Posted:
#376
Now you're talking - stick to what you do best....
0
My tennis strategy THE ZONE.
Posted:
#377
Quote Originally Posted by Julespussy:
Now you're talking - stick to what you do best....
Jules lets just agree to disagree. Only time can tell the story as others have suggested. I could make this claim until im blue in the face. Maybe 5 years from now it will start to sink in. Lets leave it here.Now you're talking - stick to what you do best....
0
Posted:
#378
Quote Originally Posted by Julespussy:
Now you're talking - stick to what you do best....
Now you're talking - stick to what you do best....
Jules why are you here? Seriously? Are you tailing plays? I don't see you offering constructive insight. Are you doing what you do best...hating?
Sentinel has been picking winners at a solid rate. If you can't see that and take advantage in some way then you're lost.
0
Posted:
#379
Do you even know what a hater is?
Have you even read my posts?
I consistently praise his hit rate but persist in picking holes in his claims that his money management strategy is flawed. As is the logic he uses to defend it.
That's my contribution. Covers is about more than posting picks; there is a lot to debate. I've explained my reasons for my views throughout. Sorry you can't see the value in debate
Have you even read my posts?
I consistently praise his hit rate but persist in picking holes in his claims that his money management strategy is flawed. As is the logic he uses to defend it.
That's my contribution. Covers is about more than posting picks; there is a lot to debate. I've explained my reasons for my views throughout. Sorry you can't see the value in debate
0
Posted:
#383
Quote Originally Posted by Julespussy:
Do you even know what a hater is?
Have you even read my posts?
I consistently praise his hit rate but persist in picking holes in his claims that his money management strategy is flawed. As is the logic he uses to defend it.
That's my contribution. Covers is about more than posting picks; there is a lot to debate. I've explained my reasons for my views throughout. Sorry you can't see the value in debate
There is a lot to debate. The thing about money management Jules is its depends on two things. Strikerate and THE LOSING STREAK. What defeats just about every system ever created is that unexpected losing streak the wrong side of 6. Especially if the system suffers them frequently.Do you even know what a hater is?
Have you even read my posts?
I consistently praise his hit rate but persist in picking holes in his claims that his money management strategy is flawed. As is the logic he uses to defend it.
That's my contribution. Covers is about more than posting picks; there is a lot to debate. I've explained my reasons for my views throughout. Sorry you can't see the value in debate
It's what keeps the myth alive that any form of progression is a bad thing. Let me give my take on this attitude. Everyone who rides with this attitude has lost a lot. So much that it becomes ingrained in their mind that beating the odds, juice, books, Is IMPOSSIBLE. Thats what happens. Then someone like me arrives, and starts talking of a grail like method that not only holds above break even point. It rarely loses beyond 5 straight.
The natural reaction is one of scepticism, of course it is. Why would it be anything else? All intelligent people like to believe they know everything Thats possible in this world. That's why most scientists are atheists. If they can't see it or prove it. It simply cannot be. Time is the the great leveller. It takes us all eventually. It also CHANGES ATTITUDES. Thats why I came here. One sceptic said, if you had a system worth a hoot, you wouldn't be sharing it for free. When the exact opposite is actually the case.
When you REALLY have a system that works you can reveal it for free because you are already making plenty of coin from it. The challenge for me is to see how long it takes before people realize just how powerful this strategy sitting on this forum is.
It's one of the best if not the best. But of course only time will ingrain that in a lot of minds. Just as time has created a lot of sceptics who have experienced plenty of losing and not enough winning.
0
Posted:
#386
Good day everyone!
So why does the streak stop at 5 or 6? You don't know, it just seems to, right?
You can't claim a revolutionary approach to money management because at its core you don't know quite why it works.
It is your strike rate relative to the odds that keeps you in the black. Flat betting would do the same as SIMPLE maths would show.
Good luck with your picks!
So why does the streak stop at 5 or 6? You don't know, it just seems to, right?
You can't claim a revolutionary approach to money management because at its core you don't know quite why it works.
It is your strike rate relative to the odds that keeps you in the black. Flat betting would do the same as SIMPLE maths would show.
Good luck with your picks!
0
Posted:
#387
Sentinel3,
Let me pose you a question, what in your handicapping makes you believe that your losing streak will not last over 5 or 6 matches? I believe I know the answer but would like to hear your thoughts on this. Keep in mind I am not taking into account your money management system. At the end of the day we all have to pick winners or we lose money.
0
Posted:
#389
Quote Originally Posted by Julespussy:
Good day everyone!
So why does the streak stop at 5 or 6? You don't know, it just seems to, right?
You can't claim a revolutionary approach to money management because at its core you don't know quite why it works.
It is your strike rate relative to the odds that keeps you in the black. Flat betting would do the same as SIMPLE maths would show.
Good luck with your picks!
Jules the thing is this, even IF a losing streak were ever to make it to 8 I cannot lose because I have an insurance bet as a parlay player. I don't flat bet anyway. I'm only presenting the strategy on here in that format for proofing purposes.Good day everyone!
So why does the streak stop at 5 or 6? You don't know, it just seems to, right?
You can't claim a revolutionary approach to money management because at its core you don't know quite why it works.
It is your strike rate relative to the odds that keeps you in the black. Flat betting would do the same as SIMPLE maths would show.
Good luck with your picks!
I'm a parlay player in ROLLING fashion. And being so picking 8 dogs or more would be a dream come true for me. Every time I start a new betting run. I place a unit on the dog. If I were to ever have a losing streak of 8 at average odds of 2.5 that would translate into around 1,500 times my stake.
It's simply a win win situation Jules.
0
Posted:
#390
Quote Originally Posted by gtmoney76:
Sentinel3,
There are SEVERAL factors random is one factor GT. Plus staying away from the top players most of the time who are notorious for choking at the wrong time from the QTR finals onwards. Especially male French players not naming any names lol!Sentinel3,
Let me pose you a question, what in your handicapping makes you believe that your losing streak will not last over 5 or 6 matches? I believe I know the answer but would like to hear your thoughts on this. Keep in mind I am not taking into account your money management system. At the end of the day we all have to pick winners or we lose money.
Not playing too many picks in one day is also a factor. You get days when dogs seem to win everything. If you're only on two or three picks in that day you are less likely to be hit bad.
Then there's the bet selection itself. knowing a bit about what your player is LIKELY to do if he/she maintains the form they've shown in recent times.
All the above give me a chance to hit at above break even point to level stakes. And avoid losing streaks beyond 5 or 6. I'm so used to not even losing beyond 4 in a row. That even when I lose two in a row I get upset. That's how strong can consistent this strategy is. A downturn for me is losing 3 or 4 in a row once in a while.
0
Posted:
#391
The stratagy you propose is basically betting only the cream and limiting number of plays. Not a bad idea to slowly build a roll. I usually have a pretty high strike rate on favorites but I prefer taking a few more chances on dogs especially in WTA, usually a decent strike rate if you know a number of these players. I was going to say before you are usually picking from the Challenger circuit where it is hard to lose more then a few is you are betting that all the time. You basically have ATP players playing in the minors and most books will miss the mark on pricing so you get big discounts. Players that can serve at this level can really clean up for you. Guys like Brand, Berrer, Moodie, Wessels, etc have made a pile of cash for me through the years on these type level.....also helps they play challengers 12months out of the year as oppose to ATP. Best of luck going forward.
0
Posted:
#392
Quote Originally Posted by Sentinel3:
Quote Originally Posted by Julespussy:
Good day everyone!So why does the streak stop at 5 or 6? You don't know, it just seems to, right?You can't claim a revolutionary approach to money management because at its core you don't know quite why it works.It is your strike rate relative to the odds that keeps you in the black. Flat betting would do the same as SIMPLE maths would show.Good luck with your picks!
Jules the thing is this, even IF a losing streak were ever to make it to 8 I cannot lose because I have an insurance bet as a parlay player. I don't flat bet anyway. I'm only presenting the strategy on here in that format for proofing purposes.I'm a parlay player in ROLLING fashion. And being so picking 8 dogs or more would be a dream come true for me. Every time I start a new betting run. I place a unit on the dog. If I were to ever have a losing streak of 8 at average odds of 2.5 that would translate into around 1,500 times my stake.It's simply a win win situation Jules.Good day everyone!So why does the streak stop at 5 or 6? You don't know, it just seems to, right?You can't claim a revolutionary approach to money management because at its core you don't know quite why it works.It is your strike rate relative to the odds that keeps you in the black. Flat betting would do the same as SIMPLE maths would show.Good luck with your picks!
So you start each new streak by betting eg 5 units on the winner and 1 on the dog.
So you bet on both sides. I can see why it's called revolutionary. See you in the winners circle. As Andrew Wiles said, I think I'll stop here....
0
Posted:
#393
Quote Originally Posted by gtmoney76:
The stratagy you propose is basically betting only the cream and limiting number of plays. Not a bad idea to slowly build a roll. I usually have a pretty high strike rate on favorites but I prefer taking a few more chances on dogs especially in WTA, usually a decent strike rate if you know a number of these players. I was going to say before you are usually picking from the Challenger circuit where it is hard to lose more then a few is you are betting that all the time. You basically have ATP players playing in the minors and most books will miss the mark on pricing so you get big discounts. Players that can serve at this level can really clean up for you. Guys like Brand, Berrer, Moodie, Wessels, etc have made a pile of cash for me through the years on these type level.....also helps they play challengers 12months out of the year as oppose to ATP. Best of luck going forward.
Thats right GT I look for consistency above a players placing in the world rankings. Top players also have little value because too many peolple with sheep mentality are on them. Theres little point betting on Djokovic for example when you will be lucky to win 1/10th of your stake.The stratagy you propose is basically betting only the cream and limiting number of plays. Not a bad idea to slowly build a roll. I usually have a pretty high strike rate on favorites but I prefer taking a few more chances on dogs especially in WTA, usually a decent strike rate if you know a number of these players. I was going to say before you are usually picking from the Challenger circuit where it is hard to lose more then a few is you are betting that all the time. You basically have ATP players playing in the minors and most books will miss the mark on pricing so you get big discounts. Players that can serve at this level can really clean up for you. Guys like Brand, Berrer, Moodie, Wessels, etc have made a pile of cash for me through the years on these type level.....also helps they play challengers 12months out of the year as oppose to ATP. Best of luck going forward.
In the lower level tour there are players who do very well on a consistent basis in the early rounds of a tournament and also come in at worthwhile odds of 1.4 or higher. Thats where I come in.
0
Posted:
#398
Quote Originally Posted by kianinyvr:
Sentinel, are you putting a lot of research into your picks as well, or are you basically picking players in the zone, while avoiding big names and matches past qfs and semis?
Also, can you outline your money management system. I'm kinda lost on that.
Cheers mate
HI Kianinyvr, it varies. There are certain players I have researched and know how well they perform on a certain surface. And how well they're presently playing. I don't always pass up qtr finals or even finals. I've had several wins and losses in the last 8. But what I do is see how players perform in the earlier rounds in most tournaments.Sentinel, are you putting a lot of research into your picks as well, or are you basically picking players in the zone, while avoiding big names and matches past qfs and semis?
Also, can you outline your money management system. I'm kinda lost on that.
Cheers mate
The most consistent ones become my short list for picks. The zone is simply a PRICING RANGE. I adhere to as I generally see a good Hit rate in it. Plus it's purpose is to allow two wins to cover one loss. It has purpose.
MONEY MANAGEMENT is the area most hotly debated since I hit this forum. I have very flexible thinking about it because of certain strengths the zone has.
For example most people are scared of any type of progression it's a no, no by most so-called handicapping experts. The problem is these same experts don't really have strong systems to start with. None of them could tell you for example that losing more than 5 times in a row is very rare.
With the Zone it is just that VERY RARE. So whereas most people would be terrified of using a martingale to chase losses. It would hold up pretty solidly with the zone. But then again so would level stakes. It just takes longer to grind out a profit.
I actually don't straight bet my picks anyhow. I parlay them in pairs and trebles. It's the most lucrative way to bet the method. I also have an insurance bet for up to four consecutive losses. So I basically never lose any money parlay betting. If the favourites aren't making me coin the dogs are. That's the way you do it.
Straight betting is a long grind. And I'm only presenting the method in that form on here for classic proofing. As all the purists want to know is can it turn a profit above break even point to level stakes.
0
Posted:
#400
Quote Originally Posted by Sentinel3:
Jules the thing is this, even IF a losing streak were ever to make it to 8 I cannot lose because I have an insurance bet as a parlay player. I don't flat bet anyway. I'm only presenting the strategy on here in that format for proofing purposes.
Jules the thing is this, even IF a losing streak were ever to make it to 8 I cannot lose because I have an insurance bet as a parlay player. I don't flat bet anyway. I'm only presenting the strategy on here in that format for proofing purposes.
I'm a parlay player in ROLLING fashion. And being so picking 8 dogs or more would be a dream come true for me. Every time I start a new betting run. I place a unit on the dog. If I were to ever have a losing streak of 8 at average odds of 2.5 that would translate into around 1,500 times my stake.
It's simply a win win situation Jules.
0
Hot Forum Topics
