Posted:
#251
Looks like there will be a V2 bet on SD tomorrow since they lose by 3+ runs at home, right?
0
John Morrison Thread
Posted:
#252
V2 kicks in only if the RPI differential is 0.015 (an official bet). San Diego was an unofficial bet (RPI difference is 0.021).
V3 kicks in when the unofficial bet wins the [A] game and the RPI differential is greater than 0.025). The game lost and the RPI differential is not large enough, therefore, neither V2 nor V3 kick in.
V3 kicks in when the unofficial bet wins the [A] game and the RPI differential is greater than 0.025). The game lost and the RPI differential is not large enough, therefore, neither V2 nor V3 kick in.
0
Posted:
#255
I needed to bring this up because I just noticed something, and it's not jiving one bit...
In the original V1 MLB system, Morrison gives series plays based on one team sweeping the previous three game series between the two teams.
He divides the plays into official plays and unofficial plays based on some creteria having to do with RPI. His criteria is if the teams are closely matched in RPI (differential of less than 0.010 - I have heard this to be 0.015 recently), then it is an official play. Otherwise, it becomes an unofficial play.
Well, then, here are some facts about the four new series starting up tonight.
1) Tampa Bay vs. Texas. Differential 0.011. Official play.
2) Seattle vs. Cleveland. Differential 0.026. Official play.
3) NY Mets vs. Philadelphia. Differential 0.029. Unofficial play.
4) Boston vs. NY Yankees. Differential 0.010. Unofficial play.
OK, so what doesn't jive is this:
If the RPI differential cut off is 0.015 now, then how in the world does the Boston (playing at home) become an unofficial play especially since the Tampa Bay series high a high RPI differential than the Boston series? Is it because the Yankees are the best RPI team in MLB and basically have owned Boston in their own park recently?
Also, what in the world is up with Seattle's series with Cleveland? Seattle is on the road here and the RPI differential is 0.026. Cleaveland swept Seatlle, this is why we are choosing Seattle this time, and it is an official play?
At least, the Mets series at home with the Phillies is correct, and we will have a potential V3 play in Philadelphia if the Mets win the [A] bet tonight.
The Tampa Bay series at home with Texas, I can see being an official series.
Is there something else to Morrison's criteria he is not letting on? Has anyone else caught this in the past?
In the original V1 MLB system, Morrison gives series plays based on one team sweeping the previous three game series between the two teams.
He divides the plays into official plays and unofficial plays based on some creteria having to do with RPI. His criteria is if the teams are closely matched in RPI (differential of less than 0.010 - I have heard this to be 0.015 recently), then it is an official play. Otherwise, it becomes an unofficial play.
Well, then, here are some facts about the four new series starting up tonight.
1) Tampa Bay vs. Texas. Differential 0.011. Official play.
2) Seattle vs. Cleveland. Differential 0.026. Official play.
3) NY Mets vs. Philadelphia. Differential 0.029. Unofficial play.
4) Boston vs. NY Yankees. Differential 0.010. Unofficial play.
OK, so what doesn't jive is this:
If the RPI differential cut off is 0.015 now, then how in the world does the Boston (playing at home) become an unofficial play especially since the Tampa Bay series high a high RPI differential than the Boston series? Is it because the Yankees are the best RPI team in MLB and basically have owned Boston in their own park recently?
Also, what in the world is up with Seattle's series with Cleveland? Seattle is on the road here and the RPI differential is 0.026. Cleaveland swept Seatlle, this is why we are choosing Seattle this time, and it is an official play?
At least, the Mets series at home with the Phillies is correct, and we will have a potential V3 play in Philadelphia if the Mets win the [A] bet tonight.
The Tampa Bay series at home with Texas, I can see being an official series.
Is there something else to Morrison's criteria he is not letting on? Has anyone else caught this in the past?
0
Posted:
#257
Yeah, you don't bet against a top 3 RPi team, unless the team you are taking is also in the top 3 RPI. So, the Yanks are top 3 and boston is not. So technically no bet.
On the Seattle game, RPI is only a concern when you are taking the lower ranked team. If you are betting on the higher ranked team, like Seattle, the RPI differential is irrelevant b/c they are higher than Cleveland regardless of the differential.
In fact, you have to love when you get to bet on a team that is ranked way higher than their opponent. It doesn't happen often.
0
Posted:
#258
Quote Originally Posted by usakangy:
I needed to bring this up because I just noticed something, and it's not jiving one bit...
In the original V1 MLB system, Morrison gives series plays based on one team sweeping the previous three game series between the two teams.
He divides the plays into official plays and unofficial plays based on some creteria having to do with RPI. His criteria is if the teams are closely matched in RPI (differential of less than 0.010 - I have heard this to be 0.015 recently), then it is an official play. Otherwise, it becomes an unofficial play.
Well, then, here are some facts about the four new series starting up tonight.
1) Tampa Bay vs. Texas. Differential 0.011. Official play.
2) Seattle vs. Cleveland. Differential 0.026. Official play.
3) NY Mets vs. Philadelphia. Differential 0.029. Unofficial play.
4) Boston vs. NY Yankees. Differential 0.010. Unofficial play.
OK, so what doesn't jive is this:
If the RPI differential cut off is 0.015 now, then how in the world does the Boston (playing at home) become an unofficial play especially since the Tampa Bay series high a high RPI differential than the Boston series? Is it because the Yankees are the best RPI team in MLB and basically have owned Boston in their own park recently?
Also, what in the world is up with Seattle's series with Cleveland? Seattle is on the road here and the RPI differential is 0.026. Cleaveland swept Seatlle, this is why we are choosing Seattle this time, and it is an official play?
At least, the Mets series at home with the Phillies is correct, and we will have a potential V3 play in Philadelphia if the Mets win the [A] bet tonight.
The Tampa Bay series at home with Texas, I can see being an official series.
Is there something else to Morrison's criteria he is not letting on? Has anyone else caught this in the past?
I needed to bring this up because I just noticed something, and it's not jiving one bit...
In the original V1 MLB system, Morrison gives series plays based on one team sweeping the previous three game series between the two teams.
He divides the plays into official plays and unofficial plays based on some creteria having to do with RPI. His criteria is if the teams are closely matched in RPI (differential of less than 0.010 - I have heard this to be 0.015 recently), then it is an official play. Otherwise, it becomes an unofficial play.
Well, then, here are some facts about the four new series starting up tonight.
1) Tampa Bay vs. Texas. Differential 0.011. Official play.
2) Seattle vs. Cleveland. Differential 0.026. Official play.
3) NY Mets vs. Philadelphia. Differential 0.029. Unofficial play.
4) Boston vs. NY Yankees. Differential 0.010. Unofficial play.
OK, so what doesn't jive is this:
If the RPI differential cut off is 0.015 now, then how in the world does the Boston (playing at home) become an unofficial play especially since the Tampa Bay series high a high RPI differential than the Boston series? Is it because the Yankees are the best RPI team in MLB and basically have owned Boston in their own park recently?
Also, what in the world is up with Seattle's series with Cleveland? Seattle is on the road here and the RPI differential is 0.026. Cleaveland swept Seatlle, this is why we are choosing Seattle this time, and it is an official play?
At least, the Mets series at home with the Phillies is correct, and we will have a potential V3 play in Philadelphia if the Mets win the [A] bet tonight.
The Tampa Bay series at home with Texas, I can see being an official series.
Is there something else to Morrison's criteria he is not letting on? Has anyone else caught this in the past?
Kangy... I could be wrong, but I though if our play has a .015 RPI lower then its official. In my eyes this mean, that everyone time our play has an RPI higher than the opponent it is official.
Kinda like our "spread" is Our team +.015... and of course we win if it is higher than the other team.
I thought this was the original plan?
0
Posted:
#260
Quote Originally Posted by JoeMoney1440:
Kangy... I could be wrong, but I though if our play has a .015 RPI lower then its official. In my eyes this mean, that everyone time our play has an RPI higher than the opponent it is official.
Kinda like our "spread" is Our team +.015... and of course we win if it is higher than the other team.
I thought this was the original plan?
If the team is in the top 3(RPI ranking) ,its a NO play.Hope this helps you ,gl
Kangy... I could be wrong, but I though if our play has a .015 RPI lower then its official. In my eyes this mean, that everyone time our play has an RPI higher than the opponent it is official.
Kinda like our "spread" is Our team +.015... and of course we win if it is higher than the other team.
I thought this was the original plan?
0
Posted:
#261
guys i wonder if you could help me out...does anyone have a list of the unofficial mlb plays this season and one what bet they won?...my reason for asking is this...recently i have been playing the opposite team to the pick on unofficial plays (ie STL last night vs SD)...my thinking is that generally the opposite team on the unofficial play is the stronger team (especially on the RPI)...if the pick loses then i can continue the series as they now become a V3 play for the remaining two games....also i usually dont have to pay the higher +1.5 runline juice....an example is phil tonight...they are the stronger rpi team, have just swept the mets, agreat road record and i think they have more chance as favs to win 1 of the 3 games (last season 6 chases were lost by playing bascially what are now called unofficial plays)...if phil lose then i continue as a V3 pick for the remaining 2 games....i would appreciate any thoughts guys...if you think i am doing something wrong....
0
Posted:
#262
Englishgent, I think you are making a decent choice. You are just taking the V3 and starting it a game early. I don't see a major problem with this. I guess the odds are even higher in your favor if the first game is won by the previously swept team, hence the rules of the V3 system.
So, if you start the V3 a game early, and lose it on game 1, you would have great confidence that you would probably go on to win game 2 or 3.
0
Posted:
#264
For everybody that claims I am a JM pimp. I emailed JM today asking him to accurately report the "unofficial" win/loss record. He claims one loss--that being the KC v Angles loss he took ownership of. I told him he needs to ad the NATs series loss against the Rockies ending last night. That makes at least 2 unofficial losses and 3 if you count the 2 Tampa Bay sweeps of KC.
I sat out the first 2 games of the NATs series to see what would happen. After losing twice, I figured it was time to pounce on the NATs. I bet the NATs and lost. I am on a terrible losing streak. I have lost about 40% of my bank roll in the last 10 days.
I didn't play the C bet on the CUBS because it was -290 at BetUS, and I couldn't afford to play enough to make a difference in my bankroll without risking my bank roll. I would have had to go "all in" just to get close to recoping my losses on the A and B bets because the Cubs were big favorites in the first two games. Then there was the WNBA Seattle loss at the A and B level. And the NATS loss last night.
Well, I got the MLB Seattle at the ripoff BetUS line -240 (ouch!!!) and I took the Phillies because I, too, don't think the Mets can come anywhere close to sweeping the Phillies, not to mention the Phillies good road record.
These two play can put me on the road to recovery or keep me on a downward spiral. Here's wishing everybody good luck on your plays.
I offer this for those of you keeping score at home.
I sat out the first 2 games of the NATs series to see what would happen. After losing twice, I figured it was time to pounce on the NATs. I bet the NATs and lost. I am on a terrible losing streak. I have lost about 40% of my bank roll in the last 10 days.
I didn't play the C bet on the CUBS because it was -290 at BetUS, and I couldn't afford to play enough to make a difference in my bankroll without risking my bank roll. I would have had to go "all in" just to get close to recoping my losses on the A and B bets because the Cubs were big favorites in the first two games. Then there was the WNBA Seattle loss at the A and B level. And the NATS loss last night.
Well, I got the MLB Seattle at the ripoff BetUS line -240 (ouch!!!) and I took the Phillies because I, too, don't think the Mets can come anywhere close to sweeping the Phillies, not to mention the Phillies good road record.
These two play can put me on the road to recovery or keep me on a downward spiral. Here's wishing everybody good luck on your plays.
I offer this for those of you keeping score at home.
0
Posted:
#265
Jeff Kent...why wouldn't you make sure you're 100% before you start causing confusion?
1st off I don't care because I don't even play the unofficials because it's not worth it.
KC vs. LAA is the only unofficial loss this season. I know JM is a lying scumbag but he's a salesman. They're all liars.
The Nats vs. Colorado covered on the very 1st A bet because you would have played them with +1.5. (That's MLB series betting lesson 101).
So here you are Mr. BigTime telling someone else to get their shit straight. Pretty funny.
And Kangy...why not get yourself a copy of the pdf file for MLB, MLB-V2, MLB V3. You can answer all your questions without getting your panties in a bunch.
Boston is unofficial because the NEW YORK YANKEES are the best team in the land and have the #1 RPI therefore you filter them out. You never play against the top 3 RPI teams.
NEW YORK rules everything!
So for all you ham-n-eggers with anymore questions...ga head and post em and I'll be happy to enlighten you.
0
Posted:
#266
Quote Originally Posted by MikeyFingers:
Jeff Kent...why wouldn't you make sure you're 100% before you start causing confusion?
1st off I don't care because I don't even play the unofficials because it's not worth it.
KC vs. LAA is the only unofficial loss this season. I know JM is a lying scumbag but he's a salesman. They're all liars.
The Nats vs. Colorado covered on the very 1st A bet because you would have played them with +1.5. (That's MLB series betting lesson 101).
So here you are Mr. BigTime telling someone else to get their shit straight. Pretty funny.
And Kangy...why not get yourself a copy of the pdf file for MLB, MLB-V2, MLB V3. You can answer all your questions without getting your panties in a bunch.
Boston is unofficial because the NEW YORK YANKEES are the best team in the land and have the #1 RPI therefore you filter them out. You never play against the top 3 RPI teams.
NEW YORK rules everything!
So for all you ham-n-eggers with anymore questions...ga head and post em and I'll be happy to enlighten you.
Question- Why did the chicken cross the road?
0
Posted:
#267
Jeff,
Game 1 - Nats vs Col on Tues was a win. Col won 4-3 but the Nats were getting +1.5.
You are following the system, but you are not following the system. When you end up picking and choosing because of "gut feeling" thats when you lose out. (been there done that) I refering it as tucking my tail. I have lost out so many times
That's why the lines get so outrageous when if goes to B and C..
Because many people follow and the books know it. They jack the lines and scare people away.
ex. Cubs C vs SD Harding opened at -157 and within minutes after the Padres won game 2, the line rose to -178 and a little while later it was at -220 and some places -240.
Same with Sea game C in WNBA. the line opened at -2 and soon its at -5. Buying the 2 points made it an even game. I ended up taking the $$ line instead at -157. As the point spread increased the $$ line went up to -190.
By no means am I claimiing to be a genius because the "mind games" have worked against me many times also.
I will be right in line when JM tries to taint his record but this year's MLB record is accurate.
KC only has 1 series loss. You must have missed something.
Best of Luck
0
Posted:
#268
Quote Originally Posted by MikeyFingers:
Jeff Kent...why wouldn't you make sure you're 100% before you start causing confusion?
1st off I don't care because I don't even play the unofficials because it's not worth it.
KC vs. LAA is the only unofficial loss this season. I know JM is a lying scumbag but he's a salesman. They're all liars.
The Nats vs. Colorado covered on the very 1st A bet because you would have played them with +1.5. (That's MLB series betting lesson 101).
So here you are Mr. BigTime telling someone else to get their shit straight. Pretty funny.
And Kangy...why not get yourself a copy of the pdf file for MLB, MLB-V2, MLB V3. You can answer all your questions without getting your panties in a bunch.
Boston is unofficial because the NEW YORK YANKEES are the best team in the land and have the #1 RPI therefore you filter them out. You never play against the top 3 RPI teams.
NEW YORK rules everything!
So for all you ham-n-eggers with anymore questions...ga head and post em and I'll be happy to enlighten you.
I stand corrected with respect to the Nats v Rockies series. No wonder I lost the C bet. I shouldn't have been betting. My fault for not paying attention. I deserved the loss.
Now that you're on your high horse scolding for not getting facts correct. Kansas City was first swept by Tampa Bay June 2, 3, 4. Then they played another series July 17, 18, 19 and Tampa Bay swept KC that series making KC an "unofficial" series loser.
So, why don't you get your facts straight so you don't cause confusion.
0
Posted:
#269
There I go again, not getting facts correct. Sorry. I guess the last KC loss against TB was only by one run, and I don't remember, but KC was probably a +1.5 pick on the runline. I just love having to go to the C bet after taking 2 big losses and having to lay the heavy chalk. Don't you?
0
Posted:
#271
usakangy writes: Is it because the Yankees are the best RPI team in MLB and basically have owned Boston in their own park recently?
What baseball have you been watching? boston railed off 8 straights wins against NYY before they got swept on the road vs the Yanks...
Yanks own boston in bostons home Boston is 6-0 vs yanks this year at home 
0
Posted:
#272
i'm still trying to understand why some of you continue to want to believe that the reason these lines move is because the books know about Morrison and they are just trying to scam you. Any true handicapper should know the basics of bookmaking and why the lines move. If someone puts 1 million dollars on the Cubs to win and there's only 100,000 on the Padres then the line is naturally going to move in favor of the Cubs. The reason for this is because they want to put such a great return on the Padres that it will hopefully get more people to bet on the Padres so that they are not paying out 1,000,000 to the Cubs betters and only getting back 100,000 from the Padres backers. That's why when you think you are "killing" your bookie you're really just an idiot because the bookie is most likely winning money on the other side.
These lines are moving because of Morrison, but it's not because the books know about his plays. It's because the rest of us are loading up on that one team all at the same time. That's why the Cubbies C bet moved from -160 when it came out to almost -250 in some books by game time.
And, if you were smart, you would take advantage of this fact like I have.
For example, when the Cubs C bet came out I risked 16.5 units to win 10 units at a -165 ML. I needed to win 4 units for my own mm system. At this time the Padres were a +145 under dog. When the game time rolled around the Padres had moved to +210 so I then placed 6 units on the Padres. So if the Cubs won then I'd win 10 and lose 6 which gave me my 4 unit win. If the Padres had won then I would have only lost 4.5 units. So instead of placing twice as much chalk on the Cubs at -220 or where ever it got up to. I was ble to risk only 4.5 units to win the 4 that I needed.
Get it?
0
Posted:
#275
Quote Originally Posted by puppetm716:
I will be right in line when JM tries to taint his record but this year's MLB record is accurate.
Detroit lost a C bet to Boston on Aug 12, making that series a loss. JM, as he has so often, claimed the series was a win at the A level because the line "moved" at some point during the day, allowing bettors to buy the 1.5 runs. Vegas Insider shows Detroit was a -110 favorite in the game, and I'd like to hear of anyone who actually got to buy the 1.5 runs at their book. This should have been called a loss, because it was. There was another instance of this, this summer, but I can't remember the teams. If the odds are close, JM always seems to claim that favs became underdogs at some point during the day. Sorry, but BS. I count 2 official losses this summer, 1 unofficial.
0
Hot Forum Topics
