Posted:
#26
ok, that was a f**k up...lets start all over...
0
I know what you´re gonna say, its just another chase system...
Posted:
#30
Those are the final rankings as of 2009, given the schedule of the first day, the systems plays will be like this:
Opening Game on Sunday:
NYY @ BOS 1 UNIT (depending on line its wo win or risk for all the picks)
Games on Monday:
CLE @ CWS 1 UNIT
TOR @ TEX 1 UNIT
MIN @ LAA 1 UNIT
CHC @ ATL 1 UNIT
I guess everyone should be able to follow the reasoning behind this...
Good luck to all of you, but one more thing, should be clear but wanna point it out again:
Of cause you are welcome to follow these picks, the system showed solid results during the last year in real life as well as during the backtesting all the way to the season of 2004. If you decide to follow thats fine, but I dont feel like having the haters around who will post Bull***t here just because they dont find anything else to upload their nonsense at. I dont feel responsible for you action, I just wanted to share my thoughts here and I really welcome everyone to give me advice or ideas of how to make the system more acurate.
I have to tell you though that I am not looking for any kind of filter to minimize the number of games and maximize the winning %, I found that I feel more comfortable with more games and the money being split than just 1 or 2 picks loaded heavily...but thats just my view...
0
Posted:
#31
I was looking at your lists above. I'm assuming that the first list is Group 1, etc. Are you splitting the teams by their position in their division, or by winning percentage? If by their position, you don't have a team from the AL Central in Group 1. If by winning percentage, how did you split the .463 winning percentage tie between San Diego (in Group 2), Toronto, and Oakland (both in Group 3)?
I just want to make sure I'm grouping the teams properly.
0
Posted:
#32
I group tem by winning pct and I was just cutting it at the 10 and 20 marks, since it doesnt make a difference for the match-ups on opening day I didnt spend too much time finding a solution here...when the situation occurs (which it will within the next match-ups later in the season) I will all call them for the upper group, meaning we could have 12 or 13 teams in one group for the first 20 games...if one feels uncomfortable with more games, of cause you can put them in the lower group as well...thats just how I am going to do it...
0
Posted:
#37
I'm not sure if you answered this or not. I did read through the whole thread but it looks like if you always skipped game one in these series and only bet if your team lost that you might come out further ahead. Have you back tested that? Just to give you a little more feedback and ideas, a guy on another forum does this with only teams that are at least a -140 fav in game 1 and has won at least 2 or their last 3. Record was 80-1 last year.
0
Posted:
#38
Quote Originally Posted by Gothamcity:
I'm not sure if you answered this or not. I did read through the whole thread but it looks like if you always skipped game one in these series and only bet if your team lost that you might come out further ahead. Have you back tested that? Just to give you a little more feedback and ideas, a guy on another forum does this with only teams that are at least a -140 fav in game 1 and has won at least 2 or their last 3. Record was 80-1 last year.
I'm not sure if you answered this or not. I did read through the whole thread but it looks like if you always skipped game one in these series and only bet if your team lost that you might come out further ahead. Have you back tested that? Just to give you a little more feedback and ideas, a guy on another forum does this with only teams that are at least a -140 fav in game 1 and has won at least 2 or their last 3. Record was 80-1 last year.
Hey Gotham, what you just described is how I started the whole thing, skipping all first games of a series and then start on the second game if the home team lost...but I figured that it pays less doing it this way...the last season was not that good with the first games though (only a small gain in UNITS), but in the other seasons I backtested it was solid over and over...thats why I do it from the first game on...and please dont quote records like 80-1, lets be honest, if you take the whole chase as 1 win or loss, the records gets inflated heavily...I had only 2 sweeps in the last season, so my record would be somewhere in the same area, but the truth is 255-163 when you take every game for itself...I personally think this paints a clearer picture...but thanks for your input though...
0
Posted:
#40
Quote Originally Posted by Call82:
Not at all, but for right now I can only give you the number for the 2009 season since I am at work right now and all I have here is my excelsheet with the plays from last year 
Total Units won were 108,73
1 Unit games went 178-132-0 for 14,24 Units
2 Unit Games went 61-29-0 for 45,33 Units
4 Unit Games went 16-2-0 for 49,16 Units
So all in all the system went 255-163 for 108,73 Units but as I stated before, I had a break of roughly 4 weeks in the middle of the season, we bought a house and I had a whole lot of work with it and no time to take care of my betting.
Call, how do you these profit? Separately for bets (profit for the 1-unit bet, profit for the 2-unit bet, etc)?
I think so the better way for calculate the system's profit is using the % yield formula, where you must to consider all results of the all bets (including the fails system).
So you need to identificate how many 1-unit bets win + how many 2-unit bets win + how many 4-unit bets win + how many bets fails.
With these numbers we could to calculate the system's %yield like integral way. 
0
Posted:
#41
Quote Originally Posted by WallyBalls:
This system seems like it has the ability to make money but what if you just played the system when teams played someone in their own group or lower groups (basically stay away from teams in groups 2 and 3 if they play a team from a higher group)? Then always sit out the first game of the series, if your team wins then you don't play the series but if your team loses you chase the next 2 games of the series (or next 3 depending on if it's a 4 game series or not)? I know it would result in alot less plays but wouldn't that raise the winning percentage of the system?
This system seems like it has the ability to make money but what if you just played the system when teams played someone in their own group or lower groups (basically stay away from teams in groups 2 and 3 if they play a team from a higher group)? Then always sit out the first game of the series, if your team wins then you don't play the series but if your team loses you chase the next 2 games of the series (or next 3 depending on if it's a 4 game series or not)? I know it would result in alot less plays but wouldn't that raise the winning percentage of the system?
To me, the more plays you have in a chase system, the more chance you have of getting burried at some point. Find a way to reduce the plays but increase the winning percentage.
It´s true...
0
Posted:
#42
Quote Originally Posted by Budman717:
The difficulty I've found when I've tried to backtest these kinds of systems is that the groups of team will change during the season. Backtesting using end-of-season won/loss records or division positions may distort the findings.
I'm not hating; this has the makings of profitable system. I'm justing raising some points to consider that I've come across in my own personal backtesting.
Sorry, I mean this !!!
0
Posted:
#43
Quote Originally Posted by semaper:
Call, how do you these profit? Separately for bets (profit for the 1-unit bet, profit for the 2-unit bet, etc)?
I think so the better way for calculate the system's profit is using the % yield formula, where you must to consider all results of the all bets (including the fails system).
So you need to identificate how many 1-unit bets win + how many 2-unit bets win + how many 4-unit bets win + how many bets fails.
With these numbers we could to calculate the system's %yield like integral way.
Thanks for the input, I have to be honest though that I cant follow you completely here...
Hope you can explain again, maybe with an example? Im obviously too stuipd for that 
0
Posted:
#45
Quote Originally Posted by mojator:
Sorry, I mean this !!!
Sorry, I mean this !!!
As I statd above, I did it with the particual standings in each and every situation, not the final standings of the year...otherwise it would be obvious that it could be a totally different picture...trust me, I did that by hand and it was roughly 3 months of time to do all of this...but I think it was worth it so far...hopefully it will stay like this in 2010!
BOL everyone 
0
Posted:
#47
Quote Originally Posted by Call82:
Thanks for the input, I have to be honest though that I cant follow you completely here...
Hope you can explain again, maybe with an example? Im obviously too stuipd for that
Call, I will try explain me. I wrote the following post in another thread (NBA OT Over) in this same forum:
Rob, sorry for my bad english but I will try explain to you my points of view about your system.
I done some calcs about the optimal wager mount distribution for each step (A,B,C,D) in your system and then I found some interesting data:
1) The system's theorical yield assuming bets mount like the typical aritmetic progression (A=1, B=2, C=4, D=8) with flat success distribution (4 picks winning: one in A, one in B, one in C and one in D) and no loss is 32.3%
2) The system's real yield assuming the typical aritmetic progression and the results until last night (A=45, B=25, C=16, D=11 and 3 losses) is 25.6%
3) My discover is that if we increase the bets mount aritmetic progression to multiple 3 instead of 2 (A=1, B=3, C=9, D=27) then the yield grow up to 40.9% 
4) The handicap is that you need a more deep bankroll, since in one lose system you go down 40 bankroll units instead of 15 bankroll units of the multiple 2 system
I wait your comments...
Basically, I need the real success distribution of your system (for example: A bets: 50 wins, B bets: 30 wins, C bets: 18 wins, Fail bets: 2 fails, assuming a hypothetical 100 bets totals).
Do you got it?
0
Posted:
#48
Quote Originally Posted by semaper:
Call, I will try explain me. I wrote the following post in another thread (NBA OT Over) in this same forum:
Rob, sorry for my bad english but I will try explain to you my points of view about your system.
I done some calcs about the optimal wager mount distribution for each step (A,B,C,D) in your system and then I found some interesting data:
1) The system's theorical yield assuming bets mount like the typical aritmetic progression (A=1, B=2, C=4, D=8) with flat success distribution (4 picks winning: one in A, one in B, one in C and one in D) and no loss is 32.3%
2) The system's real yield assuming the typical aritmetic progression and the results until last night (A=45, B=25, C=16, D=11 and 3 losses) is 25.6%
3) My discover is that if we increase the bets mount aritmetic progression to multiple 3 instead of 2 (A=1, B=3, C=9, D=27) then the yield grow up to 40.9%
4) The handicap is that you need a more deep bankroll, since in one lose system you go down 40 bankroll units instead of 15 bankroll units of the multiple 2 system
I wait your comments...
Basically, I need the real success distribution of your system (for example: A bets: 50 wins, B bets: 30 wins, C bets: 18 wins, Fail bets: 2 fails, assuming a hypothetical 100 bets totals).
Do you got it?
Ok, now I got it...but one thing is obvious...you state that when you increase the unitsize from 2 to 3 the return is higher...thats cleasr, as long as you are profitable anyway...the drawdown is when you have a season where you lose, than it hits you harder...
0
Posted:
#50
Quote Originally Posted by payday000:
I will be riding this system all year call82 I will hopefully see you at the end of the year with alot of profit !!!!
Thanks man, hope to see you beeing richer too
Today the season starts, so lets hit it with Boston -109 1 UNIT @ Matchbook!
GL everyone
YTD 0-0-0
0 UNITS
0
Hot Forum Topics
