Posted: 5/14/2012 10:42:36 AM
QUOTE An old saying, "DAZZLE 'EM WITH BRILLIANCE, AND BAFFLE 'EM WITH BULLSHIT". You are the master!
Originally Posted by CZECH_RAZOR
: Hey guys for anyone wondering what all this 2.0 garbage is about, it's basically 101 + any new ideas and things I'm trying since posting the original system.
101 is solid as concrete. I already know it and I think you guys are realizing that too.
The problem is only that it doesn't produce plays every game, like we want sometimes. I have missed sharp plays like on May 8th, when I picked 4-1 and disqualified them all due to late line movements, or because the line didn't really move much even though busters were pounding the other sides.
If you re-read the rules from page 1 of this thread, you will see that we need significant progressive movement and ALSO need a clear consensus on the other side.
What does significant mean though? a pt or more? What about % of busters on other side?
We can all see when 60% are on side A, and side B moves 1 pt+, it's an easy 101 play. No mystery there. But what about when it moves 1/2 point, and/or there's 58% on other side, or it doesn't moe at all but there's 70% on other side?
This is where I saw 101 needing a little work. 101 is fine ALL BY ITSELF, with no work needed, as long as you're willing to sit back and wait for the locks.
If you want to call the closer ones though then 101 needs a little tweaking.
One very important thing I saw 101 needing was a grading system. Not all plays are created equal. There are clear system plays, and that's fine, but you really don't se plays too often like LA under last night, and Clips under today.
Both those games moved FIVE POINTS with busters pounding the other side. This was screaming to me UNLOAD YOUR BR on this pick! Those should def get more $ on them then normal system plays.
So the grading system is important, if I get it right that is.
Look at today, system "2.0". On first glance it seems to have under-performed 101, but let's look closer.
101 gave us the Mem under, 1-0. That's fine, but under the original rules all picks were bet equally for $200
Now today I used 2.0, which is 1-2 so far, but I bet $100 each on Mem and Mem second half (1u each) and I bet $400 on the under.
I didn't define this earlier but I ruled that all 2.0 plays that didn't qualify under 101 would be 1u plays. As a matter of common sense though according to this rule then all 101 plays should be a minimum of 2u ($200), and today's under was 4u.
So under 101 you woulda bet a standard unit and been up .9u for the day.
Under 2.0 I bet 1u Mem, 1u Mem 2H, and 4u the under. 1-2 and +1.6u.
So I actually made almost twice as much money using 2.0 as I would have on 101, even though it went 1-2.
Does this mean 2.0 is better? Not necessarily, although it made me more money today. My point to all of this is just that 101, while great, still needs a little work, and the grading system is super important. So back to the drawing board.
2.0 is getting scratched. It had a profitable record anyways and looking at 2-2 again today so haters can't say garbage about me scratching it. I'm redefining a couple things about 2H etc and defining the grading system and launching 3.0 sometime in the future.