hey Zero, I read the thread and just wanted to verify what I understood. You taking Natinoals -1.5 run for $100, if you lose which will be -$100, you bet the next one -1.5 for $300 and if you lose then bet next one for $900? is that what you mean by tripling?
0
hey Zero, I read the thread and just wanted to verify what I understood. You taking Natinoals -1.5 run for $100, if you lose which will be -$100, you bet the next one -1.5 for $300 and if you lose then bet next one for $900? is that what you mean by tripling?
And if they lose that one... 2700 on the next one. And then 8100. So a 5 game losing streak by the nationals, which over the course of a 162 game season is plausible, really puts the hurts to one's bankroll, no?
0
And if they lose that one... 2700 on the next one. And then 8100. So a 5 game losing streak by the nationals, which over the course of a 162 game season is plausible, really puts the hurts to one's bankroll, no?
Anyway, a true mathematician would know that the game cannot be beaten in the long run. Sure there can be short term wins and hot streaks, but numbers always win. Math people should know this. Best of luck anyway.
0
Anyway, a true mathematician would know that the game cannot be beaten in the long run. Sure there can be short term wins and hot streaks, but numbers always win. Math people should know this. Best of luck anyway.
if what I stated is correct, I ran the #s, without considering the juice and taking nationals as a favorite each game, yes you would be up $22000 give or take but there are 2 instances where you would have to bet $8400 and once $25200 to get back on track. I don't know any books that would take that kind of bet.
Correct me if Im wrong. Not in anyway am I trying to talk smack but just verifying what I understood. Correctly. If this is the case Nationals are def the wrong choice for this system. I can run #s for you on SDQL to show you which teams have the least streaks in losing the runline but favoirte the most at the same time.
by looking at it quickly Yankees are the better choice, and then Red Sox.
0
if what I stated is correct, I ran the #s, without considering the juice and taking nationals as a favorite each game, yes you would be up $22000 give or take but there are 2 instances where you would have to bet $8400 and once $25200 to get back on track. I don't know any books that would take that kind of bet.
Correct me if Im wrong. Not in anyway am I trying to talk smack but just verifying what I understood. Correctly. If this is the case Nationals are def the wrong choice for this system. I can run #s for you on SDQL to show you which teams have the least streaks in losing the runline but favoirte the most at the same time.
by looking at it quickly Yankees are the better choice, and then Red Sox.
so far this year 64 games played, the Nats have won 27 of those games by more than 1 run, so a small sample size will tell you that this at a 42% rate that they are winning by more than 1 run. I am not attempting to debunk this guy, I just flat out think his thinking is flawed. This game is not about numbers, it is about the human abilities, look at last night Blue Jays, they were up against a minor league pitcher with Estrada on the mound, they should have won and were actually favored to win, but guess what, Estrada had a bad night and has a bad last 3 outings, and they lost. I am sticking around to watch how many people actually follow this method, and will eventually lose, when you double and triple down on bets. Do your own work and check the stats yourself you will feel better for it, here is a good site to check, https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/WSN/2017.shtml.
Take the full season and they still sit at 41% of winning games by more than 1 run.
0
so far this year 64 games played, the Nats have won 27 of those games by more than 1 run, so a small sample size will tell you that this at a 42% rate that they are winning by more than 1 run. I am not attempting to debunk this guy, I just flat out think his thinking is flawed. This game is not about numbers, it is about the human abilities, look at last night Blue Jays, they were up against a minor league pitcher with Estrada on the mound, they should have won and were actually favored to win, but guess what, Estrada had a bad night and has a bad last 3 outings, and they lost. I am sticking around to watch how many people actually follow this method, and will eventually lose, when you double and triple down on bets. Do your own work and check the stats yourself you will feel better for it, here is a good site to check, https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/WSN/2017.shtml.
Take the full season and they still sit at 41% of winning games by more than 1 run.
so far this year 64 games played, the Nats have won 27 of those games by more than 1 run, so a small sample size will tell you that this at a 42% rate that they are winning by more than 1 run. I am not attempting to debunk this guy, I just flat out think his thinking is flawed. This game is not about numbers, it is about the human abilities, look at last night Blue Jays, they were up against a minor league pitcher with Estrada on the mound, they should have won and were actually favored to win, but guess what, Estrada had a bad night and has a bad last 3 outings, and they lost. I am sticking around to watch how many people actually follow this method, and will eventually lose, when you double and triple down on bets. Do your own work and check the stats yourself you will feel better for it, here is a good site to check, https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/WSN/2017.shtml.
Take the full season and they still sit at 41% of winning games by more than 1 run.
to each his own bro. I'm not defending or bashing this guy. If you don't like what he's doing that's fine. Dont' bet his way but it's always nice to see different perspectives and systems people come up with. Doesn't mean you jump in blindly, do your work and if you don't like it then lay off of it. No need to put the guy down. Just leave it alone and don't give it any thought that's all. Let it be. I run SDQL don't need baseball references to look up stats. I can look up stuff that would take you months to come up with in matter of seconds. I know exactly how many they covered and not coverd by 1 even as fav or dog, at home or away. Nationals are wrong choice, that part you got right but this forum is to share stuff and if you don't like it no problem. Dont' have to follow .
0
Quote Originally Posted by GuelphGolfer:
so far this year 64 games played, the Nats have won 27 of those games by more than 1 run, so a small sample size will tell you that this at a 42% rate that they are winning by more than 1 run. I am not attempting to debunk this guy, I just flat out think his thinking is flawed. This game is not about numbers, it is about the human abilities, look at last night Blue Jays, they were up against a minor league pitcher with Estrada on the mound, they should have won and were actually favored to win, but guess what, Estrada had a bad night and has a bad last 3 outings, and they lost. I am sticking around to watch how many people actually follow this method, and will eventually lose, when you double and triple down on bets. Do your own work and check the stats yourself you will feel better for it, here is a good site to check, https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/WSN/2017.shtml.
Take the full season and they still sit at 41% of winning games by more than 1 run.
to each his own bro. I'm not defending or bashing this guy. If you don't like what he's doing that's fine. Dont' bet his way but it's always nice to see different perspectives and systems people come up with. Doesn't mean you jump in blindly, do your work and if you don't like it then lay off of it. No need to put the guy down. Just leave it alone and don't give it any thought that's all. Let it be. I run SDQL don't need baseball references to look up stats. I can look up stuff that would take you months to come up with in matter of seconds. I know exactly how many they covered and not coverd by 1 even as fav or dog, at home or away. Nationals are wrong choice, that part you got right but this forum is to share stuff and if you don't like it no problem. Dont' have to follow .
to each his own bro. I'm not defending or bashing this guy. If you don't like what he's doing that's fine. Dont' bet his way but it's always nice to see different perspectives and systems people come up with. Doesn't mean you jump in blindly, do your work and if you don't like it then lay off of it. No need to put the guy down. Just leave it alone and don't give it any thought that's all. Let it be. I run SDQL don't need baseball references to look up stats. I can look up stuff that would take you months to come up with in matter of seconds. I know exactly how many they covered and not coverd by 1 even as fav or dog, at home or away. Nationals are wrong choice, that part you got right but this forum is to share stuff and if you don't like it no problem. Dont' have to follow .
Just checked that site out, I like it and will be frequently using it, thanks for sharing something useful, as I stated I am watching and will continue to do so, thank you for your input.
0
Quote Originally Posted by The_Extremist:
to each his own bro. I'm not defending or bashing this guy. If you don't like what he's doing that's fine. Dont' bet his way but it's always nice to see different perspectives and systems people come up with. Doesn't mean you jump in blindly, do your work and if you don't like it then lay off of it. No need to put the guy down. Just leave it alone and don't give it any thought that's all. Let it be. I run SDQL don't need baseball references to look up stats. I can look up stuff that would take you months to come up with in matter of seconds. I know exactly how many they covered and not coverd by 1 even as fav or dog, at home or away. Nationals are wrong choice, that part you got right but this forum is to share stuff and if you don't like it no problem. Dont' have to follow .
Just checked that site out, I like it and will be frequently using it, thanks for sharing something useful, as I stated I am watching and will continue to do so, thank you for your input.
if what I stated is correct, I ran the #s, without considering the juice and taking nationals as a favorite each game, yes you would be up $22000 give or take but there are 2 instances where you would have to bet $8400 and once $25200 to get back on track. I don't know any books that would take that kind of bet.
Correct me if Im wrong. Not in anyway am I trying to talk smack but just verifying what I understood. Correctly. If this is the case Nationals are def the wrong choice for this system. I can run #s for you on SDQL to show you which teams have the least streaks in losing the runline but favoirte the most at the same time.
by looking at it quickly Yankees are the better choice, and then Red Sox.
Thanks for actually checking it and coming up with some numbers. Your numbers are a bit wrong. By a simple model of -100-300-900-2700-8100+24300 (there's such a sequence too) - the number is +38400. Juice is not to be considered as in most cases -1.5 is served with plus money odds. Regarding "no books taking that much" is not a problem either as there are two kinds of solutions for that which I am not yet ready to discuss publicly as that will look like I am promoting some specific books and I am not into promoting anyone here. That's a first solution. Second is taking consecutive bets with the same book with slightly worsened odds which is a worse solution but still a solution. Now, that doesn't stop there and whatever seems theoretically possible has to be tested practically before declaring a success. Theoretically this strategy is worse one out of the seven I am testing and the reason I began with this one is exactly that. The other six are even more profitable and less risky. Together with testing the strategies, I am also testing the testing ground itself and if there will be more of your kind of reactions - people taking seriously others and themselves - I will be more than glad to continue testing here. If not - I will have to find other grounds for mass tests. I hope I won't be forced to create my own site and test it there as I nor like how it sounds nor have the time to do it. I also will never reach such diverse audience as here if I did it alone. So, here I am and here we are scratching only the sellotape covering the packaging of what I am trying to do
0
Quote Originally Posted by The_Extremist:
if what I stated is correct, I ran the #s, without considering the juice and taking nationals as a favorite each game, yes you would be up $22000 give or take but there are 2 instances where you would have to bet $8400 and once $25200 to get back on track. I don't know any books that would take that kind of bet.
Correct me if Im wrong. Not in anyway am I trying to talk smack but just verifying what I understood. Correctly. If this is the case Nationals are def the wrong choice for this system. I can run #s for you on SDQL to show you which teams have the least streaks in losing the runline but favoirte the most at the same time.
by looking at it quickly Yankees are the better choice, and then Red Sox.
Thanks for actually checking it and coming up with some numbers. Your numbers are a bit wrong. By a simple model of -100-300-900-2700-8100+24300 (there's such a sequence too) - the number is +38400. Juice is not to be considered as in most cases -1.5 is served with plus money odds. Regarding "no books taking that much" is not a problem either as there are two kinds of solutions for that which I am not yet ready to discuss publicly as that will look like I am promoting some specific books and I am not into promoting anyone here. That's a first solution. Second is taking consecutive bets with the same book with slightly worsened odds which is a worse solution but still a solution. Now, that doesn't stop there and whatever seems theoretically possible has to be tested practically before declaring a success. Theoretically this strategy is worse one out of the seven I am testing and the reason I began with this one is exactly that. The other six are even more profitable and less risky. Together with testing the strategies, I am also testing the testing ground itself and if there will be more of your kind of reactions - people taking seriously others and themselves - I will be more than glad to continue testing here. If not - I will have to find other grounds for mass tests. I hope I won't be forced to create my own site and test it there as I nor like how it sounds nor have the time to do it. I also will never reach such diverse audience as here if I did it alone. So, here I am and here we are scratching only the sellotape covering the packaging of what I am trying to do
if what I stated is correct, I ran the #s, without considering the juice and taking nationals as a favorite each game, yes you would be up $22000 give or take but there are 2 instances where you would have to bet $8400 and once $25200 to get back on track. I don't know any books that would take that kind of bet.
Correct me if Im wrong. Not in anyway am I trying to talk smack but just verifying what I understood. Correctly. If this is the case Nationals are def the wrong choice for this system. I can run #s for you on SDQL to show you which teams have the least streaks in losing the runline but favoirte the most at the same time.
by looking at it quickly Yankees are the better choice, and then Red Sox.
Actually - the teams that have smallest streaks are the best here. But, MLB is the hardest of all. NBA is much easier.
0
Quote Originally Posted by The_Extremist:
if what I stated is correct, I ran the #s, without considering the juice and taking nationals as a favorite each game, yes you would be up $22000 give or take but there are 2 instances where you would have to bet $8400 and once $25200 to get back on track. I don't know any books that would take that kind of bet.
Correct me if Im wrong. Not in anyway am I trying to talk smack but just verifying what I understood. Correctly. If this is the case Nationals are def the wrong choice for this system. I can run #s for you on SDQL to show you which teams have the least streaks in losing the runline but favoirte the most at the same time.
by looking at it quickly Yankees are the better choice, and then Red Sox.
Actually - the teams that have smallest streaks are the best here. But, MLB is the hardest of all. NBA is much easier.
Anyway, a true mathematician would know that the game cannot be beaten in the long run. Sure there can be short term wins and hot streaks, but numbers always win. Math people should know this. Best of luck anyway.
Mathematics are about numbers as it is a precise science. All kinds of says like the one you use - the game can not be beaten in a long run - is for gamblers. Gamblers that take each game as a sole event and threat it as such. I - on contrary - do not take each game as a sole event, but the whole season as one long event. not trying to "beat the game" or "beat the Vegas" or "kill the bookie" or anything of that sort that sounds like a wishful thinking. No. The name Zero Sum Games has a meaning. It means that when two sides play against each other - there can not be a situation that both sides win. One wins exactly what the other side loses. And, please excuse me for not mentioning the juice here. It is important for 53% players. What I am saying is that on my possible win on the season - there will be hundreds of people who will lose on opposite wagers.So.the betting operation, or a sports book operation itself is based on one side losing, the other winning and the house taking the juice, or house winning the majority.I am ot part of that game with single games. I am a part of the season long lasting game. And, without any doubt - I am going to win that. That doeesn't mean the house will lose. No.The side that will fill in the losing bets will be those that gamble
0
Quote Originally Posted by CincyRacer:
Anyway, a true mathematician would know that the game cannot be beaten in the long run. Sure there can be short term wins and hot streaks, but numbers always win. Math people should know this. Best of luck anyway.
Mathematics are about numbers as it is a precise science. All kinds of says like the one you use - the game can not be beaten in a long run - is for gamblers. Gamblers that take each game as a sole event and threat it as such. I - on contrary - do not take each game as a sole event, but the whole season as one long event. not trying to "beat the game" or "beat the Vegas" or "kill the bookie" or anything of that sort that sounds like a wishful thinking. No. The name Zero Sum Games has a meaning. It means that when two sides play against each other - there can not be a situation that both sides win. One wins exactly what the other side loses. And, please excuse me for not mentioning the juice here. It is important for 53% players. What I am saying is that on my possible win on the season - there will be hundreds of people who will lose on opposite wagers.So.the betting operation, or a sports book operation itself is based on one side losing, the other winning and the house taking the juice, or house winning the majority.I am ot part of that game with single games. I am a part of the season long lasting game. And, without any doubt - I am going to win that. That doeesn't mean the house will lose. No.The side that will fill in the losing bets will be those that gamble
You are greatly wrong if you think all -1.5 are + money. That's completely wrong. That's why your #s are off sir. You need to go with a team that hasn't lost very many -1.5 in a row. All teams have at least a 3 steak of losing and even 4 steak of losing -1.5. Just have to chose the team with the least 3 steaks and that is Yankees this season so far with them being most dominant covering the runline. Anyways just my 2 cents. do as you please. I'm a fan of all systems. good luck with your venture.
0
You are greatly wrong if you think all -1.5 are + money. That's completely wrong. That's why your #s are off sir. You need to go with a team that hasn't lost very many -1.5 in a row. All teams have at least a 3 steak of losing and even 4 steak of losing -1.5. Just have to chose the team with the least 3 steaks and that is Yankees this season so far with them being most dominant covering the runline. Anyways just my 2 cents. do as you please. I'm a fan of all systems. good luck with your venture.
You are greatly wrong if you think all -1.5 are + money. That's completely wrong. That's why your #s are off sir. You need to go with a team that hasn't lost very many -1.5 in a row. All teams have at least a 3 steak of losing and even 4 steak of losing -1.5. Just have to chose the team with the least 3 steaks and that is Yankees this season so far with them being most dominant covering the runline. Anyways just my 2 cents. do as you please. I'm a fan of all systems. good luck with your venture.
I didn't say all the -1.5 lines carry plus money odds. I said most do.
The Yankees would make you $13,200 (including last night's loss) and the biggest wager you would have to place was $8100.
0
Quote Originally Posted by The_Extremist:
You are greatly wrong if you think all -1.5 are + money. That's completely wrong. That's why your #s are off sir. You need to go with a team that hasn't lost very many -1.5 in a row. All teams have at least a 3 steak of losing and even 4 steak of losing -1.5. Just have to chose the team with the least 3 steaks and that is Yankees this season so far with them being most dominant covering the runline. Anyways just my 2 cents. do as you please. I'm a fan of all systems. good luck with your venture.
I didn't say all the -1.5 lines carry plus money odds. I said most do.
The Yankees would make you $13,200 (including last night's loss) and the biggest wager you would have to place was $8100.
Following very close. Like what I see. Understand the direction. Please, under no circumstances, do not abandon this as it is an absolutely fresh approach to what is known as sports betting. It is a long term and doesn't depend on specific performance on a specific day by a specific team or an individual. It is a real strategy game. Maaaan, If you need to be paid while dedicating your full time and attention to it - I'm ready to finance it in exchange for some ownership percentage. I mean it. I sent you a friend request.
is it too hard for you to understand that you need him to do the work?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Mick960:
Following very close. Like what I see. Understand the direction. Please, under no circumstances, do not abandon this as it is an absolutely fresh approach to what is known as sports betting. It is a long term and doesn't depend on specific performance on a specific day by a specific team or an individual. It is a real strategy game. Maaaan, If you need to be paid while dedicating your full time and attention to it - I'm ready to finance it in exchange for some ownership percentage. I mean it. I sent you a friend request.
is it too hard for you to understand that you need him to do the work?
is it too hard for you to understand that you need him to do the work?
Understanding is one thing, implementing it is another. Besides, whoever is behind that ZeroSum character - did say the Martingale X3 on RL is one of the 7 and by the way he is conducting himself - I'm inclined to trust he is saying the truth. If Mick wants to pursue the idea in more seriosus fashion - what it's to you?
0
Quote Originally Posted by winnerwinner99:
is it too hard for you to understand that you need him to do the work?
Understanding is one thing, implementing it is another. Besides, whoever is behind that ZeroSum character - did say the Martingale X3 on RL is one of the 7 and by the way he is conducting himself - I'm inclined to trust he is saying the truth. If Mick wants to pursue the idea in more seriosus fashion - what it's to you?
So, even if the Yankees lose your 300 dollar bet - you still gonna show profitable today... Is that your point? And tomorrow you will pound the Yankees for 900?
0
So, even if the Yankees lose your 300 dollar bet - you still gonna show profitable today... Is that your point? And tomorrow you will pound the Yankees for 900?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
. If Mick wants to pursue the idea in more seriosus fashion - what it's to you?
Hot Forum Topics
