NHL Opening Game Favorite 94-1 in 2009

Have been asked about extrapolating the Opening game favorite system and quarters chase and applying the principles to other sports.  Looks like the same principles will work for Hockey also.

Basic premise is that noone knows more about capping the games then the oddsmakers and trying to use this knowledge against them with a solid money management approach.

Very simple strategy:

--Wait for a NHL team to have a homestand of 3 games or more.

--If the odds for Game 1 of the homestand is -145 or higher it triggers a 3 game chase

--Due to high odds in some series, recommend using 3 line aggressive labouchere lines (as I do in my other systems)

--Playing puck line for games -180 or higher will add 2 or 3 losses per season but with much lower odds....

2009:

EAST

41-0 ML

31-10 G1's (75.6%)

8-2    G2's  (80%)

2-0    G3's  (100%)

 

WEST

53-1   ML

37-17  G1's   (68.5%)

11-6    G2's   (64.7%)

5-1      G3's   (83.3%)

 

Playing puck line for all games higher than -180 adds 3 losses

 

2008:

East      35-1  ML

West     38-1  ML

2009 Combined records

94-1

68-27    G1    (71.6%)

19-8      G2    (70.4%)

7-1        G3    (87.5%)

this is very interesting.

a few questions..

1- is the -145 based on opening lines? if so, is it from covers.com?

2- do you bet on the hometeam even if the vis is fav by -145?

\

1. backtested against closing lines on covers.  Do not have opening lines to compare against, but if it is anything like baseball the opening line should be good to trigger the chase also.

2.  Only playing on hometeams favored by -145 or higher, no road teams.

Very nice job Rizz, hope this works as good as for Baseball. Thanks for the hard work!!

I love the work you did with MLB. But, I've done some thinking about chasing lately. I like the system approach that goes with most chases, but hate the stress of chasing.

Looking at the NHL game 1 record from last year, it is impressive at 71.6%. Hell, even 60% would be impressive.

I will be on board for NHL, but I am not chasing. It would profit nicely without the stress of chasing.

I need to look at your game 1 records from MLB this year when it is all said and done. I bet it is impressive too.

Good work Rizz.

I hear you nole. I feel the same way for the most part.  This is why I have switched exclusively to the aggressive labby.  If the play gets beyond my comfort (usually 5-8U) I split the line, with the thought I will pick it back up later.  It is hard as hell to lay 20U to win 1 with straight martingale.  This is the strength behind the MLB and NHL system.  The plays hit at a high enough percentage to clear the lines rather quickly and make us profit.  I have a few situational plays I have found for MLB and NBA that have generated profit that do not involve chasing but it is pretty minor when compared to the system plays I have come up with.....

really great work. much appreciated.

 

great syst,

are you going to backtest further?

ps would you suggest this as a martingale chase?

    According to my simple-minded math, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, if you just flat -bet game one without the chase being applied, your break-even point on odds is a whopping -250!  And taking games 2 and three by themselves are great values also if Rizz's back-tested results continue at similar rates for the upcoming season.  So I think you could do very well betting singly OR using Rizz's chase system or maybe even both.  Good work Rizz! And GL this season!

Be very careful, home teams in the NHL arn't worth the same value as in other sports.  In other words, those home hockey teams can burn a bankroll in a chase in a hurry. 

GL

Also I saw where you are playing the PL for teams that are -180 or more.  Look to play the regulation lines. They are pretty much the same price.  If you are playing the PL on -180 or more, you might as well play the regulation.

 I am familar with the Labby money management, but how do you define the "agressive Labby"  Thanks for all your contributions to this forum. 

 

Aggressive Labby is where you don't add a new number to the end, you add the loss into the last number on the line, correct?


Big

Awesome work,

Yes this is correct.  I take half of my losses and add them to the last number in that line and drop half to the line below.

For example say we have the following lines when we start a new series with -150 odds

5-5-5-5

5-5-5-5

5-5-5-5

We lose 15 trying to win 10.  I will take 7.5 and add to line 1 and 2

5-5-5-12.5

5-5-5-12.5

5-5-5-5

Thanks Lippsman, we will tread lightly, especially being the first season.  Will look into the regulation lines

Hey Rizz,

Any help you may need, happy to assist. Curious, running a chase in MLB, I think there were a few losses. At which point, I think you created a home team O/U filter. The losses with NHL seem minimal, but did you see a similar O/U puck line filter scenario as was for MLB? Also, I think you backtested for 2009, does it apply for 2008 or 2007 as well? Just want to be able to confirm, you know.

Tried to send this to you in PM, but need to be friends. Send you a request, accept when you get a chance, thanks.

~Red

FYI,

Just a quick note from past experience and playing chase systems in the NHL the schedule fundamentals are different than MLB.

IE: Your 3 game chase on any team might be over a period of 4-6 days, meaning other series may come up in the meantime. Be ready even with labourchere if a couple series go deep simultaneously the amounts wagered do get heavy.

Also, last years schedule was a little different than previous years due to the Olympic break and the condensation of games to make up for the layoff.

GMSI

 

hey lippsman,

do you have approx lines on what the PL and reg time bets would be for a fav of -200 or -300?

i agree that playing PL is the same as reg time.

[Quote: Originally Posted by do5000]

 

hey lippsman,

do you have approx lines on what the PL and reg time bets would be for a fav of -200 or -300?

i agree that playing PL is the same as reg time.

 

 

If my memory is correct favorites only win on the PL at an average of 29%. I think that's why Lipps recomended the ML.