Teaser's would envolve vig and that is something you do not want in this system. Still online book's will not allow a side and total even with a [ a teaser ] on one ticket. You need a local or it's a no go!
I know ive done teasers with a side and total in the same ticket (although it may have been a 10 or 13 pt teaser).
When the totals are posted ill check this out on my books and let you know.
Could be a great option, especially if you can pull out a win on both sides. although admittedly the payout will be much lower.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JMon:
Teaser's would envolve vig and that is something you do not want in this system. Still online book's will not allow a side and total even with a [ a teaser ] on one ticket. You need a local or it's a no go!
I know ive done teasers with a side and total in the same ticket (although it may have been a 10 or 13 pt teaser).
When the totals are posted ill check this out on my books and let you know.
Could be a great option, especially if you can pull out a win on both sides. although admittedly the payout will be much lower.
IHalf...yep you are right! Thx for the correction. I miscalculated the W/L for that week. Not sure where the 540.00 came from on my notes... had to be the Tech game. Anyway..
9/12: 6-3 +$360.00
0
IHalf...yep you are right! Thx for the correction. I miscalculated the W/L for that week. Not sure where the 540.00 came from on my notes... had to be the Tech game. Anyway..
Slow night at work so I back-tested this system for 2008-2009 season. I used all games 33% and up and even went back and took out all games between the 33-40 percentile and it didn't help the average much. Games from 33-40 were 25-18 so they were still profitable.
The overall record was 91-51 for a total profit of 43.6 units.
I'm going over 2007-2008 now.
0
Slow night at work so I back-tested this system for 2008-2009 season. I used all games 33% and up and even went back and took out all games between the 33-40 percentile and it didn't help the average much. Games from 33-40 were 25-18 so they were still profitable.
The overall record was 91-51 for a total profit of 43.6 units.
If I remember right someone said this system only works for the first half of the year....with the lines starting to sharpen up in the upcoming weeks it may lose accuracy...Is this correct?
TENN -23.5 / OV 44.5 53%
OHIO +23.5 / UN 44.5
AUB -33 / OV 55.5 59%
BST +33 / UN 55.5
FLA -21.5 / OV 53.5 40%
KENT +21.5 / UN 53.5
TX -36 / OV 63 57%
TX EL PASO +36 / UN 63
USC -45 / OV 55.5 81%
WASH ST. +45 / UN 55.5
NEB -28 / OV 53.5 52%
UL LAF +28 / UN 53.5
NAVY -29.5 / OV 49.5 60%
W. KENT +29.5 / UN 49.5
0
9/12/09: 6-3 +$360.00 (100:260)
9/19/09: 7-2 +$720.00 (100:260)
9/26/09: 3-4 -$320.00 (100:260)
If I remember right someone said this system only works for the first half of the year....with the lines starting to sharpen up in the upcoming weeks it may lose accuracy...Is this correct?
use this same concept, but parlay the 1H and then the 2H instead of the whole game. I'm finding that it works a little bit better. You could still do the whole game of course as well.
0
Jmon,
try doing this...
use this same concept, but parlay the 1H and then the 2H instead of the whole game. I'm finding that it works a little bit better. You could still do the whole game of course as well.
I only have one local book that allows me to do this. I went 5-0-1 yesterday with it. But I monitored a few others that were successful. I was with my GF all day so it was hard for me to check every game for the 1H and the 2H, but it seems that the 1H will likely have percentages of 50% all the way up to 80% on some games. For instance, Oregon was -20 with an over of 28 in the 1H against Washington St. Tcu was -17 with an over of 26 in their first half against SMU. Both games were winners.
0
I only have one local book that allows me to do this. I went 5-0-1 yesterday with it. But I monitored a few others that were successful. I was with my GF all day so it was hard for me to check every game for the 1H and the 2H, but it seems that the 1H will likely have percentages of 50% all the way up to 80% on some games. For instance, Oregon was -20 with an over of 28 in the 1H against Washington St. Tcu was -17 with an over of 26 in their first half against SMU. Both games were winners.
whitakp....btwn work and being sick, I didn't get any plays in last week. Looks like the system did well! Go ahead and update the W/L record... What the hell am I talking about..this is your thread!
0
whitakp....btwn work and being sick, I didn't get any plays in last week. Looks like the system did well! Go ahead and update the W/L record... What the hell am I talking about..this is your thread!
Hey guys, I was really curious behind the logic and mathematics of this system. So I decided to try and work out the math behind this...
Before I go in depth, I'm basing this on the assumption that on average the favorites and dog will cover 50% of the time, and that the over and under are also a 50/50 split. I mean I know the books don't set the lines to even out the odds of winning, but I think it can be assumed that it is extremely close to 50/50.
So let's hypothetically say that the spread was 100% of the total. 50% of the time the favorite will cover, and 100% of the time that the favorite covers, the over has to hit. The other 50% of the time dog will cover, but the dog can cover with the over or the under hitting, with no real distinct edge to either the over or under. So it's 50% that the under hits when the dog covers. (This goes for game, no matter what).
So... this is a basic Bayes problem. You have a 75% chance of winning (winning one parlay bet and losing the other), when the spread is 100% of the total. (.5*1+.5*.5).
Now, on the other end, if the spread is 0% of the total, you still should hypothetically have a 50% chance of winning, so we must add a restraint to the formula.
Here is the formula for the chance of winning the parlay in mind :
W% = (Spread/Total)*.25 +.50
I went back and backtested 200+ games from the first few weeks of last NCAAF season, and ran the regression equation, and the equation was starting to regress to that above. It was something like y=x*.31+.47... I'm sure if I would have done more games, it would have even been closer.
0
Hey guys, I was really curious behind the logic and mathematics of this system. So I decided to try and work out the math behind this...
Before I go in depth, I'm basing this on the assumption that on average the favorites and dog will cover 50% of the time, and that the over and under are also a 50/50 split. I mean I know the books don't set the lines to even out the odds of winning, but I think it can be assumed that it is extremely close to 50/50.
So let's hypothetically say that the spread was 100% of the total. 50% of the time the favorite will cover, and 100% of the time that the favorite covers, the over has to hit. The other 50% of the time dog will cover, but the dog can cover with the over or the under hitting, with no real distinct edge to either the over or under. So it's 50% that the under hits when the dog covers. (This goes for game, no matter what).
So... this is a basic Bayes problem. You have a 75% chance of winning (winning one parlay bet and losing the other), when the spread is 100% of the total. (.5*1+.5*.5).
Now, on the other end, if the spread is 0% of the total, you still should hypothetically have a 50% chance of winning, so we must add a restraint to the formula.
Here is the formula for the chance of winning the parlay in mind :
W% = (Spread/Total)*.25 +.50
I went back and backtested 200+ games from the first few weeks of last NCAAF season, and ran the regression equation, and the equation was starting to regress to that above. It was something like y=x*.31+.47... I'm sure if I would have done more games, it would have even been closer.
I realize I might not have done that good of a job explaining how I came to that formula but I could try to if anyone doesn't completely understand how I came to that.
From that formula we can test for some key numbers.
If you are betting with parlay payout odds at 13/5, the standard, you must win more than 55.56% of your games.
Here is how I got that: A win in this thread means winning one parlay on the game, and therefore losing the opposing parlay. A loss means losing both parlays. So a win would result in +1.6 units. (+2.6 from the win, and -1 from the loss) a loss results in -2 units. So to break even on these odds and returns, you'd have to hit 55.56 of your bets. (2/3.6 = .5556).
Under the same math and formulas, parlays that return 12.5/5 (2.5 to 1).. need to win at a 57.14% to break even.
..........
Now we need to find the minimum spread/total ratio or percentage that allows us to break even.
To do this you insert the break even percentage into the equation on the previous post and just solve for the (Spread/Total) variable.
To break even on 13/5 (2.6 to 1) return odds... the spread/total ratio would need to be only 22.22%....
To break even on 12.5/5 (2.5 to 1) return odds... the spread/total ratio needs to be 28.57%
I only post this because I think that this falls under mathematical rules, and back testing really isn't needed. I think back testing this is only good to make sure it regresses to my equations, which it did.
I understand that online books don't take these bets, but there can be some serious cash made if you use this with two different locals.
0
I realize I might not have done that good of a job explaining how I came to that formula but I could try to if anyone doesn't completely understand how I came to that.
From that formula we can test for some key numbers.
If you are betting with parlay payout odds at 13/5, the standard, you must win more than 55.56% of your games.
Here is how I got that: A win in this thread means winning one parlay on the game, and therefore losing the opposing parlay. A loss means losing both parlays. So a win would result in +1.6 units. (+2.6 from the win, and -1 from the loss) a loss results in -2 units. So to break even on these odds and returns, you'd have to hit 55.56 of your bets. (2/3.6 = .5556).
Under the same math and formulas, parlays that return 12.5/5 (2.5 to 1).. need to win at a 57.14% to break even.
..........
Now we need to find the minimum spread/total ratio or percentage that allows us to break even.
To do this you insert the break even percentage into the equation on the previous post and just solve for the (Spread/Total) variable.
To break even on 13/5 (2.6 to 1) return odds... the spread/total ratio would need to be only 22.22%....
To break even on 12.5/5 (2.5 to 1) return odds... the spread/total ratio needs to be 28.57%
I only post this because I think that this falls under mathematical rules, and back testing really isn't needed. I think back testing this is only good to make sure it regresses to my equations, which it did.
I understand that online books don't take these bets, but there can be some serious cash made if you use this with two different locals.
Hoop, I guess I could answer your question though by saying, I tested every game no matter the spread or total for like three weeks, which gave me somewhere around 200+ games.
0
Hoop, I guess I could answer your question though by saying, I tested every game no matter the spread or total for like three weeks, which gave me somewhere around 200+ games.
Damn Freaky. Who said you were not good at math . My local is not taking these bets anymore. I was the first to put these on him. Go ahead and keep track of the system bro.
0
Damn Freaky. Who said you were not good at math . My local is not taking these bets anymore. I was the first to put these on him. Go ahead and keep track of the system bro.
Damn Freaky. Who said you were not good at math . My local is not taking these bets anymore. I was the first to put these on him. Go ahead and keep track of the system bro.
That sucks man, well at least you made the money while you could! In this case, some is better than none... Again, I don't think this really needs to be kept track of though man, because like I said I think everything would just regress or progress back to that equation I put up earlier.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JMon:
Damn Freaky. Who said you were not good at math . My local is not taking these bets anymore. I was the first to put these on him. Go ahead and keep track of the system bro.
That sucks man, well at least you made the money while you could! In this case, some is better than none... Again, I don't think this really needs to be kept track of though man, because like I said I think everything would just regress or progress back to that equation I put up earlier.
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.
Damn Freaky. Who said you were not good at math 
. I was the first to put these on him. Go ahead and keep track of the system bro. 
Hot Forum Topics
