For US players looking to bet challengers live. Both 5dimes and heritage are using a 3rd party company for live wagering and it has to win $1000 limits. The above matches were also played. Unfortunately only on challangers or matches after 8am EST to. evening .
0
For US players looking to bet challengers live. Both 5dimes and heritage are using a 3rd party company for live wagering and it has to win $1000 limits. The above matches were also played. Unfortunately only on challangers or matches after 8am EST to. evening .
For US players looking to bet challengers live. Both 5dimes and heritage are using a 3rd party company for live wagering and it has to win $1000 limits. The above matches were also played. Unfortunately only on challangers or matches after 8am EST to. evening .
Feel real bad for the limitations you U.S bettors have. Just cant believe it really.
0
Quote Originally Posted by gtmoney76:
For US players looking to bet challengers live. Both 5dimes and heritage are using a 3rd party company for live wagering and it has to win $1000 limits. The above matches were also played. Unfortunately only on challangers or matches after 8am EST to. evening .
Feel real bad for the limitations you U.S bettors have. Just cant believe it really.
Bad pick it seems. Cant win em all I guess. For me to really make the money I need losing streaks actually. While im winning im going along at level stakes. The most common losing streak is two in a row.
Its so common you could build a method around that statistic alone. Im going to make the real money when those double losses occur. Sometimes I take uneccessary risks on purpose. Flipkens isnt the most reliable player. But she was priced right. Now I have to see what the remaining matches in this price range do.
0
Quote Originally Posted by pep11:
nice run Sentinel. Flipkens got owned
Bad pick it seems. Cant win em all I guess. For me to really make the money I need losing streaks actually. While im winning im going along at level stakes. The most common losing streak is two in a row.
Its so common you could build a method around that statistic alone. Im going to make the real money when those double losses occur. Sometimes I take uneccessary risks on purpose. Flipkens isnt the most reliable player. But she was priced right. Now I have to see what the remaining matches in this price range do.
Bad pick it seems. Cant win em all I guess. For me to really make the money I need losing streaks actually. While im winning im going along at level stakes. The most common losing streak is two in a row.
Its so common you could build a method around that statistic alone. Im going to make the real money when those double losses occur. Sometimes I take uneccessary risks on purpose. Flipkens isnt the most reliable player. But she was priced right. Now I have to see what the remaining matches in this price range do.
Well u asked for it, looks like Jabeur is getting owned as well. Here is the 2 losses in a row that u wanted.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sentinel3:
Bad pick it seems. Cant win em all I guess. For me to really make the money I need losing streaks actually. While im winning im going along at level stakes. The most common losing streak is two in a row.
Its so common you could build a method around that statistic alone. Im going to make the real money when those double losses occur. Sometimes I take uneccessary risks on purpose. Flipkens isnt the most reliable player. But she was priced right. Now I have to see what the remaining matches in this price range do.
Well u asked for it, looks like Jabeur is getting owned as well. Here is the 2 losses in a row that u wanted.
Pep11 I have no fear of losing. The thing that no one understands or seems to is, how often a strategy wins isnt important. How often it losses CONSECUTIVELY DOES. You must find a virtual limit. A point that is breached so rarely you can bet with confidence. Knowing overall you will succeed...
0
Pep11 I have no fear of losing. The thing that no one understands or seems to is, how often a strategy wins isnt important. How often it losses CONSECUTIVELY DOES. You must find a virtual limit. A point that is breached so rarely you can bet with confidence. Knowing overall you will succeed...
You clearly don't understand mathematics. Most of what you say makes zero sense. You are like a lot of novice bettors who don't understand probability.
Each wager you make is independent in odds from the others. Meaning just because you have lost 2 straight doesn't mean that Strycova is anymore likely than odds suggest to win
You have been touting this so-called system for over a month and have shown little with it. Your average wager is 15 units so being up 41 is like being up only around 3 in reality.
0
You clearly don't understand mathematics. Most of what you say makes zero sense. You are like a lot of novice bettors who don't understand probability.
Each wager you make is independent in odds from the others. Meaning just because you have lost 2 straight doesn't mean that Strycova is anymore likely than odds suggest to win
You have been touting this so-called system for over a month and have shown little with it. Your average wager is 15 units so being up 41 is like being up only around 3 in reality.
You clearly don't understand mathematics. Most of what you say makes zero sense. You are like a lot of novice bettors who don't understand probability. Each wager you make is independent in odds from the others. Meaning just because you have lost 2 straight doesn't mean that Strycova is anymore likely than odds suggest to win You have been touting this so-called system for over a month and have shown little with it. Your average wager is 15 units so being up 41 is like being up only around 3 in reality.
Funny how you havent commented on my other parlay thread which represents the way I play in real life.
Your probability nonsense would carry weight with a game of chance like roulette. Where each bet is indeed independant from those before. But here are talking about human desire. Not mechanical probability. Theres no system worth a hoot until its founder, player understands its weakest link. THE LOSING STREAK.
What hasnt sank into your head yet is the ZONE has a virtual limit. A point which it can rarely lose beyond. Knowing what I know Ive been way too tame and reserved. From now on Im using instinctive staking to illustrate my absolute confidence in what Ive just stated. And on the parlay thread it will prove far more lucrative.
people like you simply amuse me quick to criticize. But no guts to document anything better on here. Typical.....
0
Quote Originally Posted by sparty444:
You clearly don't understand mathematics. Most of what you say makes zero sense. You are like a lot of novice bettors who don't understand probability. Each wager you make is independent in odds from the others. Meaning just because you have lost 2 straight doesn't mean that Strycova is anymore likely than odds suggest to win You have been touting this so-called system for over a month and have shown little with it. Your average wager is 15 units so being up 41 is like being up only around 3 in reality.
Funny how you havent commented on my other parlay thread which represents the way I play in real life.
Your probability nonsense would carry weight with a game of chance like roulette. Where each bet is indeed independant from those before. But here are talking about human desire. Not mechanical probability. Theres no system worth a hoot until its founder, player understands its weakest link. THE LOSING STREAK.
What hasnt sank into your head yet is the ZONE has a virtual limit. A point which it can rarely lose beyond. Knowing what I know Ive been way too tame and reserved. From now on Im using instinctive staking to illustrate my absolute confidence in what Ive just stated. And on the parlay thread it will prove far more lucrative.
people like you simply amuse me quick to criticize. But no guts to document anything better on here. Typical.....
Funny how you havent commented on my other parlay thread which represents the way I play in real life.
Your probability nonsense would carry weight with a game of chance like roulette. Where each bet is indeed independant from those before. But here are talking about human desire. Not mechanical probability. Theres no system worth a hoot until its founder, player understands its weakest link. THE LOSING STREAK.
What hasnt sank into your head yet is the ZONE has a virtual limit. A point which it can rarely lose beyond. Knowing what I know Ive been way too tame and reserved. From now on Im using instinctive staking to illustrate my absolute confidence in what Ive just stated. And on the parlay thread it will prove far more lucrative.
people like you simply amuse me quick to criticize. But no guts to document anything better on here. Typical.....
You really like Strycova this morning?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sentinel3:
Funny how you havent commented on my other parlay thread which represents the way I play in real life.
Your probability nonsense would carry weight with a game of chance like roulette. Where each bet is indeed independant from those before. But here are talking about human desire. Not mechanical probability. Theres no system worth a hoot until its founder, player understands its weakest link. THE LOSING STREAK.
What hasnt sank into your head yet is the ZONE has a virtual limit. A point which it can rarely lose beyond. Knowing what I know Ive been way too tame and reserved. From now on Im using instinctive staking to illustrate my absolute confidence in what Ive just stated. And on the parlay thread it will prove far more lucrative.
people like you simply amuse me quick to criticize. But no guts to document anything better on here. Typical.....
You clearly don't understand mathematics. Most of what you say makes zero sense. You are like a lot of novice bettors who don't understand probability. Each wager you make is independent in odds from the others. Meaning just because you have lost 2 straight doesn't mean that Strycova is anymore likely than odds suggest to win You have been touting this so-called system for over a month and have shown little with it. Your average wager is 15 units so being up 41 is like being up only around 3 in reality.
Funny how you havent commented on my other parlay thread which represents the way I play in real life.
Your probability nonsense would carry weight with a game of chance like roulette. Where each bet is indeed independant from those before. But here are talking about human desire. Not mechanical probability. Theres no system worth a hoot until its founder, player understands its weakest link. THE LOSING STREAK.
What hasnt sank into your head yet is the ZONE has a virtual limit. A point which it can rarely lose beyond. Knowing what I know Ive been way too tame and reserved. From now on Im using instinctive staking to illustrate my absolute confidence in what Ive just stated. And on the parlay thread it will prove far more lucrative.
people like you simply amuse me quick to criticize. But no guts to document anything better on here. Typical. And only three weeks you were accusing me of touting for business. I dont see your apology yet???
0
Quote Originally Posted by sparty444:
You clearly don't understand mathematics. Most of what you say makes zero sense. You are like a lot of novice bettors who don't understand probability. Each wager you make is independent in odds from the others. Meaning just because you have lost 2 straight doesn't mean that Strycova is anymore likely than odds suggest to win You have been touting this so-called system for over a month and have shown little with it. Your average wager is 15 units so being up 41 is like being up only around 3 in reality.
Funny how you havent commented on my other parlay thread which represents the way I play in real life.
Your probability nonsense would carry weight with a game of chance like roulette. Where each bet is indeed independant from those before. But here are talking about human desire. Not mechanical probability. Theres no system worth a hoot until its founder, player understands its weakest link. THE LOSING STREAK.
What hasnt sank into your head yet is the ZONE has a virtual limit. A point which it can rarely lose beyond. Knowing what I know Ive been way too tame and reserved. From now on Im using instinctive staking to illustrate my absolute confidence in what Ive just stated. And on the parlay thread it will prove far more lucrative.
people like you simply amuse me quick to criticize. But no guts to document anything better on here. Typical. And only three weeks you were accusing me of touting for business. I dont see your apology yet???
Sparty don't waste your time - see the last few pages instead. He even bets on both sides. Have a read. It's like talking to an advocate of Scientology!
Watching the parlay thread with interest as well....
0
Sparty don't waste your time - see the last few pages instead. He even bets on both sides. Have a read. It's like talking to an advocate of Scientology!
Watching the parlay thread with interest as well....
Sparty don't waste your time - see the last few pages instead. He even bets on both sides. Have a read. It's like talking to an advocate of Scientology!Watching the parlay thread with interest as well....
Keep watching jules you and sparty arent the first sceptics to get it wrong with me. And you wont be the last.
All math based thinkers THINK they have it cornered on the ultimate outcome of every single strategy that comes into their view. Sure theres gonna be some rocky rides along the way particularly on this thread. But the ultimate conclusion will be positive. Dont think in terms of ROI or laws of probability. At the end of the day positive numbers will be the outcome.
Throw all you think you know out of the window ..
0
Quote Originally Posted by Julespussy:
Sparty don't waste your time - see the last few pages instead. He even bets on both sides. Have a read. It's like talking to an advocate of Scientology!Watching the parlay thread with interest as well....
Keep watching jules you and sparty arent the first sceptics to get it wrong with me. And you wont be the last.
All math based thinkers THINK they have it cornered on the ultimate outcome of every single strategy that comes into their view. Sure theres gonna be some rocky rides along the way particularly on this thread. But the ultimate conclusion will be positive. Dont think in terms of ROI or laws of probability. At the end of the day positive numbers will be the outcome.
I never understand how bad/lonely somebody's live have to be to come into somebody else's thread and start accounting his wagers or dissing his plays....
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN DON'T FOLLOW OR READ IT!!!!!!!! You look like such a loser fucktard to even comment on something like that. Not the thread author but your lonely pathetic a$s who is so devoid of anything better to do but tally up others books, hate on their methods, etc. It doesn't make sense to me
0
I never understand how bad/lonely somebody's live have to be to come into somebody else's thread and start accounting his wagers or dissing his plays....
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN DON'T FOLLOW OR READ IT!!!!!!!! You look like such a loser fucktard to even comment on something like that. Not the thread author but your lonely pathetic a$s who is so devoid of anything better to do but tally up others books, hate on their methods, etc. It doesn't make sense to me
Do you not understand the point of a public forum then? What would this forum be without people challenging baseless claims? So far all we have seen is rhetoric and undocumented claims of thousands won and anyone who disputes just doesn't understand THE ZONE
0
Do you not understand the point of a public forum then? What would this forum be without people challenging baseless claims? So far all we have seen is rhetoric and undocumented claims of thousands won and anyone who disputes just doesn't understand THE ZONE
Sentinel I believe you have clearly laid out the required information so anyone with HALF a brain understands how this system works. I really responding to these guys is a waste of time at this point. But it's your time and I appreciate it.
Hey at least one guy understands it!
0
Sentinel I believe you have clearly laid out the required information so anyone with HALF a brain understands how this system works. I really responding to these guys is a waste of time at this point. But it's your time and I appreciate it.
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
