Martindale method and series underdogs?

I just commented on somebody's post and it had me thinking.. instead of betting on a series outcome, wouldn't Martingdales method on betting for the underdog and doubling it every time they lose be much more profitable?

for example, the guy had mentioned betting  +190 over 5.5 games. What I proposed instead is one unit doubled every time they lose if you are really convinced they could win the series or pull off Two games. Curious, has anybody tried this within a series? Maybe going smaller so the risk isn't as big but the payoff will still be great like half a unit game, game 2 1 unit, game 3 4 units game 4 8 units. And once the Blazers win a game, that's when you drop it back down to one unit) if you choose to continue betting on the series), if not, take your profit and run… now keep in mind. This will only apply to series where you get plus money every time as I expect the Blazers to be plus one each time . I know it's not the most responsible way to play, but it sure just sound fun:) thoughts?

I'm new to this forum and I cannot figure out how to delete this? Wasn't trying to spam it, I looked at my phone and it showed it had not submitted but now I see it submitted twice. Thank you

What if they get swept? 

@MrFreedo

 Well, that's the gamble, my friend… if I had confidence in over 5 1/2, this is exactly how I would play it. I don't have that confidence in the series. Another way to play it out would be take the points every time using Martingdales method, I mean what team has covered every point spread all the way to the finals? I would have to look up that information but I would guess none. You're eventually going to win and you're going to win a lot of money playing like this… Of course you have to have the bank roll back it. it might sound a little stupid, but I lived 2 years straight doing this. Not playing like this exactly, just sport betting with little trends and methods that I would come up with along the way. Every reputable book in town blackballed me eight years ago, 2 years of being a consistent winner, leaving me to go back to work since I had a newborn

I just wanted to add to this, this isn't a method I would suggest taking with the Spurs or the thunder. Just about any other team, but there has been some historic runs that I just looked up…

The Golden State Warriors (2015–2019) and San Antonio Spurs (late 1990s–2010s) are historically strong against the spread (ATS) in the playoffs, while the 2017 Warriors hold the best single-postseason ATS record (16-1, .941). The Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics are also top contenders, maintaining high win rates in the postseason over decades

but this further proves my point,  there has never been a team that has covered the spread every single time. I would only try this with the teams that I feel have weaknesses in their game. More so, the teams in the middle of the playoff pack. an argument can be made for the Spurs as they have not been to the playoffs in a while, but as a fan, I just can't see betting against them. I will be trying this, and I will tell you guys how I fair. Houston has a couple of big weaknesses, there's no way they cover ATS often. Although I feel this Lakers team is so weak without their arguably two best players, I wouldn't try it in this series… I'll have to look a little harder and figure out what serie(s) I'll play this with. By the way, to the guy that posted over 5 1/2 Spurs Trailblazers, you're gonna be my new best friend or I will hate you before the season is over :). 

Now I became a little obsessed with this, I'd like more feedback on this, so I went ahead and looked up last year's data . It would've been extremely profitable by playing the plus money or ATS underdogs in a Martingdale manner last year. Sure it kind of takes the fun out of the guest work, but just from a business/profit point of view it doesn't seem like it can miss. But from history, I know a book putting up their money can ban you for method betting. Does anybody have any experience being banned from a sports book that is not pure to peer for method betting?

TeamATS RecordCover %MOVATS +/-Denver8-5-161.5%-4.9+0.3Indiana14-9-060.9%2.0+5.7Minnesota9-6-060.0%2.7+2.8Houston4-3-057.1%0.0-0.2New York10-8-055.6%0.0+0.5LA Clippers3-3-150.0%0.6-1.6Memphis2-2-050.0%-19.5-6.5Okla City11-12-047.8%8.30.0Boston5-6-045.5%5.5-1.7Cleveland4-5-044.4%11.7+3.9Golden State5-7-041.7%-3.0+0.2Orlando2-3-040.0%-12.8-3.3Milwaukee2-3-040.0%-7.6-5.6Detroit2-4-033.3%-1.3+1.4Miami1-3-025.0%-30.5-21.1LA Lakers1-4-020.0%-7.0

I singled out a random matchup from last season because I expect Minnesota to play Denver close as a hole in round one.

so if the results were anything like last year, be the underdog every time with Martingdale, this is what you would've got

• +100Game 1: Nuggets vs. Clippers (Apr 19) — L(112-110, -2.5)
• +100Game 2: Nuggets vs. Clippers (Apr 21) — L(102-105, -1)
• +100Game 3: @ Clippers (Apr 24) — L (83-117)
• -100Game 4: @ Clippers (Apr 26) — W (101-99)
• -200 Game 5: vs. Clippers (Apr 29) — W (131-115)
• +400- ame 6: @ Clippers (May 1) — L (105-111)
• -100100Game 7: vs. Clippers (May 3) — W (120-101, -1.5

This is playing ATS, I haven't figured out the exact math betting straight, Because it really doesn't matter. I just needed a real roll situation with two teams that I think will play close. And I wanted to give an example to see if there's any legitimate downside to playing like this. If you would've have bet straight underdog the whole way, the profit margin would be more.  I picked this very randomly. Like I said, I just have the Minnesota Denver series in my mind because I think they will play close, So I checked last year's results on Denver just out of curiosity. Using Martindale method here would net +3 units if youre playing $100 ats +$300 profit betting the underdog ats not having to think too hard about anything. 

if there's something I'm missing here, let me know… If not, I'm diving in head first.

I think you'd be better off chasing favs ATS rather than dogs ML. I think the avg margin of victory in 1st round last year was 15+ ppg. I think you'd get a return faster if you put $100 on fav to cover G1 and chase that as you could be done G1 w a nice cover or G2. These games tend to be of the 117-101 variety w favs covering early and often just my .02