143-40? So you are saying wait for the home team to lose the first game and chase for a win the next 2 games right? You say there are 40 losses which would mean the home team lost all 3 games, so there have been 40 road teams with sweeps this year. Highly unlikey!!!! The NYY only have 1, ATL has 1, PHI has 1... Can't be 40...
Hectar u should backtest it urself before u start calling people out, leprachaun is exactly right a couple of the games was over the day when i tested it so i counted them towards the system including a couple wins
0
Quote Originally Posted by HECTAR:
143-40? So you are saying wait for the home team to lose the first game and chase for a win the next 2 games right? You say there are 40 losses which would mean the home team lost all 3 games, so there have been 40 road teams with sweeps this year. Highly unlikey!!!! The NYY only have 1, ATL has 1, PHI has 1... Can't be 40...
Hectar u should backtest it urself before u start calling people out, leprachaun is exactly right a couple of the games was over the day when i tested it so i counted them towards the system including a couple wins
leprachaun ur rite it would still be a losing system by a little but its a good start and im going to start looking at teams after they win there first game at home and see if theres any good filters... Tom can u tell me past records of the home chase system u mentioned if u have them because maybe this is just a bad year for it... thanks
0
leprachaun ur rite it would still be a losing system by a little but its a good start and im going to start looking at teams after they win there first game at home and see if theres any good filters... Tom can u tell me past records of the home chase system u mentioned if u have them because maybe this is just a bad year for it... thanks
First of all Elk...I owe you an apology for my tone. Sorry about that. Not my style normally...had other shit going on this afternoon and took it out on the keyboard. Your post threw me because it was out of context of the thread so I didn't understand what you meant at first.
As I said in my previous post, this is a good idea for a filter. The reason just a few losses can hurt you with this idea is the exponential power of the chase. That Texas loss (and I agree it was a FLUKE...and gave me the most painful loss of my gambling career), even for just 3 games would cost you about 50 units if you chased to win one unit for 3 games. At the time, wasn't sure if you meant 3 or 4 games, so I was saying the Texas loss could wipe you out because for 4 games it would have been over 160 units loss. Now I understand what you mean...although, as Kreatture pointed out, you could have stated all that clearly in your first post.
So if you're talking about a system that gives you roughly 130 plays in a season and your average loss costs you about 35 or 40 units, then 3 losses is too many (not 2, as I stated in my previous post). Not to mention the patience and discpline it would take to play all those C games. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that...if you played it like a robot, you might profit...but it is a big MIGHT. Because your system can sustain only 3...MAYBE 4 losses at most, then integrity of your record is very important. Look at the average lines for that Cards series that Kreatture and I mentioned. I don't think it's possible that the series line was less than -145. If there is a place where we can find past lines on series, please tell us. I looked around and couldn't find it. That series would cost you over 40 units. That already puts this idea in the hole. The San Fran series I pointed out is a possible third and certainly there are others.
I look at series lines quite a bit and they are often higher than -150 for home teams, even on mediocre teams...especially if their Ace is due up in the series. If we could back test this it would settle it all, but that is not the point. The point is that you brought up a great idea for a possible filter for GA...whether your record is accurate or not. Sorry I didn't understand you at first, but if you're gonna post a stat, be ready for it to be scrutinized a little.
Leprechaun
0
First of all Elk...I owe you an apology for my tone. Sorry about that. Not my style normally...had other shit going on this afternoon and took it out on the keyboard. Your post threw me because it was out of context of the thread so I didn't understand what you meant at first.
As I said in my previous post, this is a good idea for a filter. The reason just a few losses can hurt you with this idea is the exponential power of the chase. That Texas loss (and I agree it was a FLUKE...and gave me the most painful loss of my gambling career), even for just 3 games would cost you about 50 units if you chased to win one unit for 3 games. At the time, wasn't sure if you meant 3 or 4 games, so I was saying the Texas loss could wipe you out because for 4 games it would have been over 160 units loss. Now I understand what you mean...although, as Kreatture pointed out, you could have stated all that clearly in your first post.
So if you're talking about a system that gives you roughly 130 plays in a season and your average loss costs you about 35 or 40 units, then 3 losses is too many (not 2, as I stated in my previous post). Not to mention the patience and discpline it would take to play all those C games. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that...if you played it like a robot, you might profit...but it is a big MIGHT. Because your system can sustain only 3...MAYBE 4 losses at most, then integrity of your record is very important. Look at the average lines for that Cards series that Kreatture and I mentioned. I don't think it's possible that the series line was less than -145. If there is a place where we can find past lines on series, please tell us. I looked around and couldn't find it. That series would cost you over 40 units. That already puts this idea in the hole. The San Fran series I pointed out is a possible third and certainly there are others.
I look at series lines quite a bit and they are often higher than -150 for home teams, even on mediocre teams...especially if their Ace is due up in the series. If we could back test this it would settle it all, but that is not the point. The point is that you brought up a great idea for a possible filter for GA...whether your record is accurate or not. Sorry I didn't understand you at first, but if you're gonna post a stat, be ready for it to be scrutinized a little.
mayb it would work better if u only use teams that are within .015 rpi jus lik jm's system... i would like to back test this filter but the rpi of teams change daily so its impossible
0
mayb it would work better if u only use teams that are within .015 rpi jus lik jm's system... i would like to back test this filter but the rpi of teams change daily so its impossible
lep- how would that be a good filter for me to use... it would turn 208 wins into mayb 50 if im lucky... it would be a good filter to use with my system to determine times when i can double or triple the amount i would normally bet on a series to increase units but idk... elk can u tell me how many A wins u had so far this season?
0
lep- how would that be a good filter for me to use... it would turn 208 wins into mayb 50 if im lucky... it would be a good filter to use with my system to determine times when i can double or triple the amount i would normally bet on a series to increase units but idk... elk can u tell me how many A wins u had so far this season?
yeah elk what r u talking about i was lookin at rizz's system yesterday and its not the system u said... his system is if the team is favored by -150 or more the first game of the series to chase it for 3 games... also he has a record of like 140 wins and 7 loses
0
yeah elk what r u talking about i was lookin at rizz's system yesterday and its not the system u said... his system is if the team is favored by -150 or more the first game of the series to chase it for 3 games... also he has a record of like 140 wins and 7 loses
lep- how would that be a good filter for me to use... it would turn 208 wins into mayb 50 if im lucky... it would be a good filter to use with my system to determine times when i can double or triple the amount i would normally bet on a series to increase units but idk... elk can u tell me how many A wins u had so far this season?
GA-
The reason it's a decent filter is that it eliminates a lot of losses. Let's say your average loss is 5 units on a 2 game chase. Well, that means you have to win 5 times for every one loss just to break even. To make it worth it to even play the system, you're probably talking about needing a 7 or 8 to 1 ratio. With no filters, 42 losses is too many. You'll barely break even. If this way cuts out all your losses except 2 or 3, then you're netting about 35 units. Not great, but better than 0.
If you're going to chase, your filters should be more about eliminating losses instead of gaining wins. Well, at least you have to balance the two somehow, but you have to consider that ratio and figure how many units you're saving on losses. In this case, it makes the system better even though it doesn't seem like it on first glance. However...it might just be used as a tool, as you suggested. You might double down on the plays with higher "confidence" and use this as your way to quantify that "confidence". Either way...it's just something to consider as a filter or something to factor into your equation on how to pick the teams or how to decide your unit management on certain teams. No doubt more factors could make this work even better...but at least you're really digging into this idea now.
Leprechaun
0
Quote Originally Posted by GamblrzAnonyms:
lep- how would that be a good filter for me to use... it would turn 208 wins into mayb 50 if im lucky... it would be a good filter to use with my system to determine times when i can double or triple the amount i would normally bet on a series to increase units but idk... elk can u tell me how many A wins u had so far this season?
GA-
The reason it's a decent filter is that it eliminates a lot of losses. Let's say your average loss is 5 units on a 2 game chase. Well, that means you have to win 5 times for every one loss just to break even. To make it worth it to even play the system, you're probably talking about needing a 7 or 8 to 1 ratio. With no filters, 42 losses is too many. You'll barely break even. If this way cuts out all your losses except 2 or 3, then you're netting about 35 units. Not great, but better than 0.
If you're going to chase, your filters should be more about eliminating losses instead of gaining wins. Well, at least you have to balance the two somehow, but you have to consider that ratio and figure how many units you're saving on losses. In this case, it makes the system better even though it doesn't seem like it on first glance. However...it might just be used as a tool, as you suggested. You might double down on the plays with higher "confidence" and use this as your way to quantify that "confidence". Either way...it's just something to consider as a filter or something to factor into your equation on how to pick the teams or how to decide your unit management on certain teams. No doubt more factors could make this work even better...but at least you're really digging into this idea now.
true elk that is a good record but why dont u just do his normal system its up 142 units... if u only follow the home teams ur losing out on alot of wins... lep i get what ur saying but i dont see how 1 lose would be 5 units in a 2 game chase... also mayb if i use labby it would be up alot more because rizz is up a ton of units and he has 7 loses
0
true elk that is a good record but why dont u just do his normal system its up 142 units... if u only follow the home teams ur losing out on alot of wins... lep i get what ur saying but i dont see how 1 lose would be 5 units in a 2 game chase... also mayb if i use labby it would be up alot more because rizz is up a ton of units and he has 7 loses
I am following his system, with the exception that I take twice the ratio of road teams[ 2 hm teams to 1 road] and the borderline ones I skip. Today I skipped St Louis.
I also am taking the top plays from 2 of the best cappers in the country.
I am playing between $7500 - $10,000 per day.
I can afford to be choosy!!!
Thanks for you input. I just started with Rizz's system. Right now I am 12-0. Looks like Colorado will go to game 2.
0
I am following his system, with the exception that I take twice the ratio of road teams[ 2 hm teams to 1 road] and the borderline ones I skip. Today I skipped St Louis.
I also am taking the top plays from 2 of the best cappers in the country.
I am playing between $7500 - $10,000 per day.
I can afford to be choosy!!!
Thanks for you input. I just started with Rizz's system. Right now I am 12-0. Looks like Colorado will go to game 2.
true elk that is a good record but why dont u just do his normal system its up 142 units... if u only follow the home teams ur losing out on alot of wins... lep i get what ur saying but i dont see how 1 lose would be 5 units in a 2 game chase... also mayb if i use labby it would be up alot more because rizz is up a ton of units and he has 7 loses
Guys...you should take a closer look at Rizz's thread. The way he posts the units he is up is a little misleading. I don't say this maliciously and I don't think he is intentionally trying to fool anyone at all. His system is a good one. Just look at the labby lines and you'll see why it says he's up almost 150 units.
However, look at the way he
adds up the units. He has a labby lines that start 5-5-5-5 and when he
gets a win he adds 10 units to his total. How many people are playing
10 units/game!? It's often two or three times that when the labby lines have losses added
on to them. 20 units on one game? Sure, if you use super tiny dollar amounts. That is the point...Labby lines are for dollar amounts, not units. By his
math, my system is up 246 units for the 2nd half if I start my labby lines
at 5-5-5-5. You see that you can multiply your average unit play by 10 and it makes your numbers look bigger. I think people
should make an effort to represent the true value of their system and
not get too liberal with decimal points. Again, I state that his system works just fine...but if you played with $10 units, you'd have some plays that topped "to win" $500 on one game. Not a big deal for some people, but I'd guess most people on here aren't putting that kind of cash up on any one game...especially on a big favorite. You really have to look at the numbers carefully sometimes.
Leprechaun
0
Quote Originally Posted by GamblrzAnonyms:
true elk that is a good record but why dont u just do his normal system its up 142 units... if u only follow the home teams ur losing out on alot of wins... lep i get what ur saying but i dont see how 1 lose would be 5 units in a 2 game chase... also mayb if i use labby it would be up alot more because rizz is up a ton of units and he has 7 loses
Guys...you should take a closer look at Rizz's thread. The way he posts the units he is up is a little misleading. I don't say this maliciously and I don't think he is intentionally trying to fool anyone at all. His system is a good one. Just look at the labby lines and you'll see why it says he's up almost 150 units.
However, look at the way he
adds up the units. He has a labby lines that start 5-5-5-5 and when he
gets a win he adds 10 units to his total. How many people are playing
10 units/game!? It's often two or three times that when the labby lines have losses added
on to them. 20 units on one game? Sure, if you use super tiny dollar amounts. That is the point...Labby lines are for dollar amounts, not units. By his
math, my system is up 246 units for the 2nd half if I start my labby lines
at 5-5-5-5. You see that you can multiply your average unit play by 10 and it makes your numbers look bigger. I think people
should make an effort to represent the true value of their system and
not get too liberal with decimal points. Again, I state that his system works just fine...but if you played with $10 units, you'd have some plays that topped "to win" $500 on one game. Not a big deal for some people, but I'd guess most people on here aren't putting that kind of cash up on any one game...especially on a big favorite. You really have to look at the numbers carefully sometimes.
lep i get what ur saying but i dont see how 1 lose would be 5 units in a 2 game chase... also mayb if i use labby it would be up alot more because rizz is up a ton of units and he has 7 loses
Well...if you chase for 1 unit on 2 games and your average odds are -130, you lose 4.3 units (1.3 on the first game, then bet 2.3 at -130 and you lose 3 more units. 3+1.3=4.3). You are talking about playing some pretty good home teams so there will be many times when your average odds are -160 or even greater. At -160, 2 games in a row losing when chasing for 1 unit loses 5.76 units and at -180 you'd lose 6.84 units. I'm saying your average would be around 5...probably off a little but I'd say on the low side if anything.
That is for straight martingale. If you use labby, obviously the numbers are different...but remember...labby is about clearing lines and not about units. You need to maintain a decent overall win percentage with labby and if you lose a lot of game 1's you are gonna get some pretty big units on your lines still. Not sure if it would work. You should take the plays you're making and track it using both methods. It will give you a much better idea of which method works best, if at all.
Leprechaun
0
Quote Originally Posted by GamblrzAnonyms:
lep i get what ur saying but i dont see how 1 lose would be 5 units in a 2 game chase... also mayb if i use labby it would be up alot more because rizz is up a ton of units and he has 7 loses
Well...if you chase for 1 unit on 2 games and your average odds are -130, you lose 4.3 units (1.3 on the first game, then bet 2.3 at -130 and you lose 3 more units. 3+1.3=4.3). You are talking about playing some pretty good home teams so there will be many times when your average odds are -160 or even greater. At -160, 2 games in a row losing when chasing for 1 unit loses 5.76 units and at -180 you'd lose 6.84 units. I'm saying your average would be around 5...probably off a little but I'd say on the low side if anything.
That is for straight martingale. If you use labby, obviously the numbers are different...but remember...labby is about clearing lines and not about units. You need to maintain a decent overall win percentage with labby and if you lose a lot of game 1's you are gonna get some pretty big units on your lines still. Not sure if it would work. You should take the plays you're making and track it using both methods. It will give you a much better idea of which method works best, if at all.
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
