Critique My Method

BAL over TOR @ 167

Guys...  Odds are there is no formula this guy uses.  And by the slight chance there is- he's not going to tell you because why would you ever come back to this thread.  Anyway, how good can the "formula" be if it consistently gets 3, 4 or 5 losers in a row.

Who are you talking to Milkman. I´m up 17 units since i started following this thread so i´m perfectly happy with the picks. If you can´t contribute anything to this thread you might as well piss of. I can´t understand people like you. You really must have a lot of time on your hands, surfing the internet, trying to find something to come down on. Openbahr and surfer is trying to clear something up and the rest of us are interested in this.
And by the way, you must have forgot to mention the 4 winners in a row sdiinc picked a couple of days ago...

Guys, I have tried to explain repeatedly that I inherited a db of data that this formula is running off of, and the formula is in php, which is foreign to me, and so I don't know if the formula is using data from last year, or if there are gaps, or if there is some other unknown.  I have provided the formula exactly as it was described to me.  Opening up the php and the db hasn't been a huge priority to me simply because it's been working so well (at least by my standards).

I think I made a mistake by opening up the thread, because I anticipated getting lots of free advice rather than spending alot of time explaining my formula.  I don't mind the constructive criticism, but I've been as transparent as possible and feel like I'm spending alot of time and sharing valuable information.  I've answered alot of emails privately as well and it seems like I've just created a part time job for myself.

I'll do my best to clear it up as soon as I have a php programmer I trust explain the db and the code.

then thats it.

1)--we can chose to shadow sdiinc if we like
2)-- we can use the formula plugging in our own figures

but lets just put it to rest.
Basically all the formula is doing is figuring a teams advantage and comparing it to its advantage (or lack of)
 based on that nights pitching.

I think we are making alot of hoopla (yes i said hoopla)  out  of nothing. 

The reason sdiinc is making money is not the system but the money management plan. Thats the real beauty.

We all need to realize that the books take our money because we are greedy and impatient gamblers.
We need to treat this like a business and do our best to, above all, preserve our account. Mark (sdiinc) is succeeding because he is a stock trader and good traders know preserving your account is the only way to make money in the long term.

I used to have $300 accounts and be betting $50 a game...
That was very stupid.

all you need is a system that wins slightly more than 50% and you will be successful in the long term.

example:
flipping a coin is 50-50, I will now flip a coin 30 (1 game a day for a month)  times and see where a $1000 account would end up.
using marks money management and betting $20 a game
thhhthhthhhththhhttttththhhhhh  =  $1260

in this quick and unscientific example you see that we make $260 in a month thats 26%. 
where can you get that kind of return??
so I feel we spend so much time chasing the perfect system and all we really need to do is stop being pigs!


I

balt does seem like a real bargain tonight.

as does cws

I'm taking both 2% of my acct on each

great call on BALT...

Nice jinx

it did seem like as soon as he jwager posted that both games turned completely around.

oh well

Sdiinc I have a programmer that could look at it if you are interested. If your system is going off last years numbers then theres really not much logic to it. Year to year numbers have to be different, it would be the same as just randomly picking games.
The formula could be using ERA numbers from different sources like Jeff Sargarin's NPERA Very good info here  https://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin.htm
It could also be calculating the bullpens in the formula?

Sorry for you feeling like all this is a job, I do appreciate what you have done its opened my mind to different things which I think is the goal.

Thnx

PIT over LOS @ 110

SEO over OAK @ 110

This is a good system with sound money management.
However, it is nonetheless still a chase system. Can it be argued that you can just randomly pick any game...for example the largest underdog of the day everyday and use your same method....if it loses on game 1, i will chase again to break even. 
It seems like most systems are negative progressive and filters are kinda 'whatever'....as long as you are chasing, you will always hit....eventually. You can go on a 20 game losing streak and hit the 21st game to break even....but ofcourse depending on your bankroll maybe your unit size will need to be 0.10/unit.
I guess my point is, picking winners is important, but using your method, being able to stay in the game and preserve your bankroll while making a small return is even more important. 
The filters for a system are always subjective and the logic is debatable. Ex: deciding what stats are important.....
Is it fair to say that you can really chase anything and be profitable as long as you have the right unit size???
Finally, what is the record if you played to win 1 unit every bet and didn't chase?

Very interesting thread! keep it up!

excellent points. I am currently using this system with a $300 acct. to see how it goes. I started sep 5th and I am now at  $388 ~29%
not bad.
I would need to lose 6 or 7 straight games to go broke
possible sure but not very probable.

I have used some of marks games, some I use my own method of valuing games, and some times when Im short on time, I use covers experts picks.

but to just pick biggest dog would not be a good idea, i think, because they have (according to bookmakers) less than 50%
chance of winning. in fact, once my acct grows a bit more, I will may just pick favoites

BOS over TOR @ 130

We ARE using current data, every day the server updates and the team data and pitcher data changes.  What I haven't determined is whether the complete DB includes historical data.

10 units monthly seems to be about right, with a 2% unit size this should be 20% monthly.  What I haven't decided is when you should adjust your unit size as bankroll grows.  I like the idea of having a decreasing % as the season progresses, b/c this reduces risk while still growing the bankroll.  Others have suggested increasing the unit size when the bankroll has increased by 50%.

I don't like the idea of betting 'anything'.  The only reason I've accepted the progressive money management is because the historical odds are about 50%, so that puts binomial distribution on my side and the ML means it is a favorable proposition.  If you were just betting blindly on underdogs and your rate dropped from 50% to say, 44%, that's a significant reduction (12% deviation) and would have a dramatic effect on your risk.

The other question you've asked, i.e., straight betting and no progression, is one I have strongly considered.  Of course the overall profit would drop, but I would compensate for this by making significantly more plays.  Right now we do only one play per day, but with a straight system you could make as many plays as fit the formula.  If you bet twice as often and achieve the same win rate, you can drop the progressive altogether and net the same profit.  You might even have 3 plays on some days.  Your efficiency and ROI drop a little, but if you are still using a 2% unit size, so I see no danger.  If I make a change, this is the direction I would go.

Actually, we break even at 38% due to the high average ML.  So if we maintain 50% on dogs and bet twice as often, yes, it could be a very profitable strategy.  The only unknown is whether or not I can pick twice as many and maintain that same overall rate.  It will take some further backtesting to know for sure.

Favorites would be a whole different story-the win rate you have to hit to break even is 55% or so, and I don't have the history with that to speak to it.  In theory my formula identifies the winner, regardless of underdog status, but I haven't tracked it so I don't know.  As for other sports, this formula is only for MLB.  NHL dogs is similar but different inputs.   For NBA and NFL I use a totally different (logical regression) model.

The point being; IF the system picks the winner, why not include favorites also; thereby increasing the number of bets and you profitability? IF the system works, it should be able to pick the winner more than 55% of the time. Other sports require different inputs for sure, and thus a different formula. I think you are going in the correct direction by using raw data rather than hype. I am following your NFL thread also; GL.

BAL over TAM @ 130