[maxkim12]

seriously, why? if a certain event has basically no chance of happening 3 or 4 times in a row, wouldn't you want to chase it? I'm sorry for acting like a noob, but i don't understand the aversion to chasing, particularly with baseball's generally non crazy odds

[Pauulzcappin]

Lost about my whole profit + some on baseball by chasing saturday

[RollinDo]

Going to see how chasing works with certain stating pitchers. Just lost with Greinke, Cueto, and Lohse so planning to at least get back what I lost backing them last game...maybe pounding Greinke next game knowing he hasn't list 3 straight in ages.

[upscope]

Risk alot to win a little usually ends UP bad eventually

[TankHankerous]

I can give you a couple thousand reasons

[mcdonae101]

If u got the money, u can't lose

[maxkim12]

I can give you a couple thousand reasons

yes, people lose money by chasing. however, I'd argue that they're chasing the wrong things. lets say your bankroll is 1000$, and you manage your money that you can handle a 3 game losing streak, but not a 4 game winning streak. if the chances of you making 1000$ are higher than you going on a 4 game losing streak, this system would work, wouldn't it?

[zec]

What event has no chance of happening three or four times in a row? Especially in baseball. It's basic statistics; if you chase the odds of you getting in deep, deep trouble at some point are very high. In a short run it is likely to work but the profits are usually small.

[zec]

yes, people lose money by chasing. however, I'd argue that they're chasing the wrong things. lets say your bankroll is 1000$, and you manage your money that you can handle a 3 game losing streak, but not a 4 game winning streak. if the chances of you making 1000$ are higher than you going on a 4 game losing streak, this system would work, wouldn't it?

Give me a scenario: odds and risk for each bet and we can calculate the probability.

[jeffthehat1]

I have been making money with chases for a long time. There is nothing wrong with chases if you play the right ones. It with out a doubt is the best way to make money. Crushes all straight bettors IF YOU HAVE A SOLID SYSTEM. 99% of cappers lose over the long run, so if you have a good system your already ahead of 99% of the cappers. Yes there are many crappy chases like JM and others so do your homework!

[jeffthehat1]

I can give you a couple thousand reasons

Give me 300! Lmao

[jeffthehat1]

Lost about my whole profit + some on baseball by chasing saturday

I would say most likely you played outside your bankroll or used a lousy chase!

[maxkim12]

Give me a scenario: odds and risk for each bet and we can calculate the probability.

Say the odds of a win are 65%, you risk enough on each bet to win 50$, the odds average out to -165 a bet, and you can afford 6 losses in a row. would that be profitable?

[jeffthehat1]

Any time you win it's profitable

[zec]

Say the odds of a win are 65%, you risk enough on each bet to win 50$, the odds average out to -165 a bet, and you can afford 6 losses in a row. would that be profitable?

So you are saying after each loss you bet what it takes to win back the loss (or cumulative loss later on) + $50 profit, correct?

[whtsox13]

Say the odds of a win are 65%, you risk enough on each bet to win 50$, the odds average out to -165 a bet, and you can afford 6 losses in a row. would that be profitable?

I urge you to calculate how much that sixth wager would be to win $50, using -165 all the way through.

[maxkim12]

So you are saying after each loss you bet what it takes to win back the loss (or cumulative loss later on) + $50 profit, correct?

yes,that's what I'm saying

[maxkim12]

I urge you to calculate how much that sixth wager would be to win $50, using -165 all the way through.

probably like 20000 right? that's off the top of my head. I know it's high, but as long as the chances of winning 20000 or however much it is is greater than the chances of losing 6 in a row, technically the system should be profitable, shouldnt it?

[CatHawk]

Maybe it has something to do with gambler's fallacy? Our brains are hard wired to find meaning in things and in doing so we look at random events as though they behave in a sort of cosmic balancing act. The analogy is usually a coin flip. It's 50% every time. Regardless of how many times it was heads or tails the previous flip it will always be 50% for heads or tails, where the gambler's fallacy would state that the coin flip's outcome must be influenced by the previous flips. I'm not sure if I'm comfortable comparing a coin flip to a sporting event though, or at least the analogy isn't perfect. Certain teams probably have a better percentage than 50% as opposed to a coin flip, but it's never 100%. I'm just thinking out loud here since I don't really know statistics.

Also, the idea of "regression to the mean" comes to mind here. It states that following a measurement of an extreme the next measurement will tend to regress towards the average. Like looking at a bell curve of stats, the top of the bell being the average. Again, I'm not sure if this would be applicable to sporting events. I'd imagine in some way it does. If you see a no-no, chances are you won't see one the next day. Again I'm no statistician, so maybe someone can elaborate these ideas better than me...

That being said, I've totally chased before. Never seems to work out for me.

[maxkim12]

zec did you check if I would be profitable?

[zec]

yes,that's what I'm saying

First off, winning 65% of the times on -165 is too optimistic, it's profitable on it's own with the same wager each time so if you were hitting -165 at that rate you should be pretty rich and not try chase system but we can use it if you want to for our calculations.
I also consider that the events are independent of each other; Greinke doesn't lose many games in a row but really, his starts are independent of the previous ones.
The chance of losing each bet is 35% (100%-65%). That means that a chance of losing 5 bets in a row is: .35x.35x.35x.35x.35= .52%.
Therefore, a chance of not losing 5 in a row is 99.48%. So if your bankrupt point is after 5 losses, each time you play, you have 99.48% chance of not going bankrupt. Now the kicker is that the probability of you going bankrupt increases every time so we calculate that in the same way as before. .9948x.9948x.9948x.9948 etc. 8 - 95.9%, 16 - 92%, 32 - 84.6%, 64-71.63%, 128 - 51.3%. So if you repeat this system 128 times you have close to 50% chance of going bankrupt. If you go through one "cycle" once a week you would have a 50% probability of going bankrupt in a little over two years. Most people play more often because you usually have a winning ticket on 1st-3rd try and if you are playing one game a day you should be going through 128 cycles in one year (going bankrupt in one year).
If you take 63% winning percentage (more realistic, still profitable at -165 odds btw); the numbers get much scarier in the long run. x.37x.37... = .69% chance of losing 5 in a row. 99.31% chance of not losing 5 in a row. .9931x.9931 etc. 8 - 94.6%, 16 - 89.5, 32 - 80.1%, 64 - 64.2%, 128 - 41.2%. So 59.8% chance of going bankrupt within 128 cycles.
I don't have time to go through the wagers and how much you have to wager to have $50 profit but the first calculation should show you that it's a doomed system and most people realize it when it's too late and those who tell you that it's a great system is because they didn't get to the bankrupt point; they either didn't bet the system long enough or were lucky/made great picks but the probability teaches us that you will go bankrupt at some point in the future. So you can play it for awhile and probably be fine but I personally don't even like to play it 15 times for example because the idea that there is 10% chance of me losing the whole bankroll is too scary and as said before payouts are not that great. BOL hopefully i explained this correctly and my math is right

[maxkim12]

your math is correct, but I said I can afford 6 losses, which brings my bankrupt number down to .0018. that also means, if i did my math correctly, that I have pretty much the same chance of winning 375 times as i do of going bankrupt. 375X50 is 18,750, and if i lost 6 times, at these odds, I would have lost a little over 17000$, which puts me in the black by 1000$. (hopefully i didnt make any mistakes haha.) This also doesn't include any human element factors, even though they may actually matter- like you said, grienke doesn't lose a bunch of games in a row too often. my system (which I've never actually said what it is- I feel like its a no-no to tell other people your systems) is one that I feel may have an advantage when considering the human element


However, the problem is with this system I only get about 100 plays a year as is, and since ill win an average of 65 of them a year it would take me 6 years to make my money back from a loss haha. in the long run I'd make money, but it would be next to nothing.

and I'm pretty sure I'm correct about my system winning at around 65%, but its kind of simple and wouldn't make too much sense if it was profitable without chasing, so I'm kind of confused haha. I mean, people have definitely tried this without chasing before, so I doubt vegas would let it stay profitable.

[BarstoolProphet]

Outstanding work Zec. Just a heads up. The circus just arrived.

So as TO would say,"Get your popcorn ready."

[zec]

It sounds like you have around $18k bankroll. If I were that confident about my picks, 100 of them per year, I would place at least $500 on each. At 65% success rate at -165 line you would make $2k in a year. If you bet $1,000; you would make $4k; I would stick with that strategy instead of chase. Good luck!!

[maxkim12]

alright, thanks for your help!

[jeffthehat1]

If you have 18k bankroll you can make way more than 4k chasing! Believe it, I do it all the time. But way more than 4k.

[whtsox13]

It sounds like you have around $18k bankroll. If I were that confident about my picks, 100 of them per year, I would place at least $500 on each. At 65% success rate at -165 line you would make $2k in a year. If you bet $1,000; you would make $4k; I would stick with that strategy instead of chase. Good luck!!

Who hits at 65% and who profits at -165?

[jeffthehat1]

Who hits at 65% and who profits at -165?

Its easy to profit at -165 with a chase!

[whtsox13]

At 65% success rate at -165 line you would make $2k in a year. If you bet $1,000; you would make $4k; I would stick with that strategy instead of chase. Good luck!!

Who hits at 65% and who profits at -165?

Its easy to profit at -165 with a chase!

RIF.

[jeffthehat1]

RIF?

[posey]

RIF?

http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RIF
Maybe this one? Don't know lol.

BTW I do think that chase systems aren't bad in general. The biggest problem is that one would have to find the right criterias. That's all.

[Baath887]

First off, winning 65% of the times on -165 is too optimistic, it's profitable on it's own with the same wager each time so if you were hitting -165 at that rate you should be pretty rich and not try chase system but we can use it if you want to for our calculations.
I also consider that the events are independent of each other; Greinke doesn't lose many games in a row but really, his starts are independent of the previous ones.
The chance of losing each bet is 35% (100%-65%). That means that a chance of losing 5 bets in a row is: .35x.35x.35x.35x.35= .52%.
Therefore, a chance of not losing 5 in a row is 99.48%. So if your bankrupt point is after 5 losses, each time you play, you have 99.48% chance of not going bankrupt. Now the kicker is that the probability of you going bankrupt increases every time so we calculate that in the same way as before. .9948x.9948x.9948x.9948 etc. 8 - 95.9%, 16 - 92%, 32 - 84.6%, 64-71.63%, 128 - 51.3%. So if you repeat this system 128 times you have close to 50% chance of going bankrupt. If you go through one "cycle" once a week you would have a 50% probability of going bankrupt in a little over two years. Most people play more often because you usually have a winning ticket on 1st-3rd try and if you are playing one game a day you should be going through 128 cycles in one year (going bankrupt in one year).
If you take 63% winning percentage (more realistic, still profitable at -165 odds btw); the numbers get much scarier in the long run. x.37x.37... = .69% chance of losing 5 in a row. 99.31% chance of not losing 5 in a row. .9931x.9931 etc. 8 - 94.6%, 16 - 89.5, 32 - 80.1%, 64 - 64.2%, 128 - 41.2%. So 59.8% chance of going bankrupt within 128 cycles.
I don't have time to go through the wagers and how much you have to wager to have $50 profit but the first calculation should show you that it's a doomed system and most people realize it when it's too late and those who tell you that it's a great system is because they didn't get to the bankrupt point; they either didn't bet the system long enough or were lucky/made great picks but the probability teaches us that you will go bankrupt at some point in the future. So you can play it for awhile and probably be fine but I personally don't even like to play it 15 times for example because the idea that there is 10% chance of me losing the whole bankroll is too scary and as said before payouts are not that great. BOL hopefully i explained this correctly and my math is right

Good post. However, considering the fact that we know that a system loss will occur in the future, would there be a way to mathematically prepare for it?

For instance: after 100 units won, save up 10 units, and restart the chase at 90 units. Then, when you double that number at 180 units, you save up 18 units (thus 10%), and restart the chase at 162 units.

Then, when a loss occurs, you restart the chase with the units that you saved up previously. Could it work?

[maxkim12]

Who hits at 65% and who profits at -165?

is it really that hard to do? my system isn'tat all complicated, so now I'm thinking that I made a mistake somewhere haha. every time I look, the numbers stay the same though

[whtsox13]

Get on it then man, anything for this week? Best luck, sir

[keel44]

You need to hit at a higher expected rate at some point during your chase. You cannot be just "average" throughout. There needs to be a part of your chase where it would win flat betting by itself.

For example, if teams are winning more often than they should trying to avoid losing the last game of a 3 game sweep, then a chase would be profitable, so would flat betting that 3rd game only. You need to have a "edge" somewhere.