This chase can be brutal given the juice on most of the qualifiers and depth of the chase. If you're running a straight "marty" like this system employs, I would highly recommend no more than .5% of your BR on your initial wager if your play is a juiced fave, maybe1% if that play is a dog with +$. Definitely consider the upcoming games and "win-ability" within each chase before making that decision...in other words, forecast. GL
This chase can be brutal given the juice on most of the qualifiers and depth of the chase. If you're running a straight "marty" like this system employs, I would highly recommend no more than .5% of your BR on your initial wager if your play is a juiced fave, maybe1% if that play is a dog with +$. Definitely consider the upcoming games and "win-ability" within each chase before making that decision...in other words, forecast. GL
04/04/16 SD 0-15 (LAD) G1 04/05/16 (LAD-124/RL+130) WIN $13.00 0-3
04/04/16 LAA 0-9 (CHC) G1 04/05/16 (CHC-132/RL+125) WIN $12.50 1-6
04/05/16 SD 0-3 (LAD) G1 04/06/16 (LAD-150/RL+130) WIN $13.00
0-7
04/04/16 SD 0-15 (LAD) G1 04/05/16 (LAD-124/RL+130) WIN $13.00 0-3
04/04/16 LAA 0-9 (CHC) G1 04/05/16 (CHC-132/RL+125) WIN $12.50 1-6
04/05/16 SD 0-3 (LAD) G1 04/06/16 (LAD-150/RL+130) WIN $13.00
0-7
sN, Thank you for elaborating and best of luck to you with your revised 2016 version. That's a creative approach you employ. Personally, because I engage in Dog play, I have an aversion to utilizing any type of labby, (aggressive, super-aggressive, or otherwise) when chasing positive $ (dog) scenarios. Given that (a) any loss within a labby warrants two subsequent AND concurrent wins to "clear or reduce the line", and (b) dogs (positive $ scenarios) win at a lower% rate than their counterpart, an inherent disadvantage is created. The "marty", while exponentially more dangerous when chasing, is effective in that once the win is obtained, the chase ends (with profit). Conversely, that same chase MUST win the initial bet OR assume the burden of producing consecutive wins thereafter (not an easy task with the Dog plays). I understand a labby approach minimizes BR exposure, especially when chasing "chalk", for the risk-adverse punter, and because of that, it appears to be a strategy well-suited for playing the faves. Most of my systems however are dog/positive$ plays employing a "hybridized" marty MM application, which to date has served me quite well. Again, best of luck with your system!
sN, Thank you for elaborating and best of luck to you with your revised 2016 version. That's a creative approach you employ. Personally, because I engage in Dog play, I have an aversion to utilizing any type of labby, (aggressive, super-aggressive, or otherwise) when chasing positive $ (dog) scenarios. Given that (a) any loss within a labby warrants two subsequent AND concurrent wins to "clear or reduce the line", and (b) dogs (positive $ scenarios) win at a lower% rate than their counterpart, an inherent disadvantage is created. The "marty", while exponentially more dangerous when chasing, is effective in that once the win is obtained, the chase ends (with profit). Conversely, that same chase MUST win the initial bet OR assume the burden of producing consecutive wins thereafter (not an easy task with the Dog plays). I understand a labby approach minimizes BR exposure, especially when chasing "chalk", for the risk-adverse punter, and because of that, it appears to be a strategy well-suited for playing the faves. Most of my systems however are dog/positive$ plays employing a "hybridized" marty MM application, which to date has served me quite well. Again, best of luck with your system!
sN, Thank you for elaborating and best of luck to you with your revised 2016 version. That's a creative approach you employ. Personally, because I engage in Dog play, I have an aversion to utilizing any type of labby, (aggressive, super-aggressive, or otherwise) when chasing positive $ (dog) scenarios. Given that (a) any loss within a labby warrants two subsequent AND concurrent wins to "clear or reduce the line", and (b) dogs (positive $ scenarios) win at a lower% rate than their counterpart, an inherent disadvantage is created. The "marty", while exponentially more dangerous when chasing, is effective in that once the win is obtained, the chase ends (with profit). Conversely, that same chase MUST win the initial bet OR assume the burden of producing consecutive wins thereafter (not an easy task with the Dog plays). I understand a labby approach minimizes BR exposure, especially when chasing "chalk", for the risk-adverse punter, and because of that, it appears to be a strategy well-suited for playing the faves. Most of my systems however are dog/positive$ plays employing a "hybridized" marty MM application, which to date has served me quite well. Again, best of luck with your system!
sN, Thank you for elaborating and best of luck to you with your revised 2016 version. That's a creative approach you employ. Personally, because I engage in Dog play, I have an aversion to utilizing any type of labby, (aggressive, super-aggressive, or otherwise) when chasing positive $ (dog) scenarios. Given that (a) any loss within a labby warrants two subsequent AND concurrent wins to "clear or reduce the line", and (b) dogs (positive $ scenarios) win at a lower% rate than their counterpart, an inherent disadvantage is created. The "marty", while exponentially more dangerous when chasing, is effective in that once the win is obtained, the chase ends (with profit). Conversely, that same chase MUST win the initial bet OR assume the burden of producing consecutive wins thereafter (not an easy task with the Dog plays). I understand a labby approach minimizes BR exposure, especially when chasing "chalk", for the risk-adverse punter, and because of that, it appears to be a strategy well-suited for playing the faves. Most of my systems however are dog/positive$ plays employing a "hybridized" marty MM application, which to date has served me quite well. Again, best of luck with your system!
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.