I've been following Qs system since 4/29. Series record 39-6 with average win +135 = +52 winning units minus 6 losses x 7 units per lost series = -42 units.
Net units since 4/29 = +10 units
Rough outing last weekend but in long term Q system is $$$$$$
Since this post, the system went 7 series win and 3 series loss. About 9 unit win and 21 unit loss. Net units since 4/29 = - 3 unit. Without Dodgers/Rocky over total loss.
Will MAMA say knock you out next week?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bizarro:
I've been following Qs system since 4/29. Series record 39-6 with average win +135 = +52 winning units minus 6 losses x 7 units per lost series = -42 units.
Net units since 4/29 = +10 units
Rough outing last weekend but in long term Q system is $$$$$$
Since this post, the system went 7 series win and 3 series loss. About 9 unit win and 21 unit loss. Net units since 4/29 = - 3 unit. Without Dodgers/Rocky over total loss.
Since this post, the system went 7 series win and 3 series loss. About 9 unit win and 21 unit loss. Net units since 4/29 = - 3 unit. Without Dodgers/Rocky over total loss.
Will MAMA say knock you out next week?
Nothing Personal. Not hating, just stating how things are. Depending on when you got on the train you could very easily be down overall right now. The past few weeks have been brutal and game selection is the culprit.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Chimpo:
Since this post, the system went 7 series win and 3 series loss. About 9 unit win and 21 unit loss. Net units since 4/29 = - 3 unit. Without Dodgers/Rocky over total loss.
Will MAMA say knock you out next week?
Nothing Personal. Not hating, just stating how things are. Depending on when you got on the train you could very easily be down overall right now. The past few weeks have been brutal and game selection is the culprit.
Since 4/29 series record 47-9 with average win +130 = 61 units won minus 63 units lost = - 2 units
Since 1998, 27% of 3 game series result in sweep so roughly 1 of 4 could be a -7 unit loss. One way to possibly improve winning odds is to only back series dogs playing at home. Since 1998 MLB home teams have swept 1588 series compared to road teams have only swept 927 series.
Source: www.mlbsweeps.com
0
Since 4/29 series record 47-9 with average win +130 = 61 units won minus 63 units lost = - 2 units
Since 1998, 27% of 3 game series result in sweep so roughly 1 of 4 could be a -7 unit loss. One way to possibly improve winning odds is to only back series dogs playing at home. Since 1998 MLB home teams have swept 1588 series compared to road teams have only swept 927 series.
YTD 79-12....not my fault if people are tossing in their whole bankroll on game 3's...
POSITIVE VIBES=POSITIVE $$$$$....Plays coming up..GL and LET'S GO!!!!!
Your system is still showing a positive return on investment using your betting rules. No one is under any obligation to play your picks. Keep them coming QB!!!
0
Quote Originally Posted by QBUN:
YTD 79-12....not my fault if people are tossing in their whole bankroll on game 3's...
POSITIVE VIBES=POSITIVE $$$$$....Plays coming up..GL and LET'S GO!!!!!
Your system is still showing a positive return on investment using your betting rules. No one is under any obligation to play your picks. Keep them coming QB!!!
YTD 79-12....not my fault if people are tossing in their whole bankroll on game 3's...
POSITIVE VIBES=POSITIVE $$$$$....Plays coming up..GL and LET'S GO!!!!!
You must be down or about even. Of those 79 series win, how many wins are result of game 3? If you are betting just 3 times of original bet on game 3 and average win is +135 , then those game 3 wins net you only 0.35 unit each series win . 12 series loss ( 6 unit each = -72 units ) If there were 10 game 3 wins , then your net series win would be 69 + 3.5 unit= 72.5 unit. That will come out to about even.
0
Quote Originally Posted by QBUN:
YTD 79-12....not my fault if people are tossing in their whole bankroll on game 3's...
POSITIVE VIBES=POSITIVE $$$$$....Plays coming up..GL and LET'S GO!!!!!
You must be down or about even. Of those 79 series win, how many wins are result of game 3? If you are betting just 3 times of original bet on game 3 and average win is +135 , then those game 3 wins net you only 0.35 unit each series win . 12 series loss ( 6 unit each = -72 units ) If there were 10 game 3 wins , then your net series win would be 69 + 3.5 unit= 72.5 unit. That will come out to about even.
You must be down or about even. Of those 79 series win, how many wins are result of game 3? If you are betting just 3 times of original bet on game 3 and average win is +135 , then those game 3 wins net you only 0.35 unit each series win . 12 series loss ( 6 unit each = -72 units ) If there were 10 game 3 wins , then your net series win would be 69 + 3.5 unit= 72.5 unit. That will come out to about even.
Using your average of +135 for a game 3 and a 3x original bet, the net for a game 3 winner would be 1.05 units. You forgot to multiply .35 by 3x the original bet.... just sayin...if you are going to try to crunch the numbers to figure out if you can find a way to make money. Don't forget to check your math
0
Quote Originally Posted by Chimpo:
You must be down or about even. Of those 79 series win, how many wins are result of game 3? If you are betting just 3 times of original bet on game 3 and average win is +135 , then those game 3 wins net you only 0.35 unit each series win . 12 series loss ( 6 unit each = -72 units ) If there were 10 game 3 wins , then your net series win would be 69 + 3.5 unit= 72.5 unit. That will come out to about even.
Using your average of +135 for a game 3 and a 3x original bet, the net for a game 3 winner would be 1.05 units. You forgot to multiply .35 by 3x the original bet.... just sayin...if you are going to try to crunch the numbers to figure out if you can find a way to make money. Don't forget to check your math
Using your average of +135 for a game 3 and a 3x original bet, the net for a game 3 winner would be 1.05 units. You forgot to multiply .35 by 3x the original bet.... just sayin...if you are going to try to crunch the numbers to figure out if you can find a way to make money. Don't forget to check your math
My bad. Forgot that .35 times 3. He is still up after all. No this is not a way to make money betting for me though.
0
Quote Originally Posted by tbone4au:
Using your average of +135 for a game 3 and a 3x original bet, the net for a game 3 winner would be 1.05 units. You forgot to multiply .35 by 3x the original bet.... just sayin...if you are going to try to crunch the numbers to figure out if you can find a way to make money. Don't forget to check your math
My bad. Forgot that .35 times 3. He is still up after all. No this is not a way to make money betting for me though.
Hey guys, it's my first post although I've read every comment and have followed this feed the entire season. I fully understand the math involved with this system and the reasoning behind underdogs bc of the +money payout. We all know that since 1998 only 27% of series end in a sweep. Behind those numbers is an even more telling stat: of the 27%, only 36% comes from home teams being swept. Overall the math shows that roughly 9% of home teams (regardless of a favorite or dog) gets swept (3 game series). Furthermore, I went back to the beginning of this season and noted every series outcome from 3 and 4 game series and concluded that thus far, only 8% of those series resulted in the home team being swept (regardless of them being a favorite or dog). The math is 274 series in total with 22 showing the home team being swept (I omitted any series that was shortened to 2 bc of rainouts). Of those 22 series sweeps, only 6 occurred where the home team was an overall better team. I hope I haven't lost your attention at this point...but going one step further....let's assume that of those 274 series played this far, half of them (137) pit a better team (home team) versus a weaker team (road team).....meaning that of the 137 theoretical series (again, I'm not sure the ratio) only 6 resulted in the weaker team sweeping. That's about 4%. So, in theory, if you were to only chase home teams playing a weaker opponent you'd have a 96% chance of winning. Granted, I understand you'd be laying -130 thru -180 on avg (sometimes over -200 for Tanaka, Felix H and others...) but it appears there may be something to it. Or, since the overall stats are supported for the past 15+ years to show a home team (regardless of being a favorite or dog) is only swept about 9% of the time, maybe it'd be feasible to bet on home teams regardless of the matchup. Then, the occasional plus money of +110 or so from a home dog could help to balance the usual -150 or above wins. At a winning clip of 9-1 it could be profitable depending upon what game you win (meaning if it's -140 or a crappy -200). Also, the all important unit size is VERY important too. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts....
0
Hey guys, it's my first post although I've read every comment and have followed this feed the entire season. I fully understand the math involved with this system and the reasoning behind underdogs bc of the +money payout. We all know that since 1998 only 27% of series end in a sweep. Behind those numbers is an even more telling stat: of the 27%, only 36% comes from home teams being swept. Overall the math shows that roughly 9% of home teams (regardless of a favorite or dog) gets swept (3 game series). Furthermore, I went back to the beginning of this season and noted every series outcome from 3 and 4 game series and concluded that thus far, only 8% of those series resulted in the home team being swept (regardless of them being a favorite or dog). The math is 274 series in total with 22 showing the home team being swept (I omitted any series that was shortened to 2 bc of rainouts). Of those 22 series sweeps, only 6 occurred where the home team was an overall better team. I hope I haven't lost your attention at this point...but going one step further....let's assume that of those 274 series played this far, half of them (137) pit a better team (home team) versus a weaker team (road team).....meaning that of the 137 theoretical series (again, I'm not sure the ratio) only 6 resulted in the weaker team sweeping. That's about 4%. So, in theory, if you were to only chase home teams playing a weaker opponent you'd have a 96% chance of winning. Granted, I understand you'd be laying -130 thru -180 on avg (sometimes over -200 for Tanaka, Felix H and others...) but it appears there may be something to it. Or, since the overall stats are supported for the past 15+ years to show a home team (regardless of being a favorite or dog) is only swept about 9% of the time, maybe it'd be feasible to bet on home teams regardless of the matchup. Then, the occasional plus money of +110 or so from a home dog could help to balance the usual -150 or above wins. At a winning clip of 9-1 it could be profitable depending upon what game you win (meaning if it's -140 or a crappy -200). Also, the all important unit size is VERY important too. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts....
Hey guys, it's my first post although I've read every comment and have followed this feed the entire season. I fully understand the math involved with this system and the reasoning behind underdogs bc of the +money payout. We all know that since 1998 only 27% of series end in a sweep. Behind those numbers is an even more telling stat: of the 27%, only 36% comes from home teams being swept. Overall the math shows that roughly 9% of home teams (regardless of a favorite or dog) gets swept (3 game series). Furthermore, I went back to the beginning of this season and noted every series outcome from 3 and 4 game series and concluded that thus far, only 8% of those series resulted in the home team being swept (regardless of them being a favorite or dog). The math is 274 series in total with 22 showing the home team being swept (I omitted any series that was shortened to 2 bc of rainouts). Of those 22 series sweeps, only 6 occurred where the home team was an overall better team. I hope I haven't lost your attention at this point...but going one step further....let's assume that of those 274 series played this far, half of them (137) pit a better team (home team) versus a weaker team (road team).....meaning that of the 137 theoretical series (again, I'm not sure the ratio) only 6 resulted in the weaker team sweeping. That's about 4%. So, in theory, if you were to only chase home teams playing a weaker opponent you'd have a 96% chance of winning. Granted, I understand you'd be laying -130 thru -180 on avg (sometimes over -200 for Tanaka, Felix H and others...) but it appears there may be something to it. Or, since the overall stats are supported for the past 15+ years to show a home team (regardless of being a favorite or dog) is only swept about 9% of the time, maybe it'd be feasible to bet on home teams regardless of the matchup. Then, the occasional plus money of +110 or so from a home dog could help to balance the usual -150 or above wins. At a winning clip of 9-1 it could be profitable depending upon what game you win (meaning if it's -140 or a crappy -200). Also, the all important unit size is VERY important too. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts....
Very intresting, betting C bets are very stressful. If all that is a fact I would add a couple of filters...If the listed pitchers of the visiting team are 3 top notch pitchers, you should let go....or if the home team is going through a loosing streak...No Bet....maybe same division No Bet etc these were just examples....
BOL
0
Quote Originally Posted by Jsmith12257:
Hey guys, it's my first post although I've read every comment and have followed this feed the entire season. I fully understand the math involved with this system and the reasoning behind underdogs bc of the +money payout. We all know that since 1998 only 27% of series end in a sweep. Behind those numbers is an even more telling stat: of the 27%, only 36% comes from home teams being swept. Overall the math shows that roughly 9% of home teams (regardless of a favorite or dog) gets swept (3 game series). Furthermore, I went back to the beginning of this season and noted every series outcome from 3 and 4 game series and concluded that thus far, only 8% of those series resulted in the home team being swept (regardless of them being a favorite or dog). The math is 274 series in total with 22 showing the home team being swept (I omitted any series that was shortened to 2 bc of rainouts). Of those 22 series sweeps, only 6 occurred where the home team was an overall better team. I hope I haven't lost your attention at this point...but going one step further....let's assume that of those 274 series played this far, half of them (137) pit a better team (home team) versus a weaker team (road team).....meaning that of the 137 theoretical series (again, I'm not sure the ratio) only 6 resulted in the weaker team sweeping. That's about 4%. So, in theory, if you were to only chase home teams playing a weaker opponent you'd have a 96% chance of winning. Granted, I understand you'd be laying -130 thru -180 on avg (sometimes over -200 for Tanaka, Felix H and others...) but it appears there may be something to it. Or, since the overall stats are supported for the past 15+ years to show a home team (regardless of being a favorite or dog) is only swept about 9% of the time, maybe it'd be feasible to bet on home teams regardless of the matchup. Then, the occasional plus money of +110 or so from a home dog could help to balance the usual -150 or above wins. At a winning clip of 9-1 it could be profitable depending upon what game you win (meaning if it's -140 or a crappy -200). Also, the all important unit size is VERY important too. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts....
Very intresting, betting C bets are very stressful. If all that is a fact I would add a couple of filters...If the listed pitchers of the visiting team are 3 top notch pitchers, you should let go....or if the home team is going through a loosing streak...No Bet....maybe same division No Bet etc these were just examples....
JSmith - interesting angle but I would be nervous as hell backing a heavy favorite in your system Game 3. Don't forget the juice from game 1 and 2 if you had better team you could be in for -450 before game 3 even starts. Then have to cover juice for a guy like Tanaka -200 x (450 + 100) = -1100 for game 3! I've been burned by "sure thing" pitchers before and it would really blow to pay that kinda cash for a chance to win 100
0
JSmith - interesting angle but I would be nervous as hell backing a heavy favorite in your system Game 3. Don't forget the juice from game 1 and 2 if you had better team you could be in for -450 before game 3 even starts. Then have to cover juice for a guy like Tanaka -200 x (450 + 100) = -1100 for game 3! I've been burned by "sure thing" pitchers before and it would really blow to pay that kinda cash for a chance to win 100
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.
My bad. Forgot that .35 times 3. He is still up after all. No this is not a way to make money betting for me though.
Hot Forum Topics
