John Morrison 2011 MLB

[BigBlue77]

Wow Garcia needs to settle down. I nice double play ball would do wonders right now.

At least Giradi took him out in 2nd inning. The game would be 10-1 if he was still in. Hope fhe bullpen can hold up.

[jolmscheid]

Well I tested a whole heap lot of stuff like this, purely random, stuff like testing the under/over/fav/dog on first/last game of day (as listed on MLB site), on worst team in the league losing a game, best team winning a game, a heap of stuff like that. On the best under and over team in the league hitting an under/over respectively also.

My comment was just a general comment that any system based on the belief that labbying a certain game/team to win/lose/over/under, whatever it may be, will eventually fail and wipe out your entire roll. I did this many times in many different situations (with theoretical bankrolls) and at some point these things always fail. For any 'infinite chase', it might work for a week, a month, a year, or even a few years without failing, but at some point it will always fail, it's only a matter of time, and when an 'infinite chase' fails its game over. To survive an infinite chase you need an infinite bankroll! (by infinite chase I mean a situation where you keep raising your stakes through labby or any other progressive stake raising betting method indefinitely until a certain situation occurs. Note that although a labby is not a Martingale, it is still a chasing method. Any method where you increase stakes after a loss/losses is a chasing method.)

Thanks for the insight Wilba....so I assume you do not use the labby at all? I believe you just do 2-game chases right?

[J.M. Disciple]

@thelimit.... I dont mind people calling me out on my systems. The more the marrier as long as they are suggesting a way to improve or as been brought up an actual "backtest." I dont think its disrespectful to ask questions like that.

Just careful how you phrase it. Also when I first brought up my system, I said it was only a small back test That i did and it looked very profitable. I never stated i did a full back test and told people to follow at their own risk. Just like Wallco's system or Hoodini's system or crusher system, in the end its up to the individual if they decide to wager on it. If any of these systems lose i do not blame the person. I follow at my own risk.

I just provide an opportunity for people to either back test it themselves, follow me blindly, or wait until I get it further back tested.

The reason i bring these systems up is because most systems have already been tested and failed. I'm sure my system is not the first of its kind. As Wilba said he has already tested this and it failed eventually. IDK if he was labbying or chasing. I will continue to back test it, but dont advocate anyone following me system blindly.

Once again criticism is welcomed towards me just word it correctly. Espcially if you don't contribute to the thread. I have no respect for those that just come in here and try to bash people with out any evidence why.

Thanks
--jmd

[Wilba]

Stevex, what's your bankroll looking like after that V3 beat down ? Are you still alive ? Just curious.

playing JM systems from A-C that aggressively (like Stevex was) = bankroll owned when loss occurs

[Wilba]

Thanks for the insight Wilba....so I assume you do not use the labby at all? I believe you just do 2-game chases right?

no worries.

With stuff like JM systems, that's right, I only do 2 game chases. I have actually been doing the same with Wallco's C/D plays recently , and have just about broken even despite the series losses, mainly due to the good payouts on winning bets (good stuff Wallco)

I also use labby in certain situations, for example I labby crusher play after he has won/lost 4 in a row (if won 4 in a row, I fade labby him, and vice versa for lose 4 in row). You get this situation once every few weeks so not a heap of plays, but works well when it does come up.

I think both methods definitely are good when used right, and both have their place in certain situations

[Wilba]

JM disciple in answer to your comment above -

I used labby with similar things to what you are trying, not martingale double up

everyone has the right to suggest ideas. If you think they are wrong then it's easy, tell them why you think it will not work. Never any need to shit on them for an idea

[IceBet]

Well I tested a whole heap lot of stuff like this, purely random, stuff like testing the under/over/fav/dog on first/last game of day (as listed on MLB site), on worst team in the league losing a game, best team winning a game, a heap of stuff like that. On the best under and over team in the league hitting an under/over respectively also.

My comment was just a general comment that any system based on the belief that labbying a certain game/team to win/lose/over/under, whatever it may be, will eventually fail and wipe out your entire roll. I did this many times in many different situations (with theoretical bankrolls) and at some point these things always fail. For any 'infinite chase', it might work for a week, a month, a year, or even a few years without failing, but at some point it will always fail, it's only a matter of time, and when an 'infinite chase' fails its game over. To survive an infinite chase you need an infinite bankroll! (by infinite chase I mean a situation where you keep raising your stakes through labby or any other progressive stake raising betting method indefinitely until a certain situation occurs. Note that although a labby is not a Martingale, it is still a chasing method. Any method where you increase stakes after a loss/losses is a chasing method.)

Hey Wilba,

I am not sure how you can say that unless you are running your labby incorrectly. For example, with Overs/Unders they will average out close to 50% each side on the long run. Therefore your labby lines will clear.

I am sure you have been backtesting longer than me, I have only be doing it since January 2011. But from all the data I have seen, if labby is done correctly it will clear.

IceBet

[jolmscheid]

no worries.

With stuff like JM systems, that's right, I only do 2 game chases. I have actually been doing the same with Wallco's C/D plays recently , and have just about broken even despite the series losses, mainly due to the good payouts on winning bets (good stuff Wallco)

I also use labby in certain situations, for example I labby crusher play after he has won/lost 4 in a row (if won 4 in a row, I fade labby him, and vice versa for lose 4 in row). You get this situation once every few weeks so not a heap of plays, but works well when it does come up.

I think both methods definitely are good when used right, and both have their place in certain situations

Thanks Wilba...and do you do a 2-Game chase for ALL of Morrison's systems on the B and C bets only? And you buy points and play the runlines and pucklines still even though they have high juice?

[jolmscheid]

I really think 2 game chases are where it is at...with Morrison's system and maybe even Sports Betting Professor's systems.....Chasing only the B and C bets?? I would really like to see how this would have done the past few years for all of Morrison's systems...

[IceBet]

Ok, against my better judgement, JMD has convinced me that my weekend labby testing should be posted.

Instead of posting all of the different methods in one sheet with different tabs, I will post each in its own XLS file.

Please assume that all of my work has flaws and is wrong. This was put together for myself to test a "worst case" scenario for Game Totals using Labby.

Since Saturday, I have been officially betting on every Over and every Under for each game each day. All of my spreadsheets assume the worst juice I have seen in my back testing for Totals. The worst I saw for the past month was 1.74 Decimal so I went a bit worse and did all of my numbers based on odds of 1.70 Decimal (-143 American)

Everything was tested based on 15 Labby Lines using 8 straight losses and 7 straight wins (46.666% win rate). Since the labby lines would shuffle with each day, it would be virtually impossible to have 8 straight losses on all of your lines. Actually let's remove the word "virtually", I am willing to say IMPOSSIBLE.

So with that, let the $hit $torm commence.

IceBet

[jolmscheid]

Lookin' forward to it IceBet!

[IceBet]

15 Line Labby - IceLabby Traditional

This spreadsheet shows how my "Worst Case" 15 Line Labby would run using the Traditional Labby Method.

IceBet

[h00dini]

V1. Winner. Record 12:0
V2. Winner record 2:0

[IceBet]

15 Line Labby - IceLabby Total Average - DO NOT USE THIS METHOD

This spreadsheet shows how my "Worst Case" 15 Line Labby would run using the Total Average Method. This is the method JMD was using for his system. I believe if the losses are not in streaks it may keep you above water, but as you can see in my spreadsheet, with losing streaks, the bet size always increases.

IceBet

[xgame]

V1. Winner. Record 12:0
V2. Winner record 2:0

nice, very nice system.

[IceBet]

15 Line Labby - IceLabby Average Maintain 2 - DO NOT USE THIS METHOD

This spreadsheet shows how my "Worst Case" 15 Line Labby would run using the Total Average Maintain 2 Method. This method will NEVER profit and your lines always increase.

IceBet

[IceBet]

15 Line Labby - IceLabby Line Average 2 Strikes (I like the sound of IceLabby Line Average Double Strike but you will see in a minute that it doesn't fit going forward.)

This spreadsheet shows how my "Worst Case" 15 Line Labby would run using the Line Average 2 Strikes Method. JMD mentioned that this was how Bugs was doing his labby. This is a WINNER. It performs the same as the traditional as far as clearing the lines, BUT, it has almost 42% less bankroll in play during long losing streaks (in my specific test).

IceBet

[IceBet]

15 Line Labby - IceLabby Line Average 3 Strikes (I like the sound of IceLabby Line Average Triple Strike but you will see in a minute that it doesn't fit going forward.)

This spreadsheet shows how my "Worst Case" 15 Line Labby would run using the Line Average 3 Strikes Method.

How this works is you start with 3 numbers on a line. You bet the sum of 1st, 2nd and last numbers of your line. If you lose you only add 1 number but if you win you cross off 3 (1st, 2nd and last). This helps you clear lines faster letting you profit on lower winning percentage. Note that you will need a bigger bank role or smaller unit size if playing a system with lower winning percentage.

IceBet

[Wallco99]

@thelimit.... I dont mind people calling me out on my systems. The more the marrier as long as they are suggesting a way to improve or as been brought up an actual "backtest." I dont think its disrespectful to ask questions like that.

Just careful how you phrase it. Also when I first brought up my system, I said it was only a small back test That i did and it looked very profitable. I never stated i did a full back test and told people to follow at their own risk. Just like Wallco's system or Hoodini's system or crusher system, in the end its up to the individual if they decide to wager on it. If any of these systems lose i do not blame the person. I follow at my own risk.

I just provide an opportunity for people to either back test it themselves, follow me blindly, or wait until I get it further back tested.

The reason i bring these systems up is because most systems have already been tested and failed. I'm sure my system is not the first of its kind. As Wilba said he has already tested this and it failed eventually. IDK if he was labbying or chasing. I will continue to back test it, but dont advocate anyone following me system blindly.

Once again criticism is welcomed towards me just word it correctly. Espcially if you don't contribute to the thread. I have no respect for those that just come in here and try to bash people with out any evidence why.

Thanks
--jmd

This is all well and good, but these statements should be made in ALL of your official looking posts instead of in conversation with one person. Unless someone reads the whole thread, they have no idea you are posting all of these completely untested systems based on a few games from this season or a hunch. You give these things names and make them look official like the participants of this forum have been following along and playing. If someone new is to come in and see it, you could be leading them down a terrible path, not to mention, confuse the people who are already here. Especially since you have been posting these plays, and then a few days later said you were doing it wrong. I am not saying that the two other systems that are posted in this forum are guaranteed to win, including mine. But I spent 6 weeks backtesting and compiling data before I ever once thought of posting a play, then posted 6 years of season's results and let people make up their own minds. JM says he did too. Posting systems and telling people "don't follow these, I haven't tested them" is pointless, and to a degree irresponsible if the proper info. isn't in every one of your posts. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you personally at all, in fact I think we worked a pretty good tandem in JM NBA. But with all these new systems popping up, almost daily now, most which have no validity or testing, only bad things can come out of it. But at least you did some testing, unlike the other whatever his name is. I don't play any of them besides the original two, so it is not me who will be hurt.

[IceBet]

15 Line Labby - IceLabby Line Average 4 Strikes (See how the naming won't work.)

This spreadsheet shows how my "Worst Case" 15 Line Labby would run using the Line Average 4 Strikes Method.

How this works is you start with 4 numbers on a line. You bet the sum of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and last numbers of your line. If you lose you only add 1 number but if you win you cross off 4 (1st, 2nd, 3rd and last). This helps you clear lines faster letting you profit on lower winning percentage. Note that you will need a bigger bank role or smaller unit size if playing a system with lower winning percentage.

IceBet

[IceBet]

That is what I have for now. I have a few other ideas I want to try to improve the IceLabby 3 Strike (or higher) versions out which should show even faster line clearing. But I want to test everything before posting.

If you take the juice into account for each loss in your labby line then your win rate needed to break even is:
2 Strike Labby - 1/3 = 33.33%
3 Strike Labby - 1/4 = 25%
4 Strike Labby - 1/5 = 20%
etc

Anything above that winning percentage is profit.

I see lots of labby examples on here that do not take into account the juice. In the end when you lines clear after some losses, you will be down (assume negative juice).

I play the Overs and Unders on every game every day. They average out to 50% long term but in the short term they fluctuate 30/70 or 70/30 worst case that I have seen. For that reason, I am going with a 4 Stike Labby to always see a profit on both sides daily.

IceBet

[jolmscheid]

Thanks for doing all of these Ice...I'm a little confused at how the 4-strike is run...can you lay out an example for me? I can't seem to wrap my head around how to run the 4 strike system...

[IceBet]

Thanks for doing all of these Ice...I'm a little confused at how they are all run, but which one is the best?

Kind of depends on what you are going to use it for. In general, the higher the Strikes System, the less the system you are playing has to win to make a profit, BUT on the flip side, you will have more money in play as a general rule of thumb.

IceBet

[IceBet]

Thanks for doing all of these Ice...I'm a little confused at how the 4-strike is run...can you lay out an example for me? I can't seem to wrap my head around how to run the 4 strike system...

Let me try to explain and to keep it clean/simple:

Line: 1 1 1 1

You would BET TO WIN: 1st, 2nd, 3rd & last numbers. So:
(We will assume that the odds are -200 for easy math.

Line: 1 1 1 1
Bet To Win 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 (Risking 8)
Bet Lost

Line: 1 1 1 1 8 (Add your loss)
Average your line: (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 8) / 5 = 2.40
Line: 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40
Bet To Win 2.40 + 2.40 + 2.40 + 2.40 = 9.60 (Risking 19.20)
Bet Wins

Line: 2.40 (Cleared 4 Numbers)
Bet To Win 2.40 (Risking 4.80)

If bet wins they you have cleared your line but you can lose 3 more times in a row and only 1 win will clear your line. Make sure you average your lines each time you add a loss.

Hope that helps,
IceBet

[jolmscheid]

Oh I see now....thanks for that insight IceBet....and can I ask how betting all the overs and unders have been going? So in essence you have 30 lines going at once? What % do you start each line with?

Thanks for your insight Ice!

[IceBet]

Oh I see now....thanks for that insight IceBet....and can I ask how betting all the overs and unders have been going? So in essence you have 30 lines going at once? What % do you start each line with?

Thanks for your insight Ice!

Well I could have up to 30 lines going. If lines clear (which many do each day) and then there is only 10 games, I would only have 20 active lines (10 overs and 10 unders). When more games arrive the next day then I just start fresh lines.

If I had more uncleared lines than active games then I just hold that line over until the next day. So far I have not had to do this as enough clear each day.

Since there are so many lines and I am still "officially" testing, I am starting each line with $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50, so each cleared line is a $2.00 profit.

IceBet

[dlunc3]

wow... havent checked in in a few days... guess this turned into a labby thread? whatever floats your boat

[Wallco99]

wow... havent checked in in a few days... guess this turned into a labby thread? whatever floats your boat

No, just for the experimental unbacktested systems, everything else is normal. Just 9 pages of explaining the same thing over and over again every day for what reason I don't know.

[oklahoma]

well aside from labby talk and system backtesting posts, nice B and C cashes hoodini.

Wallco, will there be houston bets tomorrow since we "lost out" by not betting them today? is it similar to that double-header day a couple weeks back?

[Wallco99]

well aside from labby talk and system backtesting posts, nice B and C cashes hoodini.

Wallco, will there be houston bets tomorrow since we "lost out" by not betting them today? is it similar to that double-header day a couple weeks back?

Very similar, 2 units on Houston. We definitely didn't lose out, this was the perfect scenario. We will win more this way (2+ units) for the same risk on loss money.

[oklahoma]

this was the perfect scenario. We will win more this way (2+ units) for the same risk on loss money.

sounds good.

[thelimit0310]

I like your 3 and 4 strike labby methods Ice. Although with JM's systems and Wallco's systems it seems like overkill because of the win rate of these systems, If I ever come across a system with a win rate of under 25% I will definitely use it. Thanks for the method!

Also, Wallco and Hagball thank you once again for the plays!

[h00dini]

This is all well and good, but these statements should be made in ALL of your official looking posts instead of in conversation with one person. Unless someone reads the whole thread, they have no idea you are posting all of these completely untested systems based on a few games from this season or a hunch. You give these things names and make them look official like the participants of this forum have been following along and playing. If someone new is to come in and see it, you could be leading them down a terrible path, not to mention, confuse the people who are already here. Especially since you have been posting these plays, and then a few days later said you were doing it wrong. I am not saying that the two other systems that are posted in this forum are guaranteed to win, including mine. But I spent 6 weeks backtesting and compiling data before I ever once thought of posting a play, then posted 6 years of season's results and let people make up their own minds. JM says he did too. Posting systems and telling people "don't follow these, I haven't tested them" is pointless, and to a degree irresponsible if the proper info. isn't in every one of your posts. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you personally at all, in fact I think we worked a pretty good tandem in JM NBA. But with all these new systems popping up, almost daily now, most which have no validity or testing, only bad things can come out of it. But at least you did some testing, unlike the other whatever his name is. I don't play any of them besides the original two, so it is not me who will be hurt.

[thelimit0310]

Edit: double post

[goodone]

Well I tested a whole heap lot of stuff like this, purely random, stuff like testing the under/over/fav/dog on first/last game of day (as listed on MLB site), on worst team in the league losing a game, best team winning a game, a heap of stuff like that. On the best under and over team in the league hitting an under/over respectively also.

My comment was just a general comment that any system based on the belief that labbying a certain game/team to win/lose/over/under, whatever it may be, will eventually fail and wipe out your entire roll. I did this many times in many different situations (with theoretical bankrolls) and at some point these things always fail. For any 'infinite chase', it might work for a week, a month, a year, or even a few years without failing, but at some point it will always fail, it's only a matter of time, and when an 'infinite chase' fails its game over. To survive an infinite chase you need an infinite bankroll! (by infinite chase I mean a situation where you keep raising your stakes through labby or any other progressive stake raising betting method indefinitely until a certain situation occurs. Note that although a labby is not a Martingale, it is still a chasing method. Any method where you increase stakes after a loss/losses is a chasing method.)

Thanks Wilba, got it, so theoretically, the only thing that could save the bankroll is some kind of stop-loss to avoid getting too deep in any streak? Any experiences with that maybe?