Degen - Those losses were not around the all-start break. they were at the end of may/beginning of june!
Dan, my book has a limit but faves can be played at +1.5, heavy juice of course. KC avg line was -140 2 yrs ago and a +1.5 chase would have lost and probably wiped out everything. LAD +1.5 would have won you games 1+2 of the 4 game chase. CIN would have won you the C game only.
Wow - The only play I see until the weekend is baltimore (maybe!)
Looks like Balt will be a play on Tuesday if Houston loses to LAA today. 49 point difference before the Houston game today, we need 50 for a road team.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
Quote Originally Posted by Air1:
Degen - Those losses were not around the all-start break. they were at the end of may/beginning of june!
Dan, my book has a limit but faves can be played at +1.5, heavy juice of course. KC avg line was -140 2 yrs ago and a +1.5 chase would have lost and probably wiped out everything. LAD +1.5 would have won you games 1+2 of the 4 game chase. CIN would have won you the C game only.
Wow - The only play I see until the weekend is baltimore (maybe!)
Looks like Balt will be a play on Tuesday if Houston loses to LAA today. 49 point difference before the Houston game today, we need 50 for a road team.
Dan, 2012 was profitable but as much so. I'm going to try it out
Jeff, if you could, go ahead and post your findings on here for all to see and digest. It might be something others want to try out in addition to the RPI official plays.
Good work!
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
Quote Originally Posted by JEFFTHEHAT:
Dan, 2012 was profitable but as much so. I'm going to try it out
Jeff, if you could, go ahead and post your findings on here for all to see and digest. It might be something others want to try out in addition to the RPI official plays.
To all the Bettor2win faithful, I think I have found a nugget that will bring more units of profits in. I know some of you veterans almost had this idea a couple seasons ago involving the RL. The difference I have back checked is only bet the run line on the away team, even if that team is a dog bet it -1.5 huge plus odds. Also anther nugget is -2.5 runs wins. So far this year only 4 times has the team being chased not cover run line. Out of the 13 series that covered run line only 1 didn't cover -2.5. This was back checked back through the start of 2011. Also remember that -2.5 odds are always well over +200. Comments or thoughts welcomed.
0
To all the Bettor2win faithful, I think I have found a nugget that will bring more units of profits in. I know some of you veterans almost had this idea a couple seasons ago involving the RL. The difference I have back checked is only bet the run line on the away team, even if that team is a dog bet it -1.5 huge plus odds. Also anther nugget is -2.5 runs wins. So far this year only 4 times has the team being chased not cover run line. Out of the 13 series that covered run line only 1 didn't cover -2.5. This was back checked back through the start of 2011. Also remember that -2.5 odds are always well over +200. Comments or thoughts welcomed.
I like it, I like it, I like it. Just another thing to keep track of...no problem. I like the numbers in front of me. I'm playing 4 systems now, frickin doing great.
Just checked my BetBud, I'm exactly even on plays, and I'm up 35% in my bankroll from the end of April.
0
Make sure I got this:
-1.5 on the road play (Dog or not)
-2.5 on ALL plays or just home plays?
I like it, I like it, I like it. Just another thing to keep track of...no problem. I like the numbers in front of me. I'm playing 4 systems now, frickin doing great.
Just checked my BetBud, I'm exactly even on plays, and I'm up 35% in my bankroll from the end of April.
Also remember that -2.5 odds are always well over +200.
Not true at all. If the regular odds are around -160 or higher, you will probably get less than +200 on -2.5. For instance tonight, the Angels are around -180, and at -2.5, they're only +175 at my book. There's really not much value in that number, IMO. There were several other games today where -2.5 was considerably less than +200. Not worth , IMO.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JEFFTHEHAT:
Also remember that -2.5 odds are always well over +200.
Not true at all. If the regular odds are around -160 or higher, you will probably get less than +200 on -2.5. For instance tonight, the Angels are around -180, and at -2.5, they're only +175 at my book. There's really not much value in that number, IMO. There were several other games today where -2.5 was considerably less than +200. Not worth , IMO.
All RL plays -1.5 or 2.5 are only away game chases
I just went through my spreadsheet and checked win totals against -1.5 & -2.5 for all the plays I have down since Apr 29th. I forgot about the road play only, so this for all plays.
I have using Covers closing for ML plays 36-1, +29.80u.
I didn't go through and look for the units of the -1.5 & -2.5 plays, so lets pretend (lol) that all losses are -105 (all things considered, it's closer to -100 but there are some -110 and higher lines). -1.5 wins are +140 and -2.5 are plus +180. Just pulling numbers out, but I want to be conservative.
With the plays I have, the -1.5 RL is 29-8, 28.1 units, including the increased losses on the one play that lost at C.
The -2.5 is 26-11, 31.15 units including the increased losses on the one play that lost at C.
Nice job, Jeff. I didn't even check yet if the losses on the RL were covered on a chase
0
Quote Originally Posted by JEFFTHEHAT:
All RL plays -1.5 or 2.5 are only away game chases
I just went through my spreadsheet and checked win totals against -1.5 & -2.5 for all the plays I have down since Apr 29th. I forgot about the road play only, so this for all plays.
I have using Covers closing for ML plays 36-1, +29.80u.
I didn't go through and look for the units of the -1.5 & -2.5 plays, so lets pretend (lol) that all losses are -105 (all things considered, it's closer to -100 but there are some -110 and higher lines). -1.5 wins are +140 and -2.5 are plus +180. Just pulling numbers out, but I want to be conservative.
With the plays I have, the -1.5 RL is 29-8, 28.1 units, including the increased losses on the one play that lost at C.
The -2.5 is 26-11, 31.15 units including the increased losses on the one play that lost at C.
Nice job, Jeff. I didn't even check yet if the losses on the RL were covered on a chase
Instead of thinking of how to win with a RL, try improving the filters so u can win more A n B games and not even worry about C games.
Remember guys keep it simple! the system is based on GOOD TEAMS RIGHT NOW DO NOT GET SWEPT BY TEAMS THAT ARE NOT GOOD RIGHT NOW.
key word here is RIGHT NOW. this is why we have filters like winning streaks/losing streaks and we dont play teams under .500
I will throw in a filter B2W n I had discussed and added to my personal 2013 rpi chase version is checking on the starting pitchers splits against the team they are playing against and the numbers at that particular field.
i.e IF the mariners ever become a decent team we can play as a chase, and lets say king felix is starting at cellular field on an A game vs. the white sox in a 4 game set. n lets say the mariners qualify in every way with the 2012 filters. We would not play the mariners on the A game and will play the mariners on the B game instead only because king felix gets shelled and has a shitty career record vs the chisox. We would take our chances with the other 3 games instead of risking a lot of juice in the A game that clearly has a good potential of losing.
but to each his own. I am a big fan of this system and a bigger fan of trying to pick out very few qualified plays that will win QUICK and bet MORE on those plays than play a lot of plays with less money.
i will take 35 qualified picks that are A, B game winners than playing 75-80 qualified picks that include 10+ C games, even if all the C games win (which i dont think has happened before when playing that many qualified games and definitely WILL NEVER happen when playing non-qualified games)
0
whoa, people talking about RL's now?
Instead of thinking of how to win with a RL, try improving the filters so u can win more A n B games and not even worry about C games.
Remember guys keep it simple! the system is based on GOOD TEAMS RIGHT NOW DO NOT GET SWEPT BY TEAMS THAT ARE NOT GOOD RIGHT NOW.
key word here is RIGHT NOW. this is why we have filters like winning streaks/losing streaks and we dont play teams under .500
I will throw in a filter B2W n I had discussed and added to my personal 2013 rpi chase version is checking on the starting pitchers splits against the team they are playing against and the numbers at that particular field.
i.e IF the mariners ever become a decent team we can play as a chase, and lets say king felix is starting at cellular field on an A game vs. the white sox in a 4 game set. n lets say the mariners qualify in every way with the 2012 filters. We would not play the mariners on the A game and will play the mariners on the B game instead only because king felix gets shelled and has a shitty career record vs the chisox. We would take our chances with the other 3 games instead of risking a lot of juice in the A game that clearly has a good potential of losing.
but to each his own. I am a big fan of this system and a bigger fan of trying to pick out very few qualified plays that will win QUICK and bet MORE on those plays than play a lot of plays with less money.
i will take 35 qualified picks that are A, B game winners than playing 75-80 qualified picks that include 10+ C games, even if all the C games win (which i dont think has happened before when playing that many qualified games and definitely WILL NEVER happen when playing non-qualified games)
Instead of thinking of how to win with a RL, try improving the filters so u can win more A n B games and not even worry about C games.
Remember guys keep it simple! the system is based on GOOD TEAMS RIGHT NOW DO NOT GET SWEPT BY TEAMS THAT ARE NOT GOOD RIGHT NOW.
key word here is RIGHT NOW. this is why we have filters like winning streaks/losing streaks and we dont play teams under .500
I will throw in a filter B2W n I had discussed and added to my personal 2013 rpi chase version is checking on the starting pitchers splits against the team they are playing against and the numbers at that particular field.
i.e IF the mariners ever become a decent team we can play as a chase, and lets say king felix is starting at cellular field on an A game vs. the white sox in a 4 game set. n lets say the mariners qualify in every way with the 2012 filters. We would not play the mariners on the A game and will play the mariners on the B game instead only because king felix gets shelled and has a shitty career record vs the chisox. We would take our chances with the other 3 games instead of risking a lot of juice in the A game that clearly has a good potential of losing.
but to each his own. I am a big fan of this system and a bigger fan of trying to pick out very few qualified plays that will win QUICK and bet MORE on those plays than play a lot of plays with less money.
i will take 35 qualified picks that are A, B game winners than playing 75-80 qualified picks that include 10+ C games, even if all the C games win (which i dont think has happened before when playing that many qualified games and definitely WILL NEVER happen when playing non-qualified games)
Interesting stuff. I personally am not touching the RL angle but I think it can be worth looking at. Won't be adding it to this thread but if Jeff wanted to track this on a new thread, I'd check it out.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
Quote Originally Posted by twodigitz:
whoa, people talking about RL's now?
Instead of thinking of how to win with a RL, try improving the filters so u can win more A n B games and not even worry about C games.
Remember guys keep it simple! the system is based on GOOD TEAMS RIGHT NOW DO NOT GET SWEPT BY TEAMS THAT ARE NOT GOOD RIGHT NOW.
key word here is RIGHT NOW. this is why we have filters like winning streaks/losing streaks and we dont play teams under .500
I will throw in a filter B2W n I had discussed and added to my personal 2013 rpi chase version is checking on the starting pitchers splits against the team they are playing against and the numbers at that particular field.
i.e IF the mariners ever become a decent team we can play as a chase, and lets say king felix is starting at cellular field on an A game vs. the white sox in a 4 game set. n lets say the mariners qualify in every way with the 2012 filters. We would not play the mariners on the A game and will play the mariners on the B game instead only because king felix gets shelled and has a shitty career record vs the chisox. We would take our chances with the other 3 games instead of risking a lot of juice in the A game that clearly has a good potential of losing.
but to each his own. I am a big fan of this system and a bigger fan of trying to pick out very few qualified plays that will win QUICK and bet MORE on those plays than play a lot of plays with less money.
i will take 35 qualified picks that are A, B game winners than playing 75-80 qualified picks that include 10+ C games, even if all the C games win (which i dont think has happened before when playing that many qualified games and definitely WILL NEVER happen when playing non-qualified games)
Interesting stuff. I personally am not touching the RL angle but I think it can be worth looking at. Won't be adding it to this thread but if Jeff wanted to track this on a new thread, I'd check it out.
good info twodigitz. i agree 100%. would rather have less plays that hit on A/B games more often than large amount of plays with more stressful C games.
0
good info twodigitz. i agree 100%. would rather have less plays that hit on A/B games more often than large amount of plays with more stressful C games.
I'm doing this wagering thing for fun. I'm in it to try and find systems to, aaahhh, beat the system!!! If I were to say I won 5 units, I really mean five dollars, definitely not in it for the cash, more like the sport of it.
What Jeff mentioned, I went through on my spreadsheet really quick and came up with those numbers, looks good to me. If I were betting REAL money (though I guess a $1.00 is real money!!!), I'd have a more serious look...and I would backtest.
I'm up 35% since the end up April playing RPI, UD and one based on TeamRankings.com...similar to RPI, but more plays. I'd be up more if I didn't make some stupid parlays & "Gut" wagers!!!
Then there's this...where I bet, I get a point for every wager I make, plus 30 pts each week I'm active. The points add up to free plays.
I also don't truly chase. I may keep my spreadsheet that way but I don't track my bets as such. I just put more on the B/C game (yeah, $1.50!!!). I go by how my night overall is doing.
0
I'm doing this wagering thing for fun. I'm in it to try and find systems to, aaahhh, beat the system!!! If I were to say I won 5 units, I really mean five dollars, definitely not in it for the cash, more like the sport of it.
What Jeff mentioned, I went through on my spreadsheet really quick and came up with those numbers, looks good to me. If I were betting REAL money (though I guess a $1.00 is real money!!!), I'd have a more serious look...and I would backtest.
I'm up 35% since the end up April playing RPI, UD and one based on TeamRankings.com...similar to RPI, but more plays. I'd be up more if I didn't make some stupid parlays & "Gut" wagers!!!
Then there's this...where I bet, I get a point for every wager I make, plus 30 pts each week I'm active. The points add up to free plays.
I also don't truly chase. I may keep my spreadsheet that way but I don't track my bets as such. I just put more on the B/C game (yeah, $1.50!!!). I go by how my night overall is doing.
I figured out the RLeffs, based on WINS as the assumption for this system is ALL wins, instead of every game. All teams win by +2 runs over half the time, and all but 3 at least 60% of the time.
0
I figured out the RLeffs, based on WINS as the assumption for this system is ALL wins, instead of every game. All teams win by +2 runs over half the time, and all but 3 at least 60% of the time.
Hot Forum Topics
