Posted:
#201
YESTERDAY
UC STA BARBARA +3
INDIANA (NBA) +13
TONIGHT
MISSOURI STATE +3
UTAH (NBA) +3
0
3/6/13 THE TRUE STORY BEHIND THE THEORY
Posted:
#206
As you know I've question this quite a bit. I and another poster contacted the exact place that that Stash said that had the report and of course the places in Vegas said they never heard of it.
All I've heard is how great this system is, but when people start posting the plays before the games go off I've seen a .500, maybe a few ticks higher percentage.
Also I see it all over the board how it's applied. It was just was supposed to be for NBA Opening lines. But I've seen it uses as an average
No one has any stats on how this system has fared over the years. All you can do is backtest the closing line, which of course would be the wrong paramenters for the system.
0
Posted:
#207
I mean, sure, so many recreational bettors are constantly searching for a quick fix way to effectively make cash but the old addage is true 99% of the time: "If it sounds too good to be true, it is."
The sad truth about betting is that almost everything, especially gimmick tactics, doesn't work. You really have to bust your tail to do research and/or have some luck finding the right mathematical formulas to be effective in the long term.
The sad truth about betting is that almost everything, especially gimmick tactics, doesn't work. You really have to bust your tail to do research and/or have some luck finding the right mathematical formulas to be effective in the long term.
0
Posted:
#208
lanastasis / Your absolutely correct in your commentary, I agree with your assessment of handicapping completely. I brought the 3/6/13/ THEORY forward for discussion, and interest value..NOT to tout, or recommend it's application in handicapping, the % were high enough to capture my interest for forum insight...personally, it plays know role in my handicapping a match-up, thx for your commentary on the subject matter....later
0
Posted:
#209
Quote Originally Posted by STASH:
lanastasis / Your absolutely correct in your commentary, I agree with your assessment of handicapping completely. I brought the 3/6/13/ THEORY forward for discussion, and interest value..NOT to tout, or recommend it's application in handicapping, the % were high enough to capture my interest for forum insight...personally, it plays know role in my handicapping a match-up, thx for your commentary on the subject matter....later
Thanks. I would be much more willing to play along if we could just find the book you are talking about. But so far you haven't explained why it can't be found or directed us to a place where we can find it.
0
Posted:
#211
I have not seen the research but have been thinking about this intuitively for a few days, mainly for the NBA, but this also applies to the NCAA. Two quick points
1. You are taking underdogs, where in my opionion there is always a little value. When setting a line the line is always shaded to the favorite except in very unusual cases.
2. It seems that home court advantage in the NBA is set at approximately 3 points in the minds of most people. I do not believe that is true, and I do not think the linemakers do either. As a quick study check out the home and home series for teams and the home advantage in the NBA is more like 4-5 points. Just checking recently for SA and they were getting 2.5 and laying 7.5 3 days later against Denver. I realize that all of these things are situational also, but I think it is safe to say that linemakers consider home court to be at least 3 points and sometimes much more.
With that being said, a team getting 3 on the road is most likely the better team in the minds of the oddsmakers, they are just on the road. At a neutral site they would be favored.
A team getting 6 points on the road is considered equal to or situationally slighty worse then the home team in the minds of many oddsmakers.
A team getting 13 is definately not better than the home team but would only be getting a few points at home, a small home dog. They are not considered to be very much worse inthe odds of the linemakers, and might get blwon out but can also hang around alot of the time.
0
Posted:
#213
[Quote: Originally Posted by smbakeresq]
I have not seen the research but have been thinking about this intuitively for a few days, mainly for the NBA, but this also applies to the NCAA. Two quick points
1. You are taking underdogs, where in my opionion there is always a little value. When setting a line the line is always shaded to the favorite except in very unusual cases.
2. It seems that home court advantage in the NBA is set at approximately 3 points in the minds of most people. I do not believe that is true, and I do not think the linemakers do either. As a quick study check out the home and home series for teams and the home advantage in the NBA is more like 4-5 points. Just checking recently for SA and they were getting 2.5 and laying 7.5 3 days later against Denver. I realize that all of these things are situational also, but I think it is safe to say that linemakers consider home court to be at least 3 points and sometimes much more.
With that being said, a team getting 3 on the road is most likely the better team in the minds of the oddsmakers, they are just on the road. At a neutral site they would be favored.
A team getting 6 points on the road is considered equal to or situationally slighty worse then the home team in the minds of many oddsmakers.
A team getting 13 is definately not better than the home team but would only be getting a few points at home, a small home dog. They are not considered to be very much worse inthe odds of the linemakers, and might get blwon out but can also hang around alot of the time.
Very insightful post! I'm gona watch this for awhile. If you could develope a real understanding of the weight given to home/vis teams up front and then only focus on where any additional points would come from maybe quite an advantage
]
0
Posted:
#214
Very interesting post! If you could have a real understanding of the weight lines makers give automaticaly to the road/home team
it would definately make accounting for any additional points added or subtracted easier to account for. Gona watch from this angle for awhile........ Thanks for the insight!
0
Posted:
#218
It was something that was thrown out there because of the MIT Blackjack movie coming out.
But Stash is the one who claimed all these things. And we have not seen any follow up from him. Honestly when I first saw this I thought it was some sort of class project to see how fast something would spread on a message board.
All you see is people claiming how great this system is, but you never see anyone posting the plays everyday to actually show a record. Oh yeah, you see one about once or twice a week then it quickly is stopped.
0
Posted:
#219
Quote Originally Posted by STASH:
between 1968 to 1998 a graduate group of students did a thesis on matching interior equations, using the LV books 'road dog' # of 3/6/13/ take note: this was based on the NBA only, NOT college; there finding on 3000+ match-ups where a atonishing 72% rate of covering the spread. IT was taken farther in 1999 to2007 by a well known LV HANDICAPPER who found it's success rate rise to 76% There's a book that has been published, titled; 3/6/13/ THE MIT REPORT. there is much more, this is a basic outline... this year alone, if you have an interest, you will find, road dogs in the NBA getting 3/6/13/ points, have covered 22 times out of 27 match-ups
What really irrates me about this is that you get a ton of young gamblers and life long losing gamblers that will jump on this like wildfire.
Pity really.
We are all eyes and ears. Still waiting on this book.
0
Posted:
#220
Lippsman / Your commentary makes NO sense whatsoever, only that you have 'issues' pertaining to "young gamblers" and, "life long losing gamblers" Yes, it's a 'pity' that you have taken it to that level of discussion. I am NOT a book store, nor do I take responsability on where to find any material. I do my own research, and make opinionated statements regarding my findings. Evidently, you have NOT read anything regarding %'s and the stats that go along with them, nor my commentary; I make it very 'clear' what my views are on this subject matter(please read above) everyone is entitled to their opinion on an open forum, and I respect yours, Your personal attacks have NO justification in my direction..Focus on the subject matter, your 'crusade' on losers, and young gamblers is NOT what this is even remotely about.. THX for your commentary, quite interesting to say the least..AND appreciative. may you have the bol, and prosperity always.....later
0
Posted:
#221
by the way, as stated several times above, it's NOT a book, it's a thesis research project on interior math. Go to gamingtoday.com click archives, and back-track. you'll find inserts of everything your looking for. I believe the response from the LV store was because it was published by Andy Isakoe, in his 'newsletter', that they distibute their weekly...Okay???
0
Posted:
#222
My statement makes no sense. 
I say and others say that no one can find this "mystery" MIT report that you claim exist. And no one can find it. So it makes very good sense.
As to posters following something that is claimed to hit such a high percantage, it's very valid point. Now people are responsible for thier own actions. But we do get a great deal of young gamblers here that jump on the latest fad picking
As to my personal attacks, if you think that people saying that they are still waiting for something you claim exist and no one can find it. What do you expect others to think. It's not a personal attack, it's a fact. I would love to see this repont. I'm a bigtime math junkie, I love stuff like this.
Andy Isakoe has been personally e-mailed by a couple of posters on another board and they both told me that he wasn't sure exactly what they were talking about. This is information that was passed to me, so I didn't personally e-mail him.
What you posted at the start of this thread
between 1968 to 1998 a graduate group of students did a thesis on matching interior equations, using the LV books 'road dog' # of 3/6/13/ take note: this was based on the NBA only, NOT college; there finding on 3000+ match-ups where a atonishing 72% rate of covering the spread. IT was taken farther in 1999 to2007 by a well known LV HANDICAPPER who found it's success rate rise to 76% There's a book that has been published, titled; 3/6/13/ THE MIT REPORT. there is much more, this is a basic outline... this year alone, if you have an interest, you will find, road dogs in the NBA getting 3/6/13/ points, have covered 22 times out of 27 match-ups
That's some pretty bold statements you made. 22 out of 27 matchups ??? Also this is where I got that it was a book. You stated it was a book. Just so you know I wasn't just pulling this out of thin air. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth
I just wanted to put this to rest. I get multiple e-mails everyday asking me about the 3/6/13 system. This is kind of what spurs me on about it.
You also said that you would be tracking this
boxer Dan I WILL BRING INTO THE FOREFRONT ALL NBA MATCH UPS THAT FALL INTO THE3/6/13/ THEORY. REMEMBER THESE ARE MATHEMATICAL INTERIOR EQUATIONS, based on # that cover the highest% OF TIME. THEY ARE NOT A STAT, or a handicapping tool or trend, they just 'hit' why??? THERE IS NO LOGICAL ANSWER.
I'm a sporting guy, hell we are both gamblers. If you have time, start posting these and if they hit 72% I will send you $1,000, I'm serious. The guys in the puck section will vouch for me sending out money. Heaven knows I sent enough of it out last season. Of course just make sure and post them before the game starts. Yeah I know........You have nothing to lose here. Just a little fun.
If you don't want to I understand. I'm not calling anyone out, I just want to see everything you claimed. And you got to be honest, you made some pretty big claims with this book/report and saying how the system hit 22 out of 27 matchups.
If you want the last word take it..........It's ok with me. Although I imagine that lanastasis has a bit more to say. 
GL with the 64 tourney today. I believe you are in Vegas, I'm sure it's one hell of a party today.
0
Posted:
#223
SeaOtter and Others did some math for the NBA so far, the sample size is 116 games so that is not small, although definately not large enough to be considered definative. The NCAA players have been profitable this year to the tune of 27.3 units, but I do not know the exact number of games since I use one of my accounts exclusively for this theory in NCAA and my total profit this year is $2730, although it wouldnt show me the history of all my plays.
BTW, if you want to test a theory or track somehting, most online places will allow you to spilt you account into smaller segments so you can just keep all your plays for one sport or idea in one account, and another in seperate account and so on. It takes a little extra work to place lpays in the right accounts, but then you can just lookup your history to see how you are in the NBA, NCAA, NFL or some theory you want to track.
0
Posted:
#224
Quote Originally Posted by STASH:
by the way, as stated several times above, it's NOT a book, it's a thesis research project on interior math. Go to gamingtoday.com click archives, and back-track. you'll find inserts of everything your looking for. I believe the response from the LV store was because it was published by Andy Isakoe, in his 'newsletter', that they distibute their weekly...Okay???
I'm not bashing you here because this sounds like an interesting report that we'd all like to read. But I think maybe you should post the links for us so people aren't looking all over the internet for this.
My personal opinion is that this doesn't sound like anything fullproof, but I would still be interested in reading the report.
0
Hot Forum Topics
