What if you take all divisions in baseball. Did any team lose all home games to a division opponent? Arent you guaranteed 9?
Correct me if I am wrong but for the NL EAST mets play 9 home games vs. brave, marlins, nationals, and phillies? and vice versa.
would a system like this work, I don't think any one team gets swept by another 9 times. That would seem a little ridiculous. you would have to start this system game 1 and be committed to it a large amount of $
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
What if you take all divisions in baseball. Did any team lose all home games to a division opponent? Arent you guaranteed 9?
Correct me if I am wrong but for the NL EAST mets play 9 home games vs. brave, marlins, nationals, and phillies? and vice versa.
would a system like this work, I don't think any one team gets swept by another 9 times. That would seem a little ridiculous. you would have to start this system game 1 and be committed to it a large amount of $
with a large bankroll i think this could work....and if you think about it just using your example the NL east if you chase every team to win at home once against every team in the division your looking at about 20 units per division so probably a good 100 units for the season.....im gonna look more into this one!!
0
with a large bankroll i think this could work....and if you think about it just using your example the NL east if you chase every team to win at home once against every team in the division your looking at about 20 units per division so probably a good 100 units for the season.....im gonna look more into this one!!
I checked it out for last year and every team won atleast one game at home against division rivals.....the longest chase would of been 7 games it took 7 games for SF to win against LA at home and other then that there was houston took them 6 games to win at home against pitts and it took 6 games cincy to win at home against houston...after that everything else is lower....
with a solid bankroll this is very possible and its a total of 117 units!!! worth a shot!!
0
I checked it out for last year and every team won atleast one game at home against division rivals.....the longest chase would of been 7 games it took 7 games for SF to win against LA at home and other then that there was houston took them 6 games to win at home against pitts and it took 6 games cincy to win at home against houston...after that everything else is lower....
with a solid bankroll this is very possible and its a total of 117 units!!! worth a shot!!
Do you have any idea how many units you'd have to bet for that 6th game, or 7th game? Apparently not. Are you going to bet over 100 units on that 6th game, or maybe 200 units on that 7th game, and on maybe 3 or more different occasions, just to chase 1 unit?
It only takes one team to ruin your system. It looks like you already found 3.
0
Do you have any idea how many units you'd have to bet for that 6th game, or 7th game? Apparently not. Are you going to bet over 100 units on that 6th game, or maybe 200 units on that 7th game, and on maybe 3 or more different occasions, just to chase 1 unit?
It only takes one team to ruin your system. It looks like you already found 3.
out of those teams that did go6-7 games before there first win they would of probably been underdogs so it wouldnt be as bad as your numbers!!
and dude no one said you had to play the system so if you dont like it stay out of it
Those ARE calculated from the actual lines that were listed for those games, and some of those lines were dogs. So yes, it would be as bad as those numbers. I try and deal with reality, not fantasy.
And as far as "staying out of it", this is a public forum. Whether you like it ,or not, I'm free to post my opinions. Why are you so afraid of looking at real evidence? I'd think that you'd be happy that someone would research what you apparently wouldn't, or can't, even though you're suggesting that this system works. That's the conceit of ignorance.
0
out of those teams that did go6-7 games before there first win they would of probably been underdogs so it wouldnt be as bad as your numbers!!
and dude no one said you had to play the system so if you dont like it stay out of it
Those ARE calculated from the actual lines that were listed for those games, and some of those lines were dogs. So yes, it would be as bad as those numbers. I try and deal with reality, not fantasy.
And as far as "staying out of it", this is a public forum. Whether you like it ,or not, I'm free to post my opinions. Why are you so afraid of looking at real evidence? I'd think that you'd be happy that someone would research what you apparently wouldn't, or can't, even though you're suggesting that this system works. That's the conceit of ignorance.
yes and all three that you posted you end up with winning that unit....thats why its a called a chase system!!!
and thats why you need a solid bankroll.....every chase system you have to be ready to chase 6-7 games and sometimes more....that is the whole idea of a chase system!!
0
yes and all three that you posted you end up with winning that unit....thats why its a called a chase system!!!
and thats why you need a solid bankroll.....every chase system you have to be ready to chase 6-7 games and sometimes more....that is the whole idea of a chase system!!
If you were lucky enough to get an even money bet on the next 2 games, the 8th gamewould be a 169 unit play, plus the previous 168 units wagered, for a total of 337 units bet to date.
On the 9th game you'll need to bet 338 units, plus the previous 337 units, for a total of 675 units wagered.
Is that the size of a bankroll that you were suggesting?
0
If you were lucky enough to get an even money bet on the next 2 games, the 8th gamewould be a 169 unit play, plus the previous 168 units wagered, for a total of 337 units bet to date.
On the 9th game you'll need to bet 338 units, plus the previous 337 units, for a total of 675 units wagered.
Is that the size of a bankroll that you were suggesting?
I think GB is right, but his numbers are too conservative. The fact that you are committed to chasing as far as the 9th game means that you have to set your unit size as a very small percentage of bankroll.
You can't count on the assumption that for one team to lose more than 6 or 7 in a row at home to another, they would necessarily be dogs most of the time. What makes sense to me is to start with the average price for a home team across the board, which historically would come out to just around -122. Call it -120 if you want to give yourself the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway, to protect against 8 straight -120 losses and still have the funds to chase the 9th game, you'd need better than a 1200 unit bankroll. The numbers go up precipitously. -122 average would require over 1300 units and -125 nearly 1500 units.
To protect against the Yankees losing 9 straight at home to TB would be prohibitive, so what makes sense is to protect yourself up to a certain level of odds, regardless of how many games that would be.
A 1500 unit bankroll makes sense to me. That means in most cases you'd be able to protect to the full run of 9 games. Some of the better teams would give you only 8 chances, and a few cases you'd potentially bust out at 7. Even an extreme case like NYY/TB you'd get at least 6 shots.
So what you're talking about is winning 117/1500 units, or about 8% of your bankroll, assuming disaster doesn't strike and bust you out.
Actually, I think it's +122 units. I don't know where you came up with 117. I get 122, but maybe I made a mistake? Anyway, still roughly 8% and that's no bargain as a payout for surviving as a 1500 to 1 favorite 122 times in a row.
0
I think GB is right, but his numbers are too conservative. The fact that you are committed to chasing as far as the 9th game means that you have to set your unit size as a very small percentage of bankroll.
You can't count on the assumption that for one team to lose more than 6 or 7 in a row at home to another, they would necessarily be dogs most of the time. What makes sense to me is to start with the average price for a home team across the board, which historically would come out to just around -122. Call it -120 if you want to give yourself the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway, to protect against 8 straight -120 losses and still have the funds to chase the 9th game, you'd need better than a 1200 unit bankroll. The numbers go up precipitously. -122 average would require over 1300 units and -125 nearly 1500 units.
To protect against the Yankees losing 9 straight at home to TB would be prohibitive, so what makes sense is to protect yourself up to a certain level of odds, regardless of how many games that would be.
A 1500 unit bankroll makes sense to me. That means in most cases you'd be able to protect to the full run of 9 games. Some of the better teams would give you only 8 chances, and a few cases you'd potentially bust out at 7. Even an extreme case like NYY/TB you'd get at least 6 shots.
So what you're talking about is winning 117/1500 units, or about 8% of your bankroll, assuming disaster doesn't strike and bust you out.
Actually, I think it's +122 units. I don't know where you came up with 117. I get 122, but maybe I made a mistake? Anyway, still roughly 8% and that's no bargain as a payout for surviving as a 1500 to 1 favorite 122 times in a row.
big problem with baseball chase is odds........u could bet -130 and -120 then have to bet -240 depending on teams , pitchers etc..........maybe bet road teams since u get better odds , wonder how that plays out?
0
big problem with baseball chase is odds........u could bet -130 and -120 then have to bet -240 depending on teams , pitchers etc..........maybe bet road teams since u get better odds , wonder how that plays out?
just playing with this system a little, using 2007 lines and results, i found the following if were to bet on the road DOG vs IN-DIVISION opponents betting progressively, stopping at 1 win or 4 losses: NL 15-1 AL 13-1
Arizona went 9 games, being the road dog vs in-division opponent before finally winning a game.
Yankees went to a 5th game before winning as the road dog vs. in-division opponent.
So, stopping at 1win or 4 losses, you would have gone 28-2 and been up +15.46 units...using $100 units, one would have needed somewhere in the neighborhood of a $2000 bank roll...the other interesting point is this, of the winners, only the angels needed to go into the month of may to get that first win as a road dog vs in-division opponent within 4 games...so in conclusion this could be a very good way to start the baseball season off right, bet progressively on the road dog vs in-division opponents until you win 1 or lose 4...if it works out like last season, you will be up 15 units or so in the first month
0
just playing with this system a little, using 2007 lines and results, i found the following if were to bet on the road DOG vs IN-DIVISION opponents betting progressively, stopping at 1 win or 4 losses: NL 15-1 AL 13-1
Arizona went 9 games, being the road dog vs in-division opponent before finally winning a game.
Yankees went to a 5th game before winning as the road dog vs. in-division opponent.
So, stopping at 1win or 4 losses, you would have gone 28-2 and been up +15.46 units...using $100 units, one would have needed somewhere in the neighborhood of a $2000 bank roll...the other interesting point is this, of the winners, only the angels needed to go into the month of may to get that first win as a road dog vs in-division opponent within 4 games...so in conclusion this could be a very good way to start the baseball season off right, bet progressively on the road dog vs in-division opponents until you win 1 or lose 4...if it works out like last season, you will be up 15 units or so in the first month
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.
you are not a very nice person
Hot Forum Topics
