[Willie Bee]

Attaching the Excel files to keep cheme82 from having to e-mail them all.

[Mriswith]

TY !

rgz,
Mris

[Cheme82]

These are the same that I already sent to a lot of people. It's just for people that are interested and don't have them yet. Once again, thanks to everyone that helped in putting these together and to Willie for posting them here.

[LivintheDream]

Cheme82:

I apologize for not getting '05 done in a timely manner. Got sick over the weekend and just now getting some life back into me.

Let me know if you want me to collect/research any additional data. I'll be happy to do so. BOL this year and I'm looking forward to April.

[therber2]

Keep in mind this spread assumes that each 1st inning wager was a even line. So far the lines are anything but. Lets see what the books do after a little bit.

[therber2]

This sheet illustrates what the average line must be for a simple break even. Also, I am showing how much more profitable the moving bankroll percentage Cheme came up with can be. If this season's pricelines for "yes" average over -113.5 this might not be worth it.

I think the general consensus is that they are higher than what we thought.

[jebe99]

Wow, great info. Thanks .

I didn't realize how much more powerful a moving bankroll can be.

[Reno Gambler]

I guess I'm late to the party. What are the spreadsheets for?? I looked at one and didn't get it.

[solobass]

hey let the data talk and the bulls%$t walk! good stuff!

[laxdjock]

Thanks.....this makes me want to bust out my extra thick glasses and pocket protector. Seriously though, thanks for the data.

[gerben69]

Can someone tell me on which teams you have to bet on for this system???? you bet on the teams that are about +100 and otherwise ( when the odds are more ) let's say +130 you bet on the favourite????

[therber2]

Yeah, that seems to be an issue now. This system is pretty much invalid due to lines being adjusted against our favor. We're not sure whether they caught on to this or just fixed a hole. This thread should probably be cleared so no one gets skrewed. I'm personally not touching this anymore.

[therber2]

I've been watching the lines, and the funny thing is: the "NO" is cheaper. At least for this month. I don't expect it to change. Mods delete this thread; anyone who does this is going straight to the poorhouse.

[shoebox]

this needs to be deleted if anyone is gonna make any cash

were gonna see -200 is this thread isnt 86

[Dexter]

already seeing the affects...

[therber2]

It is almost to the point where it would be more profitable to fade the "system"

[Dexter]

no way im laying -120 avg on every game on the board. too much for me.

good luck to all who play it.

[shoebox]

dont play this system the books have adjusted and now this is useless

@-130

Using 2008

you would be down -6000 in 2 months

[Cheme82]

With lines like that there is no way people should invest any money on this "system". I wonder if there ever was an edge because CK claimed most of the bets would have + lines and there is no way they all just moved from + all the way to around -120 just because of us. Most people weren't even betting the "system" yet, just tracking it. Also I read an article where it stated that the "yes" lines have always been negative lines.

Funny thing is he claimed we'll be able to make enough to send the kids to college

With these lines we won't even make enough to give them for lunch at the high-school cafeteria.

Officialy this "system" is busted. Please don't lose any money playing this joke.

[MrMonkey]

Agree Cheme doesn't look good right now, but just to give the other side to this. Going by lines for today, range from -140 to +110 which states like you said an average of -120.

My quick calculations said 164-149 for April which means -1480. Last four days 34-19 which means +1120. If I remember right not a play until May 1?

Monkey a fan of baseball with but with 0% knowledge of wagering games! Don't know if just hot last few days and I guess now realizing I should check out your spreadsheet percentages! Needs a 55% winning?

MrMonkey

[shoebox]

[quote=cheme82;1800103]With lines like that there is no way people should invest any money on this "system". I wonder if there ever was an edge because CK claimed most of the bets would have + lines and there is no way they all just moved from + all the way to around -120 just because of us. Most people weren't even betting the "system" yet, just tracking it. Also I read an article where it stated that the "yes" lines have always been negative lines.

Funny thing is he claimed we'll be able to make enough to send the kids to college

With these lines we won't even make enough to give them for lunch at the high-school cafeteria.

Officialy this "system" is busted. Please don't lose any money playing this joke.[/quote]

typical loser posting trash like this..

[shoebox]

this should of been on the hush hush, but you wanted to act all mr internet icon and publish his work.......numbers were there linesmakers made the proper adjustments

[Cheme82]

How is that trash? It's all facts. I'm sorry if offended your idol but sometimes the truth hurts. Would you prefer for me to tell people to go play a system that will lose the farm for them? Because with those lines that is exactly what would happen.

If you wanted this to be on the "hush hush" then you should be mad at CK, not me. He is the one that created the thread where he spoke extensively about his "system" all I did (with the help of others) was backtrack the "system" and share the results for everyone to see them. All I am doing now is telling people that with the lines that are being offered this "system" is a bust.

If that hurts your feelings then I'm sorry but I don't bullshit around and say it like it is.

You are very naive to think all the online books came over and read his thread and decided to change their lines just because of this. Most people weren't even playing the system yet so if they really read the thread they would have "baited" us by giving us good lines in April and then ****ed us in May by "adjusting" their lines just beacuse of us.

Oh and by the way, I'm not a loser, I'm a proven winner. I document all of my plays with the lines and amounts and keep accurate records of everything I wager on for everyone to see, and I come out ahead in the long run. That's much more than what most people on this site can claim.

[shoebox]

doesnt hurt my feelings, it shouldnt be "celebrated" with a sticky thats all....

[cocknocker]

cheme82,

The books got ahold of the plans and made adjustments. End of story. To put it in the air that I gave erroneous information with the intent to make losers out of my brothers is to say that I intentionally went out of my way and betrayed my brothers. This is not true. Me and the PC Boys have been playing these things for years. The lines are out of whack because it doesn't take a whole day for the books to recognize that something is being played at a much higher rate than years' past. Before I released it to the public you have to think that there were only a very select few that were playing the system. Just play them flat and disregard the ones that have a line over -120.

Or since it is such a big loser as you pointed out, then be sharp and play the prop for a run NOT to score. To say that your findings revealed that the opposite of what I propose is evidently the better moneymaker means that you were better off going with your findings instead of throwing me under the bus. My advice to you is to go with your findings and put your money on the prop for a run NOT to score in the 1st inning and make the + money you so desire right?

Be sharp, not resentful in your approach. Resentment is the only specimen that I know of that eats it's own container.

[cocknocker]

And for the record since it is now May 1st and the actual official start date of the system, tell me how much money I lost today doing it.

Here's what i propose. You said that your findings showed you that it would be more profitable to fade the system right? That's what i am getting here right? Well then stop talking shit and put your money where your mouth is and back up your findings by playing the run to NOT score for a month with real money and let us know how you fared at the end of the month. You seem to have all of the statistical bells and whistles to talk down about what I do, but not enough balls to go against it and prove it is shitless with your money. Look man if it doesn't work as you say, then obviously the other side of the equation is the way to go. Prove it with cash. It's really just that simple, right? Because if it doesn't work then doing the opposite should work a small miracle right? I'm just sayin'.

Your research yeilds positive wagers for the run NOT to score then that's what you should be playing. I'll bet you'll never see me throw you under the bus like you did me if your applied method of your findings fails.

[Cheme82]

shoebox: Willie Bee offered to put it up so that I wouldn't have to e-mail the spreadsheets to everyone that was asking for them. I didn't ask for a "sticky".

ck: It's not resentment, it's just the truth of the lines. If the lines were good back in the day then that sucks for everyone that just learned of the system. If by sharing the system with us, you effectively killed it for you and the people that were playing it then I'm sorry for that since it was nice of you to share it with everyone. Playing the opposite is not profitable either. You would need an average line of about +120 just to break even on the NO. So this is basically a typical bet where the books have an edge on both sides. Just like a baseball game where the Dog wins about a third of the time and they price the favorite at -210 and the dog at +190. Either side has negative EV for us.

Anyway, hope you cashed with Oakland tonight as a JM. I know a lot of people passed on it because RPI, but he e-mailed it so I played it. Good thing I followed the rules and took the RL.

[Cheme82]

And for the record since it is now May 1st and the actual official start date of the system, tell me how much money I lost today doing it.

If you are still playing it (and it would be dumb since you admitted it is no longer profitable). You went 9-6 and picked up about 1.8 units (average -120 lines). So whatever you are playing them for, you came out ahead.

[cocknocker]

I'm still playing it and I'm playing them flat for $300 all year long, each and every game, homes. Plain and simple. I've got 9 dimes I made off of my sale of some of my Citibank stock that I am playing with. Watch me end up making that money work wonders for my pockets

[MrMonkey]

Saturday's games come in at a -122.67 average. Cheme82 and CK are on my list of most respected cappers on SBR! Just seems like a disagreement among colleagues.

IMO books can't be that naive about where this system was at +- with all their computer programs they run. Even though a max 300 wager limit tells me something? Probably hope you mix in some other nonsense props. like the people do when they buy scratch off cards that are predetermined to make the states money! Losing money is not entertainment to me!

If anyone is playing this, you better not deviate from playing all the games. Not on SBR long but seen too many times guys complaining about losing when they didn't play it as the system was intended!

Just looking for something that can give me some spare change from only 5-10 minutes a day punching in some numbers that a Monkey could do! Good luck to all!

MrMonkey

[cocknocker]

And there has been no truer statement. You must play ALL of the games and not some. 3-1 so far today following up a 9-6 day yesterday

[cocknocker]

All that I know is that I don't have just 9 dimes no more after the last two days. So is there a excel sheet being kept for what I am doing? I am playing them for $300.00 flat each game. So if you don't mind start my excel sheet from May 1st and go forward. I told everyone when I first came here that i don't pay vigorish. I play flat or I play for Crumbs. I hardly ever pay over -125 for a baseball game. What makes you think I'll take one on a first inning wager. So on my ecxel sheet leave out any 1st inning wager that has a line of more than -125. For me that game is a NO PLAY.

[cocknocker]

However, any game that has a listed 1st inning wager for a run to score that has a line of more than -140 for a run to score, I will be taking the prop for NO RUN to score. That is a foolish wager to take and I will gladly take the Crumbs from those plays and add them to my stack. Gotta play smart to stay sharp.

[therber2]

However, any game that has a listed 1st inning wager for a run to score that has a line of more than -140 for a run to score, I will be taking the prop for NO RUN to score. That is a foolish wager to take and I will gladly take the Crumbs from those plays and add them to my stack. Gotta play smart to stay sharp.

I am really interested to see how this works out! If statistics show that there will be more runs scored than not, going with NO on better value plays will be a total coin toss. I hope this isn't a huge chunk of your bank because you are doing a straight up gamble here if you do it this way. Even when the line -140 or higher for yes, no is still above -110 most of the time. If you come out on top it will be straight up luck!

By the way, fading this will NOT work. The no line would need to be avg. +100 or so. It is somewhere around -110 or -120. I really wish anyone who does this luck. By the way, don't use BetUS as previously suggested; it is a scam. They'll lock up your account if you try this there.

[cocknocker]

Okay, let's stop talking about it and see how it plays out, shall we. Nothing I hate worse than for a person to tell me something doesn't work without first seeing the results. See you guys at the end of the season