Please tell me I am not the only one on this forum who took Bowling Green giving the 1.5 instead of betting them on the moneyline???? I just wanted to save the juice and I figured if they won, the 1.5 would be a non-factor. Obviously it turned out to be a bonehead move!!
I forgot to bet :(
0
Quote Originally Posted by KMang:
Please tell me I am not the only one on this forum who took Bowling Green giving the 1.5 instead of betting them on the moneyline???? I just wanted to save the juice and I figured if they won, the 1.5 would be a non-factor. Obviously it turned out to be a bonehead move!!
Please tell me I am not the only one on this forum who took Bowling Green giving the 1.5 instead of betting them on the moneyline???? I just wanted to save the juice and I figured if they won, the 1.5 would be a non-factor. Obviously it turned out to be a bonehead move!!
I am sure you weren't the only one who did not take the money line. And to be honest I was thinking about not taking it my self but at the last minute I reminded my self that the system says take moneyline. Don't beat yourself up to much we will get them next weekend. Cheers to all who cashed in this weekend
0
Quote Originally Posted by KMang:
Please tell me I am not the only one on this forum who took Bowling Green giving the 1.5 instead of betting them on the moneyline???? I just wanted to save the juice and I figured if they won, the 1.5 would be a non-factor. Obviously it turned out to be a bonehead move!!
I am sure you weren't the only one who did not take the money line. And to be honest I was thinking about not taking it my self but at the last minute I reminded my self that the system says take moneyline. Don't beat yourself up to much we will get them next weekend. Cheers to all who cashed in this weekend
I have to say I took the 1.5 instead of the ml, I felt like a jackass when I saw the final score because I knew it called for the ml. Oh well, live and learn.
0
I have to say I took the 1.5 instead of the ml, I felt like a jackass when I saw the final score because I knew it called for the ml. Oh well, live and learn.
Kangy, can you explain how this would translate to the Labourchere method? I understand the basics of it, I just don't know how to translate it to this system.
0
Kangy, can you explain how this would translate to the Labourchere method? I understand the basics of it, I just don't know how to translate it to this system.
First, Thanks for all the hard work. Now, not to nit-pick, but the (all games) spreadsheet for 10/10 showed USC-UCLA, when it should have been USC-Cal. Not a big deal, but thought you might want to know. Lines 549-550, I believe.
0
First, Thanks for all the hard work. Now, not to nit-pick, but the (all games) spreadsheet for 10/10 showed USC-UCLA, when it should have been USC-Cal. Not a big deal, but thought you might want to know. Lines 549-550, I believe.
Arkadymo, to make this work with Labourchere, create multiple lines (maybe 2 or 3) since you will most often be playing up to 3 or 4 games per week.
MasterofBets, I accepted you.
Kevin, yes that 1.5 was a killer. I knew it was going to be a rough one, but then again, the basturds had to go for two, and missed. Had BG just kicked the XP, they win by 2. Sorry to all who took -1.5, but let's get 'em back.
EASTERN MICHIGAN is NOT a play this week because of the filter. Yes, they have lost three games SU and ATS, however, one of the filters states regression teams as a no play, so we shall wait until next week to see what happens. Regression teams are those where they loss the ATS by a larger margin each of the last three weeks.
UNLV is NOT a play either, because of another filter put into place. This one states any team that has lost the last three SU games by 75 or more OR are 5 games below .500 in lines games must have lost the last three by a smaller margin each game. Let's watch UNLV for next week.
FLORIDA STATE and ILLINOIS are progression teams with no filters. These usually have won on the [A] bets more often than not. You could think of these are stronger plays.
0
Sorcerer, thanks. I have corrected this mistake.
Arkadymo, to make this work with Labourchere, create multiple lines (maybe 2 or 3) since you will most often be playing up to 3 or 4 games per week.
MasterofBets, I accepted you.
Kevin, yes that 1.5 was a killer. I knew it was going to be a rough one, but then again, the basturds had to go for two, and missed. Had BG just kicked the XP, they win by 2. Sorry to all who took -1.5, but let's get 'em back.
EASTERN MICHIGAN is NOT a play this week because of the filter. Yes, they have lost three games SU and ATS, however, one of the filters states regression teams as a no play, so we shall wait until next week to see what happens. Regression teams are those where they loss the ATS by a larger margin each of the last three weeks.
UNLV is NOT a play either, because of another filter put into place. This one states any team that has lost the last three SU games by 75 or more OR are 5 games below .500 in lines games must have lost the last three by a smaller margin each game. Let's watch UNLV for next week.
FLORIDA STATE and ILLINOIS are progression teams with no filters. These usually have won on the [A] bets more often than not. You could think of these are stronger plays.
Kangy, can you explain how this would translate to the Labourchere method? I understand the basics of it, I just don't know how to translate it to this system.
Let me see if I can paint a basic picture. Say we have three games, two early and one late game and you want to you two lines. You would play the early games first on two seperate lines:
Ex. A. X: 10-10-10-10-10 Y: 10-10-10-10-10
Game 1, you play a bet for 20 on the X line and Game 2, a bet of 20 on the Y line. If you play a ML game and lose, then spread the losses across all lines. There are many threads in the forum describing this modified labourchere method. So assuming Akron wins but Illinois loses, then Akron on our X line would result in the following:
Ex B. X: 10-10-10
And Illinois loss since it's a ML bet, might be $38 for example. So, we simply spread any losses across both lines. Now they will look like this:
Ex C. X: 10-10-10-19 Y: 10-10-10-10-10-19
Your next bet on FAU will be to win $29. I would play it on the longest line (Y). If it wins, then Y, looks like this. 10-10-10-10. If it loses, both will look like this assuming we lose $32:
Ex D. X: 10-10-10-19-16 Y: 10-10-10-10-10-19-16
You can even play the "stronger plays", by selecting three from the longest line... So using the example D above, since Florida State is a strong play next week, you could play them using the Y line to win 45. The results would look like this:
A win: X: 10-10-10-19-16 Y: 10-10-10-10
A loss: X: 10-10-10-19-16-25 Y: 10-10-10-10-10-19-16-25 (assuming we lose 50 on a 45 to-win bet).
Hope this helps. Labby is only good as long as a great percentage of the wins are at either [A] or [B]. If all bets go to the [C] bet, then there is another management strategy for that, I don't know of the name, but you would place a bet to win three or four numbers on a line per game, but that would get out of hand very quickly. So far this year, all bets have won on the [A] or [B] bets, and historically, the system has done the same, so it looks to be profitable.
0
Quote Originally Posted by arkadymo:
Kangy, can you explain how this would translate to the Labourchere method? I understand the basics of it, I just don't know how to translate it to this system.
Let me see if I can paint a basic picture. Say we have three games, two early and one late game and you want to you two lines. You would play the early games first on two seperate lines:
Ex. A. X: 10-10-10-10-10 Y: 10-10-10-10-10
Game 1, you play a bet for 20 on the X line and Game 2, a bet of 20 on the Y line. If you play a ML game and lose, then spread the losses across all lines. There are many threads in the forum describing this modified labourchere method. So assuming Akron wins but Illinois loses, then Akron on our X line would result in the following:
Ex B. X: 10-10-10
And Illinois loss since it's a ML bet, might be $38 for example. So, we simply spread any losses across both lines. Now they will look like this:
Ex C. X: 10-10-10-19 Y: 10-10-10-10-10-19
Your next bet on FAU will be to win $29. I would play it on the longest line (Y). If it wins, then Y, looks like this. 10-10-10-10. If it loses, both will look like this assuming we lose $32:
Ex D. X: 10-10-10-19-16 Y: 10-10-10-10-10-19-16
You can even play the "stronger plays", by selecting three from the longest line... So using the example D above, since Florida State is a strong play next week, you could play them using the Y line to win 45. The results would look like this:
A win: X: 10-10-10-19-16 Y: 10-10-10-10
A loss: X: 10-10-10-19-16-25 Y: 10-10-10-10-10-19-16-25 (assuming we lose 50 on a 45 to-win bet).
Hope this helps. Labby is only good as long as a great percentage of the wins are at either [A] or [B]. If all bets go to the [C] bet, then there is another management strategy for that, I don't know of the name, but you would place a bet to win three or four numbers on a line per game, but that would get out of hand very quickly. So far this year, all bets have won on the [A] or [B] bets, and historically, the system has done the same, so it looks to be profitable.
Totals so far this year Individual.... 7-4 Series........ 7-0 (1 pending)
Week 7 plays....
Florida State +2.5 [A] Hawai'i +24 [A] Illinois +10.5 [B] (recover the ML losses from last week) Nevada-Las Vegas ML [A]
North Carolina State is idle this week
Teams not making the filter...
Eastern Michigan... after getting filtered out as a play last week, they actually improved on their ATS margin this time. However, due to the filtering, the ATS margin in their last game was not small enough to warrant a play for this week. Will watch it for next week.
UCLA... a regressed ATS margin in its last three games. The filter kicks in and we will have to wait until next week.
Vanderbilt... a regressed ATS margin in its last three games. The filter kicks in and we will have to wait until next week.
Totals so far this year Individual.... 7-4 Series........ 7-0 (1 pending)
Week 7 plays....
Florida State +2.5 [A] Hawai'i +24 [A] Illinois +10.5 [B] (recover the ML losses from last week) Nevada-Las Vegas ML [A]
North Carolina State is idle this week
Teams not making the filter...
Eastern Michigan... after getting filtered out as a play last week, they actually improved on their ATS margin this time. However, due to the filtering, the ATS margin in their last game was not small enough to warrant a play for this week. Will watch it for next week.
UCLA... a regressed ATS margin in its last three games. The filter kicks in and we will have to wait until next week.
Vanderbilt... a regressed ATS margin in its last three games. The filter kicks in and we will have to wait until next week.
Kangy............. Love the work Elsewhere somebody else who is highly respected is tracking something somewhat similar to what your doing but with a twist Same for the NFL Next to the GM #'s is the units recommended for each play Here it is:
PLAY THE LOSERS
GAME 2 -- 2.3* Illinois +10.5 vs Purdue
GAME 2 -- 2.1* Eastern Michigan +3.5 vs Ball State
GAME 2 -- 2.1* UNLV ML vs New Mexico
GAME 1 -- 1* Florida State +2.5 vs North Carolina
GAME 1 -- 1* UCLA +9 vs Arizona
GAME 1 -- 1* Vanderbilt +12 vs South Carolina
GAME 1 -- 1* Hawaii +24 vs Boise State
FADE THE WINNERS
GAME 3 -- 2.65* Nevada ML vs Idaho
GAME 2 -- 2.6* Virginia +4.5 vs Georgia Tech
GAME 2 -- 2.1* North Texas vs Troy
GAME 2 -- 2.1* Washington +7.5 vs Oregon
GAME 1 -- 1* Clemson +6.5 vs Miami-FL
GAME 1 -- 1* Kent State +10 vs Ohio
GAME 1 -- 1* Michigan +4.5 vs Penn State
GAME 1 -- 1* Kentucky ML vs La-Monroe
-------------------------------------------------
PLAY THE LOSERS RECORD (8-0, +8.0)
GM 1 -- 5-6 (winners were Nevada, Buffalo, UAB, Bowling Green, and Akron)
GM 2 -- 3-0 (winners were Miami-OH, New Mexico, and Fla Atlantic)
GM 3
FADE THE WINNERS RECORD (14-0, +14.0)
GM 1 -- 12-5 (winners were fading Auburn, UCLA, Michigan, Iowa,
California, Cincinnati, Stanford, Middle Tennessee, South Florida, Ohio
State, Troy, and Wyoming)
GM 2 -- 2-0-1 (winners were fading Boise St and Alabama)
GM 3
Figure I'd let you know Applaud the effort man, thanks.......... Disclaimer......... I haven't played either yet but look to combining your plays with this fade this winner section too
0
Kangy............. Love the work Elsewhere somebody else who is highly respected is tracking something somewhat similar to what your doing but with a twist Same for the NFL Next to the GM #'s is the units recommended for each play Here it is:
PLAY THE LOSERS
GAME 2 -- 2.3* Illinois +10.5 vs Purdue
GAME 2 -- 2.1* Eastern Michigan +3.5 vs Ball State
GAME 2 -- 2.1* UNLV ML vs New Mexico
GAME 1 -- 1* Florida State +2.5 vs North Carolina
GAME 1 -- 1* UCLA +9 vs Arizona
GAME 1 -- 1* Vanderbilt +12 vs South Carolina
GAME 1 -- 1* Hawaii +24 vs Boise State
FADE THE WINNERS
GAME 3 -- 2.65* Nevada ML vs Idaho
GAME 2 -- 2.6* Virginia +4.5 vs Georgia Tech
GAME 2 -- 2.1* North Texas vs Troy
GAME 2 -- 2.1* Washington +7.5 vs Oregon
GAME 1 -- 1* Clemson +6.5 vs Miami-FL
GAME 1 -- 1* Kent State +10 vs Ohio
GAME 1 -- 1* Michigan +4.5 vs Penn State
GAME 1 -- 1* Kentucky ML vs La-Monroe
-------------------------------------------------
PLAY THE LOSERS RECORD (8-0, +8.0)
GM 1 -- 5-6 (winners were Nevada, Buffalo, UAB, Bowling Green, and Akron)
GM 2 -- 3-0 (winners were Miami-OH, New Mexico, and Fla Atlantic)
GM 3
FADE THE WINNERS RECORD (14-0, +14.0)
GM 1 -- 12-5 (winners were fading Auburn, UCLA, Michigan, Iowa,
California, Cincinnati, Stanford, Middle Tennessee, South Florida, Ohio
State, Troy, and Wyoming)
GM 2 -- 2-0-1 (winners were fading Boise St and Alabama)
GM 3
Figure I'd let you know Applaud the effort man, thanks.......... Disclaimer......... I haven't played either yet but look to combining your plays with this fade this winner section too
Montana, thanks for the info. I have backtracked the "PLAY THE LOSERS" scenario all the way back to 1985. The reason for any filters was because some teams, when they get on a cold streak, are really bad.... They have cost a lost of units. With only 30 units total for all teams through 24 years, I figured it was time to look deeper.
This year so far, everything seems to be falling into place. Last year was a great year too, going 24-2. However, I have not tested the "FADE THE WINNERS" scenario. How far back has the person tracking this tested?
I need to look for that thread, would be interested in seeing how far back, and if there are filters associated with it. Can you post a post a link either here or on my home page? Thanks.
0
Montana, thanks for the info. I have backtracked the "PLAY THE LOSERS" scenario all the way back to 1985. The reason for any filters was because some teams, when they get on a cold streak, are really bad.... They have cost a lost of units. With only 30 units total for all teams through 24 years, I figured it was time to look deeper.
This year so far, everything seems to be falling into place. Last year was a great year too, going 24-2. However, I have not tested the "FADE THE WINNERS" scenario. How far back has the person tracking this tested?
I need to look for that thread, would be interested in seeing how far back, and if there are filters associated with it. Can you post a post a link either here or on my home page? Thanks.
No problem man....... Thanks for the insight and having all of us prosper from your mistakes and hard work I friend-ed you up so I can PM you the info and you can take it from there. I think you'll have a blast To be honest I believe for the fade the winners portion this guy is only using the stated original parameters
Fade a team for 3 games that has won 3 su and ats in a row The team that has done this you want to fade them up to 3 games either if your fade is a dog then take ats or if the fade is a fav then take the ML
I don't think he is using any filters Nor he said that he back tested it at all He said that he is not playing it but only tracking it for recording purposes He has his own plays My opinion makes sense for college fading the winners for many reasons Only my opinion though He's an old head there and carries some weight too so I respect that he knows what he's doing over there
0
No problem man....... Thanks for the insight and having all of us prosper from your mistakes and hard work I friend-ed you up so I can PM you the info and you can take it from there. I think you'll have a blast To be honest I believe for the fade the winners portion this guy is only using the stated original parameters
Fade a team for 3 games that has won 3 su and ats in a row The team that has done this you want to fade them up to 3 games either if your fade is a dog then take ats or if the fade is a fav then take the ML
I don't think he is using any filters Nor he said that he back tested it at all He said that he is not playing it but only tracking it for recording purposes He has his own plays My opinion makes sense for college fading the winners for many reasons Only my opinion though He's an old head there and carries some weight too so I respect that he knows what he's doing over there
Arkadymo, to make this work with Labourchere, create multiple lines (maybe 2 or 3) since you will most often be playing up to 3 or 4 games per week.
MasterofBets, I accepted you.
Kevin, yes that 1.5 was a killer. I knew it was going to be a rough one, but then again, the basturds had to go for two, and missed. Had BG just kicked the XP, they win by 2. Sorry to all who took -1.5, but let's get 'em back.
EASTERN MICHIGAN is NOT a play this week because of the filter. Yes, they have lost three games SU and ATS, however, one of the filters states regression teams as a no play, so we shall wait until next week to see what happens. Regression teams are those where they loss the ATS by a larger margin each of the last three weeks.
UNLV is NOT a play either, because of another filter put into place. This one states any team that has lost the last three SU games by 75 or more OR are 5 games below .500 in lines games must have lost the last three by a smaller margin each game. Let's watch UNLV for next week.
FLORIDA STATE and ILLINOIS are progression teams with no filters. These usually have won on the [A] bets more often than not. You could think of these are stronger plays.
should you buy points on any of these or bet them the way they are?
0
Quote Originally Posted by usakangy:
Sorcerer, thanks. I have corrected this mistake.
Arkadymo, to make this work with Labourchere, create multiple lines (maybe 2 or 3) since you will most often be playing up to 3 or 4 games per week.
MasterofBets, I accepted you.
Kevin, yes that 1.5 was a killer. I knew it was going to be a rough one, but then again, the basturds had to go for two, and missed. Had BG just kicked the XP, they win by 2. Sorry to all who took -1.5, but let's get 'em back.
EASTERN MICHIGAN is NOT a play this week because of the filter. Yes, they have lost three games SU and ATS, however, one of the filters states regression teams as a no play, so we shall wait until next week to see what happens. Regression teams are those where they loss the ATS by a larger margin each of the last three weeks.
UNLV is NOT a play either, because of another filter put into place. This one states any team that has lost the last three SU games by 75 or more OR are 5 games below .500 in lines games must have lost the last three by a smaller margin each game. Let's watch UNLV for next week.
FLORIDA STATE and ILLINOIS are progression teams with no filters. These usually have won on the [A] bets more often than not. You could think of these are stronger plays.
should you buy points on any of these or bet them the way they are?
Totals so far this year Individual.... 7-4 Series........ 7-0 (1 pending)
Week 7 plays....
Florida State +2.5 [A] Hawai'i +24 [A] Illinois +10.5 [B] (recover the ML losses from last week) Nevada-Las Vegas ML [A]
North Carolina State is idle this week
Teams not making the filter...
Eastern Michigan... after getting filtered out as a play last week, they actually improved on their ATS margin this time. However, due to the filtering, the ATS margin in their last game was not small enough to warrant a play for this week. Will watch it for next week.
UCLA... a regressed ATS margin in its last three games. The filter kicks in and we will have to wait until next week.
Vanderbilt... a regressed ATS margin in its last three games. The filter kicks in and we will have to wait until next week.
Good luck everyone!! Let's get the loot!!
meant to Quote this one, should you buy points on any of these or bet them the way they are?
Totals so far this year Individual.... 7-4 Series........ 7-0 (1 pending)
Week 7 plays....
Florida State +2.5 [A] Hawai'i +24 [A] Illinois +10.5 [B] (recover the ML losses from last week) Nevada-Las Vegas ML [A]
North Carolina State is idle this week
Teams not making the filter...
Eastern Michigan... after getting filtered out as a play last week, they actually improved on their ATS margin this time. However, due to the filtering, the ATS margin in their last game was not small enough to warrant a play for this week. Will watch it for next week.
UCLA... a regressed ATS margin in its last three games. The filter kicks in and we will have to wait until next week.
Vanderbilt... a regressed ATS margin in its last three games. The filter kicks in and we will have to wait until next week.
Good luck everyone!! Let's get the loot!!
meant to Quote this one, should you buy points on any of these or bet them the way they are?
Hot Forum Topics
