on3's MLB 2012 Opening Game system thread 194-8 last year +60 units

**J.M. Disciple** · 07-09-12, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by allidoiswin89

Hmmm imagine that. Put your biggest numbers on b line and look at the benefits...now only if you had been doing that all year you'd be +20 units and that is being conservative

You are basing it off a small sample size. Can't always predict which ones are going to win... Some times A bets hit a big winning streak some times its B and some times C... What we do know is that he is managing his labby consistently and when the line A or B gets cleared he moves some #s up.

Your aggressive method im sure would of dug a very deep hole before going into the black with this system. If he was adding numbers to the line(s) instead of keeping them at 4 #s then I could see your aggressive method being ok, but with it staying at 4 #s per line at a time I think he is running the labby the best he can with out busting any ones bankroll.

If we were going to substitute any method it would be Chounds with adding a 1/2 unit per number when ever we move a C # up to line A.

**J.M. Disciple** · 07-09-12, 03:50 PM

Anyone betting anything today? i am 4-5 units away from the cappers I was following earlier in the season from being in the black.

**on3** · 07-09-12, 05:33 PM

trumbo to win first round of HR derby at +400

**allidoiswin89** · 07-10-12, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by chound

Its easy to call it after the fact.....that b line could of been the worst winning percent.

I never said that this was for every year.....its called making adjustments..any gambler makes them except some guys in this thread which is hysterical. You will never find a system with filters that can guarantee 10 years straight of 50+ units profit...but trends and capping ability (most of you don't do this I know) can allow you to be profitable when the system is not...

**chound** · 07-10-12, 04:11 PM

I understand what your trying to say and agree with some of it...my point was even if you had say a better winning percent on line b then placed some of the heavier wagers to it what makes you think the % would remain the same? It could possibly go on a losing streak and become the lowest winning % line. I agree with making some adjustments but in the same terms you need to be consistent.... show me an inconsistent gambler and ill show you someone who has a high losing percent .

**mcmister** · 07-11-12, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by chound

.... show me an inconsistent gambler and ill show you someone who has a high losing percent .

Truer words were never spoken

**J.M. Disciple** · 07-12-12, 03:53 PM

horray managed to get into the black over this break

Lets keep climbing up!

**Wallco99** · 07-12-12, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by J.M. Disciple

horray managed to get into the black over this break

Lets keep climbing up!

What do you mean? Were you laying out in the sun too long? Or did you fall into a barrel of tar?

**on3** · 07-12-12, 08:03 PM

UPDATED for 07/13/2012
System(s) record Chase:
Regular system: 95-9-0; Profit: -6.75 units
Filtered System: 37-1-0; Profit: +27.75 units
5/2 chase: 15-1-0; profit: +33.5 units

Records: (regular, filtered, 5/2)
Game 1 (A) win = 57-49; 22-15
Game 2 (B) win = 31-16; 10-6; 10-6
Game 3 (C) win = 7-9; 5-1; 5-1

LABBY LINES FOR 07/13/2012
61-61-61-61
80-x-x-x
56-40-65-74

New Line Filtered
x-x-65-65

REGULAR FOR 07/13/2012
(A) LAD -185 to win 61
(A) SF -215/+100 to win 61 -- play RL
(A) MIL -149 to win 61 (play if line stays over -140) (home record over .500)
(A) ATL -151 to win 61 (play if line stays over -140)

Filtered
none

5/2
none

**jcygts6** · 07-13-12, 02:35 AM

thanks!! cant wait to get back in action

**on3** · 07-13-12, 12:17 PM

So MIL is on the border right now. I was thinking about the .500 filter and if it should be adjusted to consider the opponent. Any thoughts on this?

Something like...if the opponent is also over .500 then both home and overall record needs to be over .500.

Also, thelimit needs to confirm this, but the 5/2 doesn't have a .500 filter, correct?

**thelimit0310** · 07-13-12, 04:48 PM

Correct On3, no .500 filter on the 5/2

**on3** · 07-14-12, 12:22 AM

Sweeeeeep. Although a pitching change may have cancelled some bets.

**xgame** · 07-14-12, 12:40 AM

Nice nice

**J.M. Disciple** · 07-14-12, 03:35 AM

Thats 5.45u in the black now based on your numbers.

next bets on 15th.

**Bradfordmiller** · 07-14-12, 04:09 AM

Thanks On3, nice day. Shame about the pitching change in San Fran. Do we carry on with this series for
those of us who have had that bet voided?

**darkmatter117** · 07-14-12, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Bradfordmiller

Thanks On3, nice day. Shame about the pitching change in San Fran. Do we carry on with this series for
those of us who have had that bet voided?

Personally, I would let it go. The system is predicated on the idea that the home team will win one of three. To me, it's not worth it to gamble that they'll win two of three.

And let this be a reminder that we should be playing IF ACTION.

**on3** · 07-14-12, 11:03 AM

If your SF was cancelled, do not play B and C. A was a winner.

**lapi7** · 07-14-12, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by darkmatter117

Personally, I would let it go. The system is predicated on the idea that the home team will win one of three. To me, it's not worth it to gamble that they'll win two of three.

And let this be a reminder that we should be playing IF ACTION.

Sorry...but I disagree that one should wager IF ACTION.
I believe that the wagers should be made on AS LISTED only.
The money lines are based primarily on who the starting pitchers are going to be...in many cases if there is a last minute pitching change the line also changes, then you're simply gambling for the sake of gambling.

Now I understand that the same people who feel that they got "robbed" or ripped-off and that are upset because their SF bet was cancelled are the same people who, IF SF HAD LOST, would be happy, joyful, "Woo-Hoo" ing and high fiving "Thank God they cancelled my bet" all the way home and most likely be saying "This only goes to prove that we should only bet "AS LISTED".

**stevex** · 07-14-12, 02:56 PM

I'm a pretty happy camper that it was canceled. Had a $500 FP at JustBet on Houston and they gave it back to me...

**darkmatter117** · 07-14-12, 04:09 PM

lapi7, allow me to explain my argument. The system is predicated on the notion that a (qualifying) home team will win one of three games. If a team qualifies as a play, the pitching matchup doesn't matter. Now if there's a pitching change on an A bet and it results in the line's closing below -145, that's a different story* -- but in that case, back to my original point, it's not a qualifying team. If a series qualifies, we're betting on the theory that (qualifying) home teams rarely get swept, not on an individual game or pitching matchup.

* It occurred to me you may be arguing this point -- that a pitching change on an A bet could disqualify a series. That's why I believe it's wise to wait until game time to wager on the A bet; only then can you be sure that a series qualifies.

Don't take any of this as gospel. These are simply my thoughts on the matter. I'm interested in hearing counter-arguments.

**parlay100** · 07-14-12, 04:28 PM

5/2 System

I hate to ask but does any know the thread number for the explanation of this.

**darkmatter117** · 07-14-12, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by parlay100

I hate to ask but does any know the thread number for the explanation of this.

No worries -- it's not easy to find in 2,200+ posts. It's post 790. I believe it's on page 23.

**lapi7** · 07-14-12, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by darkmatter117

lapi7, allow me to explain my argument. The system is predicated on the notion that a (qualifying) home team will win one of three games. If a team qualifies as a play, the pitching matchup doesn't matter. Now if there's a pitching change on an A bet and it results in the line's closing below -145, that's a different story* -- but in that case, back to my original point, it's not a qualifying team. If a series qualifies, we're betting on the theory that (qualifying) home teams rarely get swept, not on an individual game or pitching matchup.

* It occurred to me you may be arguing this point -- that a pitching change on an A bet could disqualify a series. That's why I believe it's wise to wait until game time to wager on the A bet; only then can you be sure that a series qualifies.

Don't take any of this as gospel. These are simply my thoughts on the matter. I'm interested in hearing counter-arguments.

Hmmm...I see what you're saying and your argument makes sense.

With the exception of a game A pitching change which ends up below -145.

Yes, didn't really think of it in those terms DM. Thanks.

**darkmatter117** · 07-15-12, 07:30 PM

I've got a present for you guys. I did some testing to see if the home winning percentage (HWP) filter is useful. Here's what I came up with:

Unfiltered (UF) with HWP filter since 2004:
1,646-107 (93.90%)

UF without HWP filter since 2004:
2,047-137 (93.73%)

Filtered (F) with HWP filter since 2004:
874-41 (95.52%)

F without HWP filter since 2004:
1,061-53 (95.24%)

As you can see, the HWP filter does slightly increase the winning percentage for both systems. However, the average odds are higher for games fitting the HWP filter (-170 vs. -166 for UF, -175 vs. -172 for F).

I used the average odds of each game of a series to calculate the cost of a loss. For a Martingale player, here are the results:

UF with HWP filter since 2004: -32 units
UF without HWP filter since 2004: +3 units
F with HWP filter since 2004: +185 units
F without HWP filter since 2004: +201 units

Let me stress again that these are estimates and not precise totals. It would take me some time to figure out the actual cost of each actual loss. And also, let me stress again that this is using a Martingale system, not Labby.

My conclusion: The HWP filter does result in a slightly higher winning percentage, but because the odds tend to be higher, the net units are less than they would be without the HWP filter. Put another way, the result of using the HWP filter is that you play only hot teams, and thus must lay more juice. Including average and below-average teams will result in a few more losses, but the juice will be lower, and thus those losses will not be as costly.

**on3** · 07-15-12, 08:08 PM

^ wallco, I would love your input on this. Systems always need adjustments, do you see any value in what DM has provided?

**on3** · 07-15-12, 08:09 PM

Thank you darkmatter for the effort and your contributions. You are truly valuable to this thread.

**on3** · 07-15-12, 08:18 PM

Looks like only one play for tomorrow, NYY, regular and filtered. It might be wise to play the -1.5 since alvarez has been garbo recently. TB has already been bet down to the 130s. Back with an update soon.

**Wallco99** · 07-15-12, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by on3

^ wallco, I would love your input on this. Systems always need adjustments, do you see any value in what DM has provided?

I think this data is pretty awesome, I love a thorough backtest. It appears that adding the filter will slightly hurt our figures. Though there are more losses (which are also more costly), there are a lot less wins as well. The slightly higher percentage on a much lower number results in loss of profit. I don't know if DM has the list of losses, but if you do, PM them to me and I will try to find exact cost of thses losses.

**on3** · 07-16-12, 01:20 AM

UPDATED for 07/16/2012
System(s) record Chase:
Regular system: 99-9-0; Profit: +5.5 units
Filtered System: 37-1-0; Profit: +27.75 units
5/2 chase: 15-1-0; profit: +33.5 units

Records: (regular, filtered, 5/2)
Game 1 (A) win = 61-49; 22-15
Game 2 (B) win = 31-16; 10-6; 10-6
Game 3 (C) win = 7-9; 5-1; 5-1

LABBY LINES FOR 07/16/2012
25-25-25-25
30-25-25-25
31-15-40-24

New Line Filtered
x-x-65-65

REGULAR FOR 07/16/2012
(A) NYY -177 to win 50

Filtered
NYY to win 65

5/2
none

**lightent** · 07-16-12, 02:41 AM

on3, Thanks for the early post! GL!

**Bdolan33** · 07-16-12, 03:33 AM

Yanks lost

**Wallco99** · 07-16-12, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Bdolan33

Yanks lost

Did your personal Psychic tell you that this morning, or do you have your own set of tarot cards?

**on3** · 07-16-12, 11:35 AM

Hahaha

**knugen** · 07-16-12, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Bdolan33

Yanks lost

If that was what your tarotcard showed you, i think its time to buy new ones!

Easypeasywin