I know what you´re gonna say, its just another chase system...

Those are the final rankings as of 2009, given the schedule of the first day, the systems plays will be like this:

Opening Game on Sunday:

NYY @ BOS  1 UNIT (depending on line its wo win or risk for all the picks)

Games on Monday:

CLE @ CWS 1 UNIT

TOR @ TEX 1 UNIT

MIN @ LAA 1 UNIT

CHC @ ATL 1 UNIT

I guess everyone should be able to follow the reasoning behind this...

Good luck to all of you, but one more thing, should be clear but wanna point it out again:

Of cause you are welcome to follow these picks, the system showed solid results during the last year in real life as well as during the backtesting all the way to the season of 2004. If you decide to follow thats fine, but I dont feel like having the haters around who will post Bull***t here just because they dont find anything else to upload their nonsense at. I dont feel responsible for you action, I just wanted to share my thoughts here and I really welcome everyone to give me advice or ideas of how to make the system more acurate.

I have to tell you though that I am not looking for any kind of filter to minimize the number of games and maximize the winning %, I found that I feel more comfortable with more games and the money being split than just 1 or 2 picks loaded heavily...but thats just my view...

I was looking at your lists above.  I'm assuming that the first list is Group 1, etc.  Are you splitting the teams by their position in their division, or by winning percentage?  If by their position, you don't have a team from the AL Central in Group 1.  If by winning percentage, how did you split the .463 winning percentage tie between San Diego (in Group 2), Toronto, and Oakland (both in Group 3)?

I just want to make sure I'm grouping the teams properly.

Ok, that makes no sense

favs to win 1 UNIT

dogs bet 1 UNIT

thats what I was trying to say

Hey Gotham, what you just described is how I started the whole thing, skipping all first games of a series and then start on the second game if the home team lost...but I figured that it pays less doing it this way...the last season was not that good with the first games though (only a small gain in UNITS), but in the other seasons I backtested it was solid over and over...thats why I do it from the first game on...and please dont quote records like 80-1, lets be honest, if you take the whole chase as 1 win or loss, the records gets inflated heavily...I had only 2 sweeps in the last season, so my record would be somewhere in the same area, but the truth is 255-163 when you take every game for itself...I personally think this paints a clearer picture...but thanks for your input though...

Call, how do you these profit? Separately for bets (profit for the 1-unit bet, profit for the 2-unit bet, etc)?

I think so the better way for calculate the system's profit is using the % yield formula, where you must to consider all results of the all bets (including the fails system).

So you need to identificate how many 1-unit bets win + how many 2-unit bets win + how many 4-unit bets win + how many bets fails.

With these numbers we could to calculate the system's %yield like integral way.

Thanks for the input, I have to be honest though that I cant follow you completely here...

Hope you can explain again, maybe with an example? Im obviously too stuipd for that

Thanks man

As I statd above, I did it with the particual standings in each and every situation, not the final standings of the year...otherwise it would be obvious that it could be a totally different picture...trust me, I did that by hand and it was roughly 3 months of time to do all of this...but I think it was worth it so far...hopefully it will stay like this in 2010!

BOL everyone

Call, I will try explain me. I wrote the following post in another thread (NBA OT Over) in this same forum:

Rob, sorry for my bad english but I will try explain to you my points of view about your system.

I done some calcs about the optimal wager mount distribution for each step (A,B,C,D) in your system and then I found some interesting data:

1) The system's theorical yield assuming bets mount like the typical aritmetic progression (A=1, B=2, C=4, D=8) with flat success distribution (4 picks winning: one in A, one in B, one in C and one in D) and no loss is 32.3%

2) The system's real yield assuming the typical aritmetic progression and the results until last night (A=45, B=25, C=16, D=11 and 3 losses) is 25.6%

3) My discover is that if we increase the bets mount aritmetic progression to multiple 3 instead of 2 (A=1, B=3, C=9, D=27) then the yield grow up to 40.9%

4) The handicap is that you need a more deep bankroll, since in one lose system you go down 40 bankroll units instead of 15 bankroll units of the multiple 2 system

I wait your comments...

Basically, I need the real success distribution of your system (for example: A bets: 50 wins, B bets: 30 wins, C bets: 18 wins, Fail bets: 2 fails, assuming a hypothetical 100 bets totals).

Do you got it?

Ok, now I got it...but one thing is obvious...you state that when you increase the unitsize from 2 to 3 the return is higher...thats cleasr, as long as you are profitable anyway...the drawdown is when you have a season where you lose, than it hits you harder...

I will be riding this system all year call82 I will hopefully see you at the end of the year with alot of profit !!!!