labby question for smd... if bets hit at a high rate why not switch th B bet to the A & the NEW line to the C? Seems the A clears faster. New to Labby so, whats your take?
I'm not sure I completely understand what you're asking here
Do you mean alternate the current B line with the current A line? I was thinking of doing that tomorrow, when we have 5-6 A bets. Just to try and recover some of our recent losses. Instead of -just- betting the first and last number of the line, possibly use all of the numbers on the line to try and recover losses on some strong (A) wagers (almost all of the 5-6 A bets tomorrow are highly rated RPI teams)
What do you guys think?
0
Quote Originally Posted by bettor2win:
labby question for smd... if bets hit at a high rate why not switch th B bet to the A & the NEW line to the C? Seems the A clears faster. New to Labby so, whats your take?
I'm not sure I completely understand what you're asking here
Do you mean alternate the current B line with the current A line? I was thinking of doing that tomorrow, when we have 5-6 A bets. Just to try and recover some of our recent losses. Instead of -just- betting the first and last number of the line, possibly use all of the numbers on the line to try and recover losses on some strong (A) wagers (almost all of the 5-6 A bets tomorrow are highly rated RPI teams)
Huge flop on the Panthers. Absolutely disgraceful.
x-30-30-30
25-25-43-55-70-79-96-63-99-161
25-25-25-25-79-70-99-161
(C) bet on N.J. to win $186 (25+161)
I won't be playing N.J. but if anyone wants to, it's an official play
Here's what I think he's getting at...
Once the A line clears, why not make the new line (whether it's 30-30-30-30 or 35-35-35-35) the C line and bump the former C line up to the B line, and bump the former B line up to the new A line?
Instead of plopping the new A line on top of the big group, you would be plopping it on the bottom, forcing the other lines (formerly C and B) to move UP one line. Might make some sense since there are more A bets than anything. However this may have never been tested to show results.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
Huge flop on the Panthers. Absolutely disgraceful.
x-30-30-30
25-25-43-55-70-79-96-63-99-161
25-25-25-25-79-70-99-161
(C) bet on N.J. to win $186 (25+161)
I won't be playing N.J. but if anyone wants to, it's an official play
Here's what I think he's getting at...
Once the A line clears, why not make the new line (whether it's 30-30-30-30 or 35-35-35-35) the C line and bump the former C line up to the B line, and bump the former B line up to the new A line?
Instead of plopping the new A line on top of the big group, you would be plopping it on the bottom, forcing the other lines (formerly C and B) to move UP one line. Might make some sense since there are more A bets than anything. However this may have never been tested to show results.
That's a rather good idea. I think we should do it from now on. We would have recovered far more losses and profited just as much had we done that from the beginning.
Also, I pulled the trigger on N.J. tonight. They moved to a favorite (-120 ML) so I took them to win $95. The 95 would be 25+70 on our (C) line. I wasn't confident enough to lay anything more than that, as I still hate the Devils, so I didn't use the front and back numbers of line C
Here's hoping
0
That's a rather good idea. I think we should do it from now on. We would have recovered far more losses and profited just as much had we done that from the beginning.
Also, I pulled the trigger on N.J. tonight. They moved to a favorite (-120 ML) so I took them to win $95. The 95 would be 25+70 on our (C) line. I wasn't confident enough to lay anything more than that, as I still hate the Devils, so I didn't use the front and back numbers of line C
LSU, thats exactly what i meant. Seems to me SMD would hav recovered losses already. I just started using Labby, thanks to SMD, I never quite understood it & just learning it. In all the threads I read up on about "chasing", A bets always seem to have higher win % than the rest. IDK how true that is tho. Im not too experienced with Labby but if rotating the line is ultimately better, why not?
0
LSU, thats exactly what i meant. Seems to me SMD would hav recovered losses already. I just started using Labby, thanks to SMD, I never quite understood it & just learning it. In all the threads I read up on about "chasing", A bets always seem to have higher win % than the rest. IDK how true that is tho. Im not too experienced with Labby but if rotating the line is ultimately better, why not?
I switched the order of the A, B, and C lines because I liked that idea. Bettor is right, (A) bets have a higher percentage of wins than any others, so trying to recover some of our losses by placing the current (B) line on line 1 instead of line 2 makes sense. Here's what it should look like, if you've been following the same one in this thread:
25-25-43-55-70-79-96-63-99-161
25-25-25-79-99-161
x-30-30-30
We eliminated a 70+25 from last nights winning (C) bet on New Jersey. Other than that, we simply placed the (A) line where the (C) line used to be, the (C) line where the (B) line used to be, and the (B) line where the (A) line used to be. Here's how I'm working the 5 (A) bets for tonight:
(A) Boston (-120) $148.80 to win $124 (25+99 on line A)
(A) NYI +1.5 (-170) $166.60 to win $98 (43+55 on line A)
(A) Pittsburgh (-115) $213.90 to win $186 (25+161 on line A)
(A) Tampa Bay (EV) $88 to win $88 (25+63 on line A)
(A) Nashville (line not released yet)
If you notice, I did add an extra "25" to the Tampa Bay bet, just to keep things resonable and continue to try and profit instead of just recovering losses for most bets. This isn't customary, but we can really choose to bet these any way we want. PSIC calls for -just- betting the front and back number of each line against each other, not to bet the middle ones like I did above. But with this many (A) bets on the same day, and our (A) line (old B line) getting a bit "out of control", I think making a slight adjustment is needed.
I'll post the Nashville bet a bit later today once the line is out
Good luck
0
Okay here we go:
I switched the order of the A, B, and C lines because I liked that idea. Bettor is right, (A) bets have a higher percentage of wins than any others, so trying to recover some of our losses by placing the current (B) line on line 1 instead of line 2 makes sense. Here's what it should look like, if you've been following the same one in this thread:
25-25-43-55-70-79-96-63-99-161
25-25-25-79-99-161
x-30-30-30
We eliminated a 70+25 from last nights winning (C) bet on New Jersey. Other than that, we simply placed the (A) line where the (C) line used to be, the (C) line where the (B) line used to be, and the (B) line where the (A) line used to be. Here's how I'm working the 5 (A) bets for tonight:
(A) Boston (-120) $148.80 to win $124 (25+99 on line A)
(A) NYI +1.5 (-170) $166.60 to win $98 (43+55 on line A)
(A) Pittsburgh (-115) $213.90 to win $186 (25+161 on line A)
(A) Tampa Bay (EV) $88 to win $88 (25+63 on line A)
(A) Nashville (line not released yet)
If you notice, I did add an extra "25" to the Tampa Bay bet, just to keep things resonable and continue to try and profit instead of just recovering losses for most bets. This isn't customary, but we can really choose to bet these any way we want. PSIC calls for -just- betting the front and back number of each line against each other, not to bet the middle ones like I did above. But with this many (A) bets on the same day, and our (A) line (old B line) getting a bit "out of control", I think making a slight adjustment is needed.
I'll post the Nashville bet a bit later today once the line is out
Sweet, so we went from following a system to following your whims? I'm out, GL though
No, we're still following the same system and nothing has changed as far as who we are wagering on
You can handle the money-management part of it anyway you wish. If you want to play the standard Labby line, just bet to win $60 for every bet today. Instead of doing that, I'm going to try and recover some losses, especially since tonights card is mostly favorites
Every person chooses to bet whatever amount you wish. Just because it says something in this thread on how much to wager does NOT mean you have to wager that amount
The system still stands and the games have not changed. But as always, you're free to bounce and stop following whenever you want. No one really cares, to be honest
0
Quote Originally Posted by paul_scholes:
Sweet, so we went from following a system to following your whims? I'm out, GL though
No, we're still following the same system and nothing has changed as far as who we are wagering on
You can handle the money-management part of it anyway you wish. If you want to play the standard Labby line, just bet to win $60 for every bet today. Instead of doing that, I'm going to try and recover some losses, especially since tonights card is mostly favorites
Every person chooses to bet whatever amount you wish. Just because it says something in this thread on how much to wager does NOT mean you have to wager that amount
The system still stands and the games have not changed. But as always, you're free to bounce and stop following whenever you want. No one really cares, to be honest
For the record, when I make two bets in a day, I always take from the middle numbers of a line. Betting just the front and back is designed to work for one bet at a time, but isn't realistic in a situation like this. Taking from the middle numbers in logical and makes sense, and is a perfect correction to a flawed design on a day like today.
0
For the record, when I make two bets in a day, I always take from the middle numbers of a line. Betting just the front and back is designed to work for one bet at a time, but isn't realistic in a situation like this. Taking from the middle numbers in logical and makes sense, and is a perfect correction to a flawed design on a day like today.
Flopping the lines makes sense for the fact that you will have many more opportunities to win that loot back faster as there are much more A bets than B bets, and much more B bets than C bets. If you keep bumping half your losses down to the next line, you are seeing what happens - those B and C lines start bloating quite a bit. What remains to be seen is that changing the Labb in this way has not been tested to my knowledge...so who knows if it is doomsday.
On another note - don't forget to take your Vitamin C
Florida is a C bet for those who are playing C's in Oct.
Nice job New Jersey
0
Flopping the lines makes sense for the fact that you will have many more opportunities to win that loot back faster as there are much more A bets than B bets, and much more B bets than C bets. If you keep bumping half your losses down to the next line, you are seeing what happens - those B and C lines start bloating quite a bit. What remains to be seen is that changing the Labb in this way has not been tested to my knowledge...so who knows if it is doomsday.
On another note - don't forget to take your Vitamin C
Florida is a C bet for those who are playing C's in Oct.
that's based on all road trip bets. smdio said if you filter out bets on bottom 3 rpi teams and don't bet against top 3 rpi teams, then you drop 2 of the losses ( and also sacrifice some wins along the way). I think that is best to eliminate losses.
The B bet is the highest % bet, but there are 2.7 times as many A bets to recoup the ca$h.
food for thought
0
I just looked at the #'s from last yr real quick
A bet 98-49= .667
B bet 36-13= .735
C bet 9-4= .692
that's based on all road trip bets. smdio said if you filter out bets on bottom 3 rpi teams and don't bet against top 3 rpi teams, then you drop 2 of the losses ( and also sacrifice some wins along the way). I think that is best to eliminate losses.
The B bet is the highest % bet, but there are 2.7 times as many A bets to recoup the ca$h.
that's based on all road trip bets. smdio said if you filter out bets on bottom 3 rpi teams and don't bet against top 3 rpi teams, then you drop 2 of the losses ( and also sacrifice some wins along the way). I think that is best to eliminate losses.
The B bet is the highest % bet, but there are 2.7 times as many A bets to recoup the ca$h.
food for thought
Those numbers are actually very accurate and match mine almost identically.
Also, this further emphasizes that fact that the A, B, and C lines should be "rotated" once a line is cleared, in order to keep recovering the losses on different lines. Clearly, the most wagers come on the (A) line. Recovering losses on that line are vital to this system being profitable, imo
Nice job guys
0
Quote Originally Posted by LSU2thBone:
I just looked at the #'s from last yr real quick
A bet 98-49= .667
B bet 36-13= .735
C bet 9-4= .692
that's based on all road trip bets. smdio said if you filter out bets on bottom 3 rpi teams and don't bet against top 3 rpi teams, then you drop 2 of the losses ( and also sacrifice some wins along the way). I think that is best to eliminate losses.
The B bet is the highest % bet, but there are 2.7 times as many A bets to recoup the ca$h.
food for thought
Those numbers are actually very accurate and match mine almost identically.
Also, this further emphasizes that fact that the A, B, and C lines should be "rotated" once a line is cleared, in order to keep recovering the losses on different lines. Clearly, the most wagers come on the (A) line. Recovering losses on that line are vital to this system being profitable, imo
Awesome. Glad you guys did the math to see what real numbers were. Pretty good day on the rink btw. didnt get NAS in cuz @ a kids bday party @ a roller skating rink. not ice. I didnt evn know we still had them here in socal. Luckly, hit WS game & OR/USC with dad. Gotta love that Oregon Offense.
0
Awesome. Glad you guys did the math to see what real numbers were. Pretty good day on the rink btw. didnt get NAS in cuz @ a kids bday party @ a roller skating rink. not ice. I didnt evn know we still had them here in socal. Luckly, hit WS game & OR/USC with dad. Gotta love that Oregon Offense.
Real nice day on the ice. Recovered many losses and got some of these lines closer to normal. New labby looks like this:
43-55-70-79-96-88
25-25-25-79-99-161-88
x-30-30-30
We had 3 wins yesterday, with Boston (99+25), Pittsburgh (161+25), and Tampa Bay (63+25). All of the numbers in paretheses have been crossed off of our new Labby line.
We had 2 losses yesterday, Islanders (-166.60) and Nashville. I have to admit, I forgot to make the Nashville wager yesterday. I got caught up in some stuff and just couldn't get back to a computer. For purposes of my own tracking, I'm going to leave the losses off the Labby line and start them with an (A) bet on Wednesday. If you guys placed the Nashville wager, just simply add your losses 1/2 and 1/2 to lines A and B above.
Also, if anyone was playing the (C) bets, Florida would have won for you last night. I didn't play it so I'll also leave it off the line.
Next wagers:
11/3 (A) Nashville to win $131
11/3 (B) NYI to win $103
0
Real nice day on the ice. Recovered many losses and got some of these lines closer to normal. New labby looks like this:
43-55-70-79-96-88
25-25-25-79-99-161-88
x-30-30-30
We had 3 wins yesterday, with Boston (99+25), Pittsburgh (161+25), and Tampa Bay (63+25). All of the numbers in paretheses have been crossed off of our new Labby line.
We had 2 losses yesterday, Islanders (-166.60) and Nashville. I have to admit, I forgot to make the Nashville wager yesterday. I got caught up in some stuff and just couldn't get back to a computer. For purposes of my own tracking, I'm going to leave the losses off the Labby line and start them with an (A) bet on Wednesday. If you guys placed the Nashville wager, just simply add your losses 1/2 and 1/2 to lines A and B above.
Also, if anyone was playing the (C) bets, Florida would have won for you last night. I didn't play it so I'll also leave it off the line.
I noticed something last night. A labby line only takes 33.3% to clear because every 1 win clears two numbers and every 1 loss adds one number (2:1 ratio = 67/33).
HOWEVER, in this aggressive labby model, you add two numbers for every loss (on line A and line B for example). I think this is a big problem. Now you need to win 50% of your games to clear lines.
I'm considering, instead of adding half a loss to both lines, putting 1/2 a loss on the end of the same line and spreading the other half of the loss among all of the numbers on the lower line. I think that's the only real way to preserve the idea of the labby winning with 33%.
0
I noticed something last night. A labby line only takes 33.3% to clear because every 1 win clears two numbers and every 1 loss adds one number (2:1 ratio = 67/33).
HOWEVER, in this aggressive labby model, you add two numbers for every loss (on line A and line B for example). I think this is a big problem. Now you need to win 50% of your games to clear lines.
I'm considering, instead of adding half a loss to both lines, putting 1/2 a loss on the end of the same line and spreading the other half of the loss among all of the numbers on the lower line. I think that's the only real way to preserve the idea of the labby winning with 33%.
I noticed something last night. A labby line only takes 33.3% to clear because every 1 win clears two numbers and every 1 loss adds one number (2:1 ratio = 67/33).
HOWEVER, in this aggressive labby model, you add two numbers for every loss (on line A and line B for example). I think this is a big problem. Now you need to win 50% of your games to clear lines.
I'm considering, instead of adding half a loss to both lines, putting 1/2 a loss on the end of the same line and spreading the other half of the loss among all of the numbers on the lower line. I think that's the only real way to preserve the idea of the labby winning with 33%.
I actually thought of this before I even decided to make this thread. Before I commited to doing anything with this Labby system, I decided to go back and see if the Labby would have worked with previous years. Although I only went back to last year, the Labby would have still recovered and profited to a tune of nearly 100 units.
Yes it's much more agressive than standard, but I kinda like it
0
Quote Originally Posted by Jokeheads:
I noticed something last night. A labby line only takes 33.3% to clear because every 1 win clears two numbers and every 1 loss adds one number (2:1 ratio = 67/33).
HOWEVER, in this aggressive labby model, you add two numbers for every loss (on line A and line B for example). I think this is a big problem. Now you need to win 50% of your games to clear lines.
I'm considering, instead of adding half a loss to both lines, putting 1/2 a loss on the end of the same line and spreading the other half of the loss among all of the numbers on the lower line. I think that's the only real way to preserve the idea of the labby winning with 33%.
I actually thought of this before I even decided to make this thread. Before I commited to doing anything with this Labby system, I decided to go back and see if the Labby would have worked with previous years. Although I only went back to last year, the Labby would have still recovered and profited to a tune of nearly 100 units.
Yes it's much more agressive than standard, but I kinda like it
(B) Nashville +1.5 (-265) $283.55 to win $107 (88+25)
(B) NYI +1.5 (-225) $418.50 to win $186 (161+25)
Obviously, this is a huge night, both on the ice and on the hardwood (see NBA Road Chase thread). Could put us way ahead, or set us back. Best of luck to all
0
Labby line:
43-55-70-79-96-88
25-25-25-79-99-161-88
x-30-30-30
11/3 wagers:
(A) Detroit (-115) $150.65 to win $131 (88+43)
(B) Nashville +1.5 (-265) $283.55 to win $107 (88+25)
(B) NYI +1.5 (-225) $418.50 to win $186 (161+25)
Obviously, this is a huge night, both on the ice and on the hardwood (see NBA Road Chase thread). Could put us way ahead, or set us back. Best of luck to all
splitting your loss in 2 and put the mafter the first and second line or splitting the loss in 2 and add them with the last number of the first and second line??
0
is aggresive labby line:
splitting your loss in 2 and put the mafter the first and second line or splitting the loss in 2 and add them with the last number of the first and second line??
Splitting the loss in 2 and placing 1/2 on the line that the loss occurred, and placing the other 1/2 on the following line, is an agressive way to run a Labby line
An even more aggressive way? Take the same 1/2 and add it to the LAST NUMBER of the line that the loss occurred, and add the other 1/2 to the LAST NUMBER of the following line. This method is even more aggressive
Choice is yours
0
Splitting the loss in 2 and placing 1/2 on the line that the loss occurred, and placing the other 1/2 on the following line, is an agressive way to run a Labby line
An even more aggressive way? Take the same 1/2 and add it to the LAST NUMBER of the line that the loss occurred, and add the other 1/2 to the LAST NUMBER of the following line. This method is even more aggressive
I read almost everything in the systems thread but don't post much. Just my 2 cents about your labby. First - numbers in the labby lines should be in order from the smallest to the biggest. In your case smdio you B line should be 25-25-25-79-88-99-161. And second - if you have 2 or more B bets in one night you should play them all for the same amount. In your case today - you should play nyi and nash to win 25+161. This is how i understand and play labby. Good luck
0
I read almost everything in the systems thread but don't post much. Just my 2 cents about your labby. First - numbers in the labby lines should be in order from the smallest to the biggest. In your case smdio you B line should be 25-25-25-79-88-99-161. And second - if you have 2 or more B bets in one night you should play them all for the same amount. In your case today - you should play nyi and nash to win 25+161. This is how i understand and play labby. Good luck
I read almost everything in the systems thread but don't post much. Just my 2 cents about your labby. First - numbers in the labby lines should be in order from the smallest to the biggest. In your case smdio you B line should be 25-25-25-79-88-99-161. And second - if you have 2 or more B bets in one night you should play them all for the same amount. In your case today - you should play nyi and nash to win 25+161. This is how i understand and play labby. Good luck
I never knew that about the order from smallest to biggest. I always thought it should be in the order that you lose them in.
As far as the 2 bets being for the same amount: we actually discussed a little in this thread about doing it both ways. It made a little more sense to try and split the bets up on the line, to try and recover more losses per bet, instead of just 1. Is there a reason specific to why they should all be the same?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ejackson:
I read almost everything in the systems thread but don't post much. Just my 2 cents about your labby. First - numbers in the labby lines should be in order from the smallest to the biggest. In your case smdio you B line should be 25-25-25-79-88-99-161. And second - if you have 2 or more B bets in one night you should play them all for the same amount. In your case today - you should play nyi and nash to win 25+161. This is how i understand and play labby. Good luck
I never knew that about the order from smallest to biggest. I always thought it should be in the order that you lose them in.
As far as the 2 bets being for the same amount: we actually discussed a little in this thread about doing it both ways. It made a little more sense to try and split the bets up on the line, to try and recover more losses per bet, instead of just 1. Is there a reason specific to why they should all be the same?
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
