Posted:
#176
Yesterday's Plays
System #1 – Dominant Team Playing Better Now
WAS (A) - WIN
System #4 – Dominant Team Over Last 3 Years
ARI (A) - LOSS0
MLB Super Systems
Posted:
#178
Some color commentary on the spreadsheet
SF - is a no play since it conflicts with a LAD pick for system #5 - we are off
SDG - pitching matchup is not in our favor - so we are off
TEX - only small difference in pitching matchup (Darvish vs Sale) - both are top 25 pitchers - so we will play this
WAS - we won out A game - so we are off the series
ARI - we have to lay off of our B game on ARI due to the pitching matchup - hopefully we can pick it up on a C game
0
Posted:
#186
Tough series - we won 4 series and lost 2 series - for a loss of -6 units.
Since tracking started on 7/2
Record: 39-10
Units: +10.2 units
We would have avoided the TEX loss if we followed the system to the letter - and help off game "A" even with the ever so slight pitching disadvantage. So we would have came out profitable for this series.
0
Posted:
#190
Actually, I no longer question it. I assume it did, and I believe you have the parameters right. I find the plays they record on the site have many mistakes in them. CHC should have never been a play for system #5 bc the one parameter of this system is that the team needs to have a winning percentage over .470....CHC clearly doesn't have that, yet they were listed as a 5 play on the site. So assuming TEX did show up (didn't look just saw your post) you clearly have the parameters in the s/s correct.
0
Posted:
#191
Quote Originally Posted by CannedGoods:
Actually, I no longer question it. I assume it did, and I believe you have the parameters right. I find the plays they record on the site have many mistakes in them. CHC should have never been a play for system #5 bc the one parameter of this system is that the team needs to have a winning percentage over .470....CHC clearly doesn't have that, yet they were listed as a 5 play on the site. So assuming TEX did show up (didn't look just saw your post) you clearly have the parameters in the s/s correct.
Actually, I no longer question it. I assume it did, and I believe you have the parameters right. I find the plays they record on the site have many mistakes in them. CHC should have never been a play for system #5 bc the one parameter of this system is that the team needs to have a winning percentage over .470....CHC clearly doesn't have that, yet they were listed as a 5 play on the site. So assuming TEX did show up (didn't look just saw your post) you clearly have the parameters in the s/s correct.
CG - just for the record, the under .470 filter is not documented on the website or the PDF - it's one we added to avoid losses. However, he did email me that their are some filters he added that are not documented on the website or the PDF - so that is probably why some of the plays on the website don't match up to the spreadsheet - I think it's up to us to figure out the correct filters to use. I think using a filter not to play a team under .470 is a good one though - we will mitigate risk.
0
Posted:
#194
Color Commentary:
OAK - popped up today on the spreadsheet but won yesterday - so it's a no play.
ATL - could have been a play if they lost yesterday and had a favorable pitching matchup - but we are off
CIN - is listed under systems 1,3 and 6
BOS - is listed but is not a play - bad pitching matchup and win yesterdday
MIL - is listed but won yesterday (you're option if you want to do a 1 time flat bet - only because they playign the god awful stro's)
OAK - popped up today on the spreadsheet but won yesterday - so it's a no play.
ATL - could have been a play if they lost yesterday and had a favorable pitching matchup - but we are off
CIN - is listed under systems 1,3 and 6
BOS - is listed but is not a play - bad pitching matchup and win yesterdday
MIL - is listed but won yesterday (you're option if you want to do a 1 time flat bet - only because they playign the god awful stro's)
0
Hot Forum Topics
