. And

572
00:27:52,280 --> 00:27:55,359
Speaker 1: I think for Harris English plus three forty five for

573
00:27:55,440 --> 00:27:57,440
Speaker 1: a top twenty gives you a lot of that value

574
00:27:57,480 --> 00:28:00,520
Speaker 1: for a very cheap investment like that one.

575
00:28:00,800 --> 00:28:04,400
Speaker 4: You know where I'm going. Cory Connors is my pick

576
00:28:04,760 --> 00:28:07,480
Speaker 4: for the next one when I'm looking at the opportunity

577
00:28:07,560 --> 00:28:10,159
Speaker 4: that has its like really about playing through the weekend.

578
00:28:10,280 --> 00:28:13,080
Speaker 4: So especially in DFS lineups, this is a really good

579
00:28:13,119 --> 00:28:15,960
Speaker 4: one to kind of round out your you know roster

580
00:28:16,200 --> 00:28:18,720
Speaker 4: with the right six people or whatever number you're using

581
00:28:18,760 --> 00:28:21,720
Speaker 4: in whatever format you're playing in. But to me, I'm

582
00:28:21,760 --> 00:28:24,880
Speaker 4: looking at like that kind of top twenty area as

583
00:28:25,200 --> 00:28:29,840
Speaker 4: a potential upside. I'm not suggesting that Cory Connors is

584
00:28:29,960 --> 00:28:33,320
Speaker 4: coming for Scotty's goal. He's not coming for his bag.

585
00:28:33,800 --> 00:28:36,640
Speaker 4: But you're trying to figure out, Okay, where's there enough

586
00:28:36,720 --> 00:28:40,400
Speaker 4: consistency And this would be a sixteenth made weekend and

587
00:28:40,800 --> 00:28:44,080
Speaker 4: that's a pretty consistent pattern. And then a number of

588
00:28:44,240 --> 00:28:47,960
Speaker 4: the metrics that have like to me, I've been I

589
00:28:48,080 --> 00:28:51,000
Speaker 4: really dug in this time about like approach shots and

590
00:28:51,680 --> 00:28:54,239
Speaker 4: driving accuracy, and it feels like he's in the right

591
00:28:54,320 --> 00:28:58,000
Speaker 4: spot to get himself to make the cut and potentially,

592
00:28:58,120 --> 00:28:59,920
Speaker 4: as the upside, be in a top twenty.

593
00:29:00,920 --> 00:29:03,280
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think for me, if we're talking, we'll talk

594
00:29:03,320 --> 00:29:08,840
Speaker 1: about dfs for one second. Connor's, Jaeger Henley. Those are

595
00:29:08,920 --> 00:29:11,120
Speaker 1: three names at the very bottom of this board here

596
00:29:11,280 --> 00:29:13,640
Speaker 1: that possess a lot of that mad cut equity that

597
00:29:13,680 --> 00:29:14,560
Speaker 1: you're trying to find.

598
00:29:14,680 --> 00:29:16,600
Speaker 2: So I like to play Cynthia.

599
00:29:17,120 --> 00:29:20,160
Speaker 5: The Action Network podcast is presented by North Carolina's newest

600
00:29:20,360 --> 00:29:23,800
Speaker 5: sportsbook bet mgm use The bonus code action when signing

601
00:29:23,880 --> 00:29:25,880
Speaker 5: up to get one hundred and fifty dollars in bonus

602
00:29:25,920 --> 00:29:29,240
Speaker 5: bets when you bet just five dollars. Four new users

603
00:29:29,320 --> 00:29:35,680
Speaker 5: in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

604
00:29:35,760 --> 00:29:39,840
Speaker 5: New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia,

605
00:29:39,960 --> 00:29:42,520
Speaker 5: and Wyoming. Terms and conditions apply. Must be twenty one

606
00:29:42,640 --> 00:29:46,560
Speaker 5: or older. Gambling problem called one eight hundred gambler.

607
00:29:48,560 --> 00:29:49,000
Speaker 4: Spencer.

608
00:29:49,320 --> 00:29:51,400
Speaker 3: So you were talking about Connors as sort of fitting

609
00:29:51,560 --> 00:29:55,280
Speaker 3: into that group of like with the Harris Englishes of

610
00:29:55,320 --> 00:29:55,680
Speaker 3: the world.

611
00:29:56,000 --> 00:29:57,760
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of value on any of

612
00:29:57,800 --> 00:30:00,640
Speaker 1: the three names that I just mentioned, Like there's ability

613
00:30:00,840 --> 00:30:03,720
Speaker 1: on those targets. You know, I took ek Rope for example,

614
00:30:03,840 --> 00:30:06,120
Speaker 1: and I took it to make a cut. But I

615
00:30:06,160 --> 00:30:08,920
Speaker 1: think there's matchup potential to look at for Corey Connor's

616
00:30:09,200 --> 00:30:12,280
Speaker 1: great safety ratings. In my model, Russell Henley has that

617
00:30:12,440 --> 00:30:14,840
Speaker 1: same sort of trajectory that I'm looking for.

618
00:30:14,960 --> 00:30:18,760
Speaker 2: And then Yager is the fun one here because my

619
00:30:18,960 --> 00:30:21,280
Speaker 2: model has been so bullish on Yeger.

620
00:30:21,440 --> 00:30:23,280
Speaker 1: Like Maria, we've done a bunch of shows together at

621
00:30:23,320 --> 00:30:25,080
Speaker 1: this point, and I think any single time I'm on

622
00:30:25,240 --> 00:30:27,840
Speaker 1: with you, Jager finds a way to make the show.

623
00:30:27,880 --> 00:30:31,320
Speaker 2: And I had him two weeks ago at the Houston Open,

624
00:30:31,400 --> 00:30:33,760
Speaker 2: where I had him at fifty to one. And it's

625
00:30:33,840 --> 00:30:34,840
Speaker 2: that increase that.

626
00:30:34,880 --> 00:30:38,600
Speaker 1: We've seen with the driver, very similar to Matthew Fitzpatrick.

627
00:30:38,680 --> 00:30:41,280
Speaker 1: He has worked on the speed training. We've seen that

628
00:30:41,440 --> 00:30:45,920
Speaker 1: return with increased data off the tee. He's an intriguing

629
00:30:46,000 --> 00:30:47,640
Speaker 1: name to keep an eye on. Maybe he even shoot

630
00:30:47,680 --> 00:30:49,200
Speaker 1: that a little bit further up the board than some

631
00:30:49,240 --> 00:30:51,320
Speaker 1: people would expect and to.

632
00:30:51,400 --> 00:30:54,160
Speaker 4: Fall on that. I love Yeager too. I've looked at

633
00:30:54,200 --> 00:30:56,040
Speaker 4: I mean for players who have not played in the

634
00:30:56,120 --> 00:30:59,360
Speaker 4: Masters before that text in that Texas course, the Houston

635
00:30:59,400 --> 00:31:01,840
Speaker 4: Course of more is a nice comp you know in

636
00:31:01,960 --> 00:31:04,720
Speaker 4: terms of like the lack of rough or the lack

637
00:31:04,800 --> 00:31:07,000
Speaker 4: of you know, out of bounds, like all the way

638
00:31:07,080 --> 00:31:10,800
Speaker 4: that the undulation, I don't know, that's silly, but like whatever,

639
00:31:10,920 --> 00:31:14,240
Speaker 4: the way that the putting greens work the undulations are

640
00:31:14,920 --> 00:31:17,840
Speaker 4: very similar. But it's it's a good comp and he

641
00:31:18,320 --> 00:31:20,800
Speaker 4: obviously you picked him to win there. Your crystal ball

642
00:31:21,360 --> 00:31:24,400
Speaker 4: was perfectly spot on for that one. But if you're

643
00:31:24,440 --> 00:31:27,680
Speaker 4: looking for to me, that's like, I'm not gonna tell

644
00:31:27,800 --> 00:31:30,840
Speaker 4: any of my friends who play in dfs that would

645
00:31:30,840 --> 00:31:34,200
Speaker 4: ever potentially play against me until after then I'm be like, see,

646
00:31:34,400 --> 00:31:37,000
Speaker 4: you know, like that's the that's the to me, that's

647
00:31:37,120 --> 00:31:39,840
Speaker 4: like the fun of a Jaeger this year. I feel

648
00:31:39,880 --> 00:31:42,960
Speaker 4: like he's could be the Thigala of next year. Maybe

649
00:31:43,000 --> 00:31:44,440
Speaker 4: not top nine, but you know what I'm saying.

650
00:31:45,840 --> 00:31:48,200
Speaker 3: There you go, well, Spencer, you have one more best

651
00:31:48,280 --> 00:31:48,840
Speaker 3: bet for us.

652
00:31:49,680 --> 00:31:52,600
Speaker 2: I'm gonna go with Chris Kirk over Eric Van Ryan.

653
00:31:54,000 --> 00:31:57,120
Speaker 1: You get this output in my sheet that is very

654
00:31:57,240 --> 00:32:00,800
Speaker 1: intriguing because it's safety marks for Chris Kirk versus this

655
00:32:01,040 --> 00:32:04,400
Speaker 1: boom or bust candidate in Van Ruyan. That's an output

656
00:32:04,440 --> 00:32:06,800
Speaker 1: that we see Kirk grating twenty first overall for his

657
00:32:06,920 --> 00:32:10,840
Speaker 1: safety rating that compares against Van Ruyan landing fifty seventh.

658
00:32:11,400 --> 00:32:14,280
Speaker 1: That alone puts us into about this minus one twenty

659
00:32:14,440 --> 00:32:17,440
Speaker 1: five range of disparity of where the price should be

660
00:32:17,840 --> 00:32:20,800
Speaker 1: compared to where it opened. We then gain an additional

661
00:32:20,960 --> 00:32:23,720
Speaker 1: ten to fifteen points, depending on how aggressive we want

662
00:32:23,760 --> 00:32:26,120
Speaker 1: to get with it. When I run my numbers there

663
00:32:26,240 --> 00:32:30,400
Speaker 1: to where Kirk's overall rating of twenty third far exceeds

664
00:32:30,440 --> 00:32:32,440
Speaker 1: what we get with Van Ryn of his sixty first

665
00:32:32,520 --> 00:32:36,760
Speaker 1: place return. There, I understand the driving distance projections will

666
00:32:36,760 --> 00:32:39,400
Speaker 1: look stout for Van Ruyan. I think Cynthia brought up

667
00:32:39,400 --> 00:32:42,280
Speaker 1: a good point where that's maybe not the sole thing

668
00:32:42,360 --> 00:32:43,920
Speaker 1: that you should be looking at here. I think think

669
00:32:44,080 --> 00:32:47,240
Speaker 1: people see a wide open venue at Augusta and always

670
00:32:47,280 --> 00:32:50,240
Speaker 1: think just bom away with it. But that's not exactly

671
00:32:50,320 --> 00:32:52,960
Speaker 1: how I ran my model either, and you all of

672
00:32:53,000 --> 00:32:55,760
Speaker 1: a sudden run into these really troubling returns with him.

673
00:32:56,080 --> 00:32:59,040
Speaker 1: When you look at the runoff the undulation that Cynthia

674
00:32:59,040 --> 00:33:01,240
Speaker 1: had talked about there feed out through out this property.

675
00:33:01,840 --> 00:33:04,080
Speaker 1: He could only muster up a ranking of eighty third

676
00:33:04,120 --> 00:33:06,520
Speaker 1: in this field for projected strokes gained around the green.

677
00:33:07,080 --> 00:33:09,960
Speaker 1: That's gonna place below almost all the non amateurs that I.

678
00:33:10,040 --> 00:33:10,640
Speaker 2: Had this week.

679
00:33:10,680 --> 00:33:13,600
Speaker 1: And then you get this equally poor putting number from

680
00:33:13,680 --> 00:33:17,640
Speaker 1: him of seventy six when I reprojected his totals specifically

681
00:33:17,760 --> 00:33:20,520
Speaker 1: for Augusta National. So that's gonna take these fiery bent

682
00:33:20,640 --> 00:33:24,480
Speaker 1: grass greens. It's gonna take these multiple tiered perspectives. It's

683
00:33:24,520 --> 00:33:27,880
Speaker 1: gonna take the avoidance that's needed of three put percentage.

684
00:33:28,520 --> 00:33:30,080
Speaker 1: I just think here, we get a golfer here in

685
00:33:30,160 --> 00:33:32,600
Speaker 1: Kirk that has much greater potential to play all four

686
00:33:32,680 --> 00:33:35,960
Speaker 1: rounds of golf. And I'm always looking in my matchups

687
00:33:36,080 --> 00:33:39,720
Speaker 1: to find volatility. I want miscut potential. I don't want

688
00:33:39,800 --> 00:33:41,400
Speaker 1: this bet and I know the masters. We have a

689
00:33:41,480 --> 00:33:43,400
Speaker 1: limited field here, so it's a little bit more difficult

690
00:33:43,400 --> 00:33:46,800
Speaker 1: to find that miscut potential. But I don't want volatility

691
00:33:46,880 --> 00:33:49,280
Speaker 1: in this sense to come into play because if I

692
00:33:49,400 --> 00:33:52,720
Speaker 1: can end this on a Friday afternoon, I then don't.

693
00:33:52,520 --> 00:33:54,480
Speaker 2: Have to worry about what Chris Kirk produces.

694
00:33:54,560 --> 00:33:57,360
Speaker 1: So I'm always trying to find the safety in these markets.

695
00:33:57,400 --> 00:33:59,560
Speaker 1: And I mean even still, Marie, I talked about this

696
00:33:59,680 --> 00:34:01,560
Speaker 1: with you a handful of weeks ago. It's always the

697
00:34:01,720 --> 00:34:04,480
Speaker 1: fade candidate that I'm looking to take on versus the

698
00:34:04,560 --> 00:34:07,240
Speaker 1: person I'm trying to back. So if you have different

699
00:34:07,280 --> 00:34:09,600
Speaker 1: matchups out there available to you, it would be a

700
00:34:09,719 --> 00:34:12,520
Speaker 1: fade of Eric van Royan versus backing Chris Kirk.

701
00:34:12,600 --> 00:34:13,920
Speaker 2: In that regard, I.

702
00:34:13,960 --> 00:34:16,480
Speaker 4: Got a quick one for you. Does your model prefer

703
00:34:16,719 --> 00:34:22,520
Speaker 4: which Cameron? Does your model prefer Smith or Young? Because

704
00:34:22,680 --> 00:34:25,240
Speaker 4: when I'm looking at this one, there's a very distinct

705
00:34:26,320 --> 00:34:29,080
Speaker 4: winner of the Battles of the Cameron.

706
00:34:30,719 --> 00:34:33,400
Speaker 1: The market disagrees with my answer here, so I'm curious

707
00:34:33,400 --> 00:34:36,680
Speaker 1: to hear what your response would be. But my model

708
00:34:36,800 --> 00:34:38,080
Speaker 1: liked Cameron Smith this week.

709
00:34:38,920 --> 00:34:41,560
Speaker 4: You know what mine likes Young, So finally we listen.

710
00:34:41,600 --> 00:34:43,719
Speaker 4: We got to have one thing we disagree on. I

711
00:34:43,880 --> 00:34:47,560
Speaker 4: just think, and it's all volatility. So safe is Smith,

712
00:34:49,160 --> 00:34:51,480
Speaker 4: Unsafe is Young. So to me, it's like, well, like,

713
00:34:51,680 --> 00:34:53,200
Speaker 4: that's kind of how it plays out. So I guess

714
00:34:53,239 --> 00:34:55,920
Speaker 4: in the safety market we agree. But in the upside market,

715
00:34:56,440 --> 00:34:57,439
Speaker 4: I think I think it's young.

716
00:34:57,760 --> 00:35:00,040
Speaker 1: You know, an interesting play I was looking at and

717
00:35:00,239 --> 00:35:02,839
Speaker 1: it's not something that I have recommended at any point.

718
00:35:02,960 --> 00:35:06,040
Speaker 4: Yet I do think there's very any exclusive content right here.

719
00:35:07,120 --> 00:35:10,480
Speaker 1: I normally want a three percent edge on these matchups,

720
00:35:10,840 --> 00:35:13,040
Speaker 1: and this was something for me that had a two

721
00:35:13,080 --> 00:35:15,360
Speaker 1: point four percent edge, so it didn't quite reach the

722
00:35:15,480 --> 00:35:17,839
Speaker 1: threshold them out. It's still worth the bet. You can

723
00:35:17,920 --> 00:35:19,360
Speaker 1: do the math, figure out where you can get to

724
00:35:19,480 --> 00:35:21,960
Speaker 1: with it where it makes sense. But Cameron Young minus

725
00:35:22,080 --> 00:35:25,880
Speaker 1: one ten over Justin Thomas was something that my model

726
00:35:25,920 --> 00:35:28,040
Speaker 1: seemed to like a little bit this week. The perception

727
00:35:28,160 --> 00:35:30,640
Speaker 1: around Justin Thomas is all over the place.

728
00:35:32,320 --> 00:35:36,160
Speaker 4: I think, depend what episode of that show people are on.

729
00:35:36,280 --> 00:35:39,560
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, it's Justin Thomas at this point is

730
00:35:39,560 --> 00:35:42,800
Speaker 1: about as boom or bus as you can get with

731
00:35:42,960 --> 00:35:45,160
Speaker 1: this answer, and I think from like a safety market

732
00:35:45,200 --> 00:35:47,320
Speaker 1: where I agree with you like the Young profile is

733
00:35:47,320 --> 00:35:49,000
Speaker 1: a little bit more of that upside to begin with too.

734
00:35:49,120 --> 00:35:51,440
Speaker 1: So you kind of have these two boom or Bus

735
00:35:51,520 --> 00:35:54,040
Speaker 1: plays inside of my sheet for me, but I couldn't

736
00:35:54,040 --> 00:35:55,680
Speaker 1: get there on Justin Thomas. I know a lot of

737
00:35:55,719 --> 00:35:58,080
Speaker 1: short people that are on Thomas this week. I just

738
00:35:58,160 --> 00:36:00,520
Speaker 1: see the you know, he's lost bones on his bag

739
00:36:00,680 --> 00:36:03,800
Speaker 1: for his caddy, some of these around the Green metrics

740
00:36:03,840 --> 00:36:07,920
Speaker 1: and these putting numbers. For me, I have massive concerns

741
00:36:07,920 --> 00:36:11,759
Speaker 1: about what we're actually going to get. Everybody can take

742
00:36:11,800 --> 00:36:14,239
Speaker 1: that exactly what it's worth their of the two point

743
00:36:14,239 --> 00:36:17,240
Speaker 1: four percent edge that I had, but just my viewpoint

744
00:36:17,320 --> 00:36:19,600
Speaker 1: on that better. But the way to consider Cameron, I.

745
00:36:19,640 --> 00:36:25,000
Speaker 4: Have Young considerably more like better rated than JT. It's

746
00:36:25,080 --> 00:36:28,160
Speaker 4: not personal, it's just it's the approach. Stuff like you said,

747
00:36:28,200 --> 00:36:28,759
Speaker 4: around the Green.

748
00:36:29,200 --> 00:36:33,480
Speaker 3: Yeah, some bonus advice from you both, and the insight

749
00:36:33,600 --> 00:36:38,680
Speaker 3: overall has been fantastic. Let's recap. So Spencer Your five

750
00:36:38,800 --> 00:36:42,520
Speaker 3: picks for the twenty twenty four Masters are Xander Schoffley

751
00:36:42,920 --> 00:36:46,520
Speaker 3: outright eighteen to one, Matthew Fitzpatrick plus one thirty for

752
00:36:46,560 --> 00:36:49,440
Speaker 3: a top twenty, and a sprinkle out right Austin Eck

753
00:36:49,480 --> 00:36:52,480
Speaker 3: wrote to make the cut minus one ten, Harris English

754
00:36:52,560 --> 00:36:55,719
Speaker 3: top twenty at plus three forty five, and Chris Kirk

755
00:36:56,200 --> 00:36:59,600
Speaker 3: minus one ten over Eric van Ruyan and Cynthia.

756
00:36:59,719 --> 00:37:03,240
Speaker 4: Your five biggest model edges are.

757
00:37:03,440 --> 00:37:06,200
Speaker 3: On John Ram who is currently ten to one outright,

758
00:37:06,560 --> 00:37:08,319
Speaker 3: Sahit Thagala currently.

759
00:37:08,280 --> 00:37:09,359
Speaker 4: Forty five to one.

760
00:37:10,040 --> 00:37:13,759
Speaker 3: Bit of a volatile pick here with Hideki Matsuyama as

761
00:37:13,880 --> 00:37:17,400
Speaker 3: a tournament play, Corey Conners and dfs Or as a

762
00:37:17,440 --> 00:37:23,640
Speaker 3: top twenty. Stephen Jaeger currently one fifty to one out right. Okay,

763
00:37:23,880 --> 00:37:28,320
Speaker 3: So for our producer Matt Mitchell, for Spencer Agiar, and

764
00:37:28,440 --> 00:37:32,000
Speaker 3: for Cynthia Freeland, I'm Maria Marino. Thanks so much for

765
00:37:32,280 --> 00:37:36,080
Speaker 3: listening to the Best Bets episode for the twenty twenty

766
00:37:36,160 --> 00:37:40,640
Speaker 3: four Masters. This podcast will return with our UFC episode

767
00:37:40,719 --> 00:37:44,120
Speaker 3: this Friday, along with lots of NFL Draft content leading

768
00:37:44,200 --> 00:37:47,520
Speaker 3: up to Round one on April twenty fifth. Best of

769
00:37:47,680 --> 00:37:50,000
Speaker 3: Luck Betting the Masters this week and We'll see you

770
00:37:50,080 --> 00:37:53,560
Speaker 3: back here next time on the Action Network podcast presented

771
00:37:53,640 --> 00:37:54,560
Speaker 3: by bet MGM.

772
00:38:05,040 --> 00:38:08,440
Speaker 5: Action Network reminds you please gamble responsibly.

773
00:38:08,880 --> 00:38:11,680
Speaker 1: If you or someone you care about has a gambling problem,

774
00:38:12,000 --> 00:38:14,640
Speaker 1: help is available twenty four to seven at one eight

775
00:38:14,719 --> 00:38:15,480
Speaker 1: hundred gambler