Plays tomorrow TENTATIVELY are: TEX A GAME CLV A GAME LAD A GAME WAS A GAME NYM A GAME (lowekee, you're up buddy! Time to make up that cash'o'LA)
Continuation Series play is: TEX Looks like TEX will be a winner tonight vs laa. So, we will be at an A GAME with the continuation series as long as TEX holds on.
ALSO!!! AIR1 seems to have some news! If you take the first 5 inning bet, it does as well or BETTER than our RPI system did last year. KC would have won our bet with a 5inn bet last year. IDK if AIR1 will start a thread or not, but, I'm showing you some different plays.
These are all only TWO game series... Still plays?
0
Quote Originally Posted by bettor2win:
Plays tomorrow TENTATIVELY are: TEX A GAME CLV A GAME LAD A GAME WAS A GAME NYM A GAME (lowekee, you're up buddy! Time to make up that cash'o'LA)
Continuation Series play is: TEX Looks like TEX will be a winner tonight vs laa. So, we will be at an A GAME with the continuation series as long as TEX holds on.
ALSO!!! AIR1 seems to have some news! If you take the first 5 inning bet, it does as well or BETTER than our RPI system did last year. KC would have won our bet with a 5inn bet last year. IDK if AIR1 will start a thread or not, but, I'm showing you some different plays.
These are all only TWO game series... Still plays?
Sorry Guys. Looks like Covers is restricting the character limit in a single post. I had to cut some of the history to make it fit. I think I am going to post the entire record on my site. Give me a day or two to get it up and going.
0
Sorry Guys. Looks like Covers is restricting the character limit in a single post. I had to cut some of the history to make it fit. I think I am going to post the entire record on my site. Give me a day or two to get it up and going.
B2W: question...did you happen to keep track on how the Continuation System did 2 years ago?
I found last year's RPI Continuation thread...for anyone interested here is a rough idea of how it ended and I believe this was only for a July/August.
Nice Find Stickbit, but it is incorrect. I read til the end of the thread and it should be
season record:
A Game wins: 18
B Game wins: 11
C games: 0
Losses: 0
Total record: 29-0
unofficial plays: 2-0 Both "A" game wins.
0
Quote Originally Posted by stickbit:
B2W: question...did you happen to keep track on how the Continuation System did 2 years ago?
I found last year's RPI Continuation thread...for anyone interested here is a rough idea of how it ended and I believe this was only for a July/August.
B2W and irage - what is the win ratio like if I was to fade the system picks as the juice is lower and noticed that 4 games went to B games..
I'm not saying your system has a fault, I was just looking at it the other way round. When I get home today I'll back test the results and see how many failed or came through..
As our primary objective is to make money and to share our strengths.
As my first stake for GAME A is $300 x 1.5 = $450 (profit of $150) if game A wins
GAME B stake is stake $900 x 1.5 = $1350 (profit of $150 or loss of $1200)
GAME C stake is $2700 x 1.5 = $4050 (profit of $150 and had to risk $3900.
If by using the RPI filter and going for the other team juice is going to be much lower and if they do win in 3 game series were in the money...
Then again I might be completely wrong and a fool, only way to find out is to put it on to the drawing board.
0
B2W and irage - what is the win ratio like if I was to fade the system picks as the juice is lower and noticed that 4 games went to B games..
I'm not saying your system has a fault, I was just looking at it the other way round. When I get home today I'll back test the results and see how many failed or came through..
As our primary objective is to make money and to share our strengths.
As my first stake for GAME A is $300 x 1.5 = $450 (profit of $150) if game A wins
GAME B stake is stake $900 x 1.5 = $1350 (profit of $150 or loss of $1200)
GAME C stake is $2700 x 1.5 = $4050 (profit of $150 and had to risk $3900.
If by using the RPI filter and going for the other team juice is going to be much lower and if they do win in 3 game series were in the money...
Then again I might be completely wrong and a fool, only way to find out is to put it on to the drawing board.
B2W and irage - what is the win ratio like if I was to fade the system picks as the juice is lower and noticed that 4 games went to B games..
I'm not saying your system has a fault, I was just looking at it the other way round. When I get home today I'll back test the results and see how many failed or came through..
As our primary objective is to make money and to share our strengths.
As my first stake for GAME A is $300 x 1.5 = $450 (profit of $150) if game A wins
GAME B stake is stake $900 x 1.5 = $1350 (profit of $150 or loss of $1200)
GAME C stake is $2700 x 1.5 = $4050 (profit of $150 and had to risk $3900.
If by using the RPI filter and going for the other team juice is going to be much lower and if they do win in 3 game series were in the money...
Then again I might be completely wrong and a fool, only way to find out is to put it on to the drawing board.
I mentioned last year something like this and got bashed severly. Enjoy.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Jaycut:
B2W and irage - what is the win ratio like if I was to fade the system picks as the juice is lower and noticed that 4 games went to B games..
I'm not saying your system has a fault, I was just looking at it the other way round. When I get home today I'll back test the results and see how many failed or came through..
As our primary objective is to make money and to share our strengths.
As my first stake for GAME A is $300 x 1.5 = $450 (profit of $150) if game A wins
GAME B stake is stake $900 x 1.5 = $1350 (profit of $150 or loss of $1200)
GAME C stake is $2700 x 1.5 = $4050 (profit of $150 and had to risk $3900.
If by using the RPI filter and going for the other team juice is going to be much lower and if they do win in 3 game series were in the money...
Then again I might be completely wrong and a fool, only way to find out is to put it on to the drawing board.
I mentioned last year something like this and got bashed severly. Enjoy.
You mention the 5 inning line lately. I have been having success in betting the first 5 run line. Instead of laying -200 with halladay. I might lay -.5. -120 instead.
The mets beat philly 3 times last week but philly led after the first 5 in all 3 games. Except for teamrankings i cannot find any 5 inning stats. Does anybody know a good place to find stats?
0
You mention the 5 inning line lately. I have been having success in betting the first 5 run line. Instead of laying -200 with halladay. I might lay -.5. -120 instead.
The mets beat philly 3 times last week but philly led after the first 5 in all 3 games. Except for teamrankings i cannot find any 5 inning stats. Does anybody know a good place to find stats?
B2W and irage - what is the win ratio like if I was to fade the system picks as the juice is lower and noticed that 4 games went to B games..
I'm not saying your system has a fault, I was just looking at it the other way round. When I get home today I'll back test the results and see how many failed or came through..
As our primary objective is to make money and to share our strengths.
As my first stake for GAME A is $300 x 1.5 = $450 (profit of $150) if game A wins
GAME B stake is stake $900 x 1.5 = $1350 (profit of $150 or loss of $1200)
GAME C stake is $2700 x 1.5 = $4050 (profit of $150 and had to risk $3900.
If by using the RPI filter and going for the other team juice is going to be much lower and if they do win in 3 game series were in the money...
Then again I might be completely wrong and a fool, only way to find out is to put it on to the drawing board.
Somebody said we had like 16 sweeps last year. IDK. It would work a lot of the time, but definitely not all the time. At least you would normally have + juice.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Jaycut:
B2W and irage - what is the win ratio like if I was to fade the system picks as the juice is lower and noticed that 4 games went to B games..
I'm not saying your system has a fault, I was just looking at it the other way round. When I get home today I'll back test the results and see how many failed or came through..
As our primary objective is to make money and to share our strengths.
As my first stake for GAME A is $300 x 1.5 = $450 (profit of $150) if game A wins
GAME B stake is stake $900 x 1.5 = $1350 (profit of $150 or loss of $1200)
GAME C stake is $2700 x 1.5 = $4050 (profit of $150 and had to risk $3900.
If by using the RPI filter and going for the other team juice is going to be much lower and if they do win in 3 game series were in the money...
Then again I might be completely wrong and a fool, only way to find out is to put it on to the drawing board.
Somebody said we had like 16 sweeps last year. IDK. It would work a lot of the time, but definitely not all the time. At least you would normally have + juice.
B2w I had the same question was Jolive do we bet game a twice once for RPI official play and once for continuation
Personally, I bet them seperate. So, YES, I bet them 2X.
One more thing guys, I don't mind whatsoever if you want to try a reverse system or whatever. lowekee00 said he mentioned it last year and had his head bit off. Well, sorry about that. But if it works, do it. Backtest, create filters, whatever. If you do a reverse system, even with a few losses it may work, or at least make money because you would be getting a lot of +juice points.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cytdemasi08:
B2w I had the same question was Jolive do we bet game a twice once for RPI official play and once for continuation
Personally, I bet them seperate. So, YES, I bet them 2X.
One more thing guys, I don't mind whatsoever if you want to try a reverse system or whatever. lowekee00 said he mentioned it last year and had his head bit off. Well, sorry about that. But if it works, do it. Backtest, create filters, whatever. If you do a reverse system, even with a few losses it may work, or at least make money because you would be getting a lot of +juice points.
Some food for thought. Since we are playing the GOOD team as a four game series against two lessor teams in two two-game series back-to-back...would it not also make sense to play against the BAD team as a four game series against two better teams in two two-game series?
Such as: VS San Diego against WAS & LAD and also VS Kansas City against TEX & BAL
Both SD and KC qualify as inferior in RPI to both of their upcoming opponents. MIN would also qualify to play against as well, EXCEPT DET does not have a better than .500 record. (Unofficial I guess).
My guess is that there has not been back-testing on this? It follows the same logic - that bad teams will lose at least one against two good teams.
However it is a slightly different dynamic invloved - going against a bad team to lose one against two DIFFERENT good teams instead of backing a good team to win one against two different bad teams.
This would add a VS KC (Tex again) as it's own separate series and a VS SD (WAS) as it's own series to this group. If you wanted to add an unofficial VS MIN (DET) series you could as well.
I understand this is not your system, but it is right in line with the exact same logic
Talk to me Goose!
0
BTW,
Some food for thought. Since we are playing the GOOD team as a four game series against two lessor teams in two two-game series back-to-back...would it not also make sense to play against the BAD team as a four game series against two better teams in two two-game series?
Such as: VS San Diego against WAS & LAD and also VS Kansas City against TEX & BAL
Both SD and KC qualify as inferior in RPI to both of their upcoming opponents. MIN would also qualify to play against as well, EXCEPT DET does not have a better than .500 record. (Unofficial I guess).
My guess is that there has not been back-testing on this? It follows the same logic - that bad teams will lose at least one against two good teams.
However it is a slightly different dynamic invloved - going against a bad team to lose one against two DIFFERENT good teams instead of backing a good team to win one against two different bad teams.
This would add a VS KC (Tex again) as it's own separate series and a VS SD (WAS) as it's own series to this group. If you wanted to add an unofficial VS MIN (DET) series you could as well.
I understand this is not your system, but it is right in line with the exact same logic
neither SD or MIN have won more than two in a row this season. KC won three in a row once, and are on a two game winning streak. They'd have to run that to six in a row to lose that series vs Tex & Bal. Odds are high against that.
0
One other chunk of fat to chew on:
neither SD or MIN have won more than two in a row this season. KC won three in a row once, and are on a two game winning streak. They'd have to run that to six in a row to lose that series vs Tex & Bal. Odds are high against that.
Some food for thought. Since we are playing the GOOD team as a four game series against two lessor teams in two two-game series back-to-back...would it not also make sense to play against the BAD team as a four game series against two better teams in two two-game series?
Such as: VS San Diego against WAS & LAD and also VS Kansas City against TEX & BAL
Both SD and KC qualify as inferior in RPI to both of their upcoming opponents. MIN would also qualify to play against as well, EXCEPT DET does not have a better than .500 record. (Unofficial I guess).
My guess is that there has not been back-testing on this? It follows the same logic - that bad teams will lose at least one against two good teams.
However it is a slightly different dynamic invloved - going against a bad team to lose one against two DIFFERENT good teams instead of backing a good team to win one against two different bad teams.
This would add a VS KC (Tex again) as it's own separate series and a VS SD (WAS) as it's own series to this group. If you wanted to add an unofficial VS MIN (DET) series you could as well.
I understand this is not your system, but it is right in line with the exact same logic
Talk to me Goose!
seems smart to me... good call
0
Quote Originally Posted by LSU2thBone:
BTW,
Some food for thought. Since we are playing the GOOD team as a four game series against two lessor teams in two two-game series back-to-back...would it not also make sense to play against the BAD team as a four game series against two better teams in two two-game series?
Such as: VS San Diego against WAS & LAD and also VS Kansas City against TEX & BAL
Both SD and KC qualify as inferior in RPI to both of their upcoming opponents. MIN would also qualify to play against as well, EXCEPT DET does not have a better than .500 record. (Unofficial I guess).
My guess is that there has not been back-testing on this? It follows the same logic - that bad teams will lose at least one against two good teams.
However it is a slightly different dynamic invloved - going against a bad team to lose one against two DIFFERENT good teams instead of backing a good team to win one against two different bad teams.
This would add a VS KC (Tex again) as it's own separate series and a VS SD (WAS) as it's own series to this group. If you wanted to add an unofficial VS MIN (DET) series you could as well.
I understand this is not your system, but it is right in line with the exact same logic
Some food for thought. Since we are playing the GOOD team as a four game series against two lessor teams in two two-game series back-to-back...would it not also make sense to play against the BAD team as a four game series against two better teams in two two-game series?
Such as: VS San Diego against WAS & LAD and also VS Kansas City against TEX & BAL
Both SD and KC qualify as inferior in RPI to both of their upcoming opponents. MIN would also qualify to play against as well, EXCEPT DET does not have a better than .500 record. (Unofficial I guess).
My guess is that there has not been back-testing on this? It follows the same logic - that bad teams will lose at least one against two good teams.
However it is a slightly different dynamic invloved - going against a bad team to lose one against two DIFFERENT good teams instead of backing a good team to win one against two different bad teams.
This would add a VS KC (Tex again) as it's own separate series and a VS SD (WAS) as it's own series to this group. If you wanted to add an unofficial VS MIN (DET) series you could as well.
I understand this is not your system, but it is right in line with the exact same logic
Talk to me Goose!
B2Dubs...what are your thoughts on playing against bad teams just like playing on good teams?
0
Quote Originally Posted by LSU2thBone:
BTW,
Some food for thought. Since we are playing the GOOD team as a four game series against two lessor teams in two two-game series back-to-back...would it not also make sense to play against the BAD team as a four game series against two better teams in two two-game series?
Such as: VS San Diego against WAS & LAD and also VS Kansas City against TEX & BAL
Both SD and KC qualify as inferior in RPI to both of their upcoming opponents. MIN would also qualify to play against as well, EXCEPT DET does not have a better than .500 record. (Unofficial I guess).
My guess is that there has not been back-testing on this? It follows the same logic - that bad teams will lose at least one against two good teams.
However it is a slightly different dynamic invloved - going against a bad team to lose one against two DIFFERENT good teams instead of backing a good team to win one against two different bad teams.
This would add a VS KC (Tex again) as it's own separate series and a VS SD (WAS) as it's own series to this group. If you wanted to add an unofficial VS MIN (DET) series you could as well.
I understand this is not your system, but it is right in line with the exact same logic
Talk to me Goose!
B2Dubs...what are your thoughts on playing against bad teams just like playing on good teams?
Do you consider injuries? Looks like Kemp may be out and they barely qualify as is on the RPI.
I think this is up to the end user (bettor).
Personally, when tracking a 'systems' performance, I think all plays that meet the system parameters (RPI and filter criteria) are in play and count towards the final performance.
A 'system' should be automatic so that any monkey can press a button to use it. When you start handicapping your system, it is really no longer a system that anyone can use because everyone will handicap differently and thus have different results.
IOW, it's my thinking that all four plays today should count towards the performance statistics of the system. Whether or not you personally play all four is up to you.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Danrules24:
Do you consider injuries? Looks like Kemp may be out and they barely qualify as is on the RPI.
I think this is up to the end user (bettor).
Personally, when tracking a 'systems' performance, I think all plays that meet the system parameters (RPI and filter criteria) are in play and count towards the final performance.
A 'system' should be automatic so that any monkey can press a button to use it. When you start handicapping your system, it is really no longer a system that anyone can use because everyone will handicap differently and thus have different results.
IOW, it's my thinking that all four plays today should count towards the performance statistics of the system. Whether or not you personally play all four is up to you.
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.
Hot Forum Topics
