No "Systems" in the Think Tank please

LLXC · 03-12-10, 01:06 AM

I agree!

Naz18 · 03-12-10, 01:47 AM

Handicapper Think Tank Handicapping Theories, Systems, Tips, Tricks and Math

DeluxeLiner · 03-12-10, 04:06 AM

Justin, some people claim RLM is a system. What is your take on it?

Justin7 · 03-12-10, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by DeluxeLiner

Justin, some people claim RLM is a system. What is your take on it?

If it used to work it he past, it won't going forward.

Cheese1976 · 03-12-10, 12:09 PM

Sounds like someone's system went south?

Jiggy Fly · 03-12-10, 12:44 PM

Hey Justin.......FYI, the subtitle for the forum says that systems are found inside the Think Tank Forum. You might wanna change that if you don't want systems in here.

Dark Horse · 03-12-10, 02:02 PM

Man, I was just putting the final touches on a 125-41 ATS system. But it doesn't consider the line, so I won't be posting it.

MrX · 03-12-10, 02:18 PM

I don't think it's exactly what Justin meant, but saying that a model which calls for bets at market price (regardless of what that price may be) is doomed to failure is just not true.

Such a model has some inherent pitfalls, but they can be dealt with.

Cheese1976 · 03-12-10, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

If it used to work it he past, it won't going forward.

ridiculous statement here.

Hybris · 03-12-10, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

A system is any type of betting that doesn't care what the spread or money line is.

Originally posted by DeluxeLiner

Justin, some people claim RLM is a system. What is your take on it?

Hmm pretty hard to use RLM without the spread tbh

Peregrine Stoop · 03-12-10, 05:44 PM

I think no 'chase' systems would be a good rule

roasthawg · 03-12-10, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by MrX

I don't think it's exactly what he Justin meant, but saying that a model which calls for bets at market price (regardless of what that price may be) is doomed to failure is just not true.

Such a model has some inherent pitfalls, but they can be dealt with.

I agree with this.

Sawyer · 03-12-10, 06:39 PM

Justin why you said a system is any type of betting that doesn't care what the spread or money line is? My NBA Totals System is based purely on total line? For example, if Vegas line is 219, it may be no play but it can be a play if line is 211 or less.

Justin7 · 03-12-10, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Sawyer

Justin why you said a system is any type of betting that doesn't care what the spread or money line is? My NBA Totals System is based purely on total line? For example, if Vegas line is 219, it may be no play but it can be a play if line is 211 or less.

If your "system" picks a play, it must be market sensitive. If you have a method for playing totals, you must evaluate the market total also.

skrtelfan · 03-13-10, 12:03 AM

Shocking thread. Of course Martingale chase things only clutter up the Tank, but as a simple example, basic strategy teasers are "a system."

Justin7 · 03-13-10, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by skrtelfan

Shocking thread. Of course Martingale chase things only clutter up the Tank, but as a simple example, basic strategy teasers are "a system."

Teasers consider the market spread, and are very sensitive to it. It the market is mostly +3 and you find a +2.5, you don't tease it. A more accurate title for Wong teasers would be "Buying 6 points, laying -240 on each leg yields a conversion advantage in certain circumstances". As with any opportunity, you have to use your brain and not bet blindly.

Peeig · 03-13-10, 12:49 AM

Justin laying the wood to get the Tank cleaned up..............its much appreciated Justin!

LT Profits · 03-13-10, 10:35 AM

Well there are systems that DO take price into consideration, so I assume those would be allowed. Justin is only trying to weed out systems that call for a play on a team at ANY price, and I applaud him for that.

skrtelfan · 03-13-10, 10:59 AM

I understand the point is to keep out the stupid Martingale crap, but I find it useful to know something like "NBA teams who covered the spread at least 4 times in a row are 314-460 ATS in the next game." (That's a hypothetical example I just made up.) I wouldn't bet a system like that blindly but I would be more careful backing a team if I knew they'd covered 4 times in a row.

curinator · 03-13-10, 11:26 AM

All Justin is saying is anything not related to finding value in a line through a quantitative approach is worthless in the long run (which is true). All qualitative approaches whether they be situational or betting against the public will correct themselves when enough people become aware of them. Blindly making wagers in this regard will not work long term. Finding value in a line quantitatively AND combining a sensible qualitative approach (betting against the public for one) will help to boost profit on turnover, at least in the short term. The point is, you must have some sort of quantitative approach anchoring what you are doing in terms of finding value or you are setting yourself up for failure.

Peeig · 03-13-10, 12:15 PM

If Justin can get this forum cleaned up, it would be a service to all of us

roasthawg · 03-13-10, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

Well there are systems that DO take price into consideration, so I assume those would be allowed. Justin is only trying to weed out systems that call for a play on a team at ANY price, and I applaud him for that.

"Any" price is always going to be market price though.

LT Profits · 03-13-10, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by roasthawg

"Any" price is always going to be market price though.

When I say a play at "any" price, I am saying price is not even taken into consideration. A play would be a play be it -3, -11 or +6. Those are the type of systems that don't belong here, as they are doomed in the long run.

LT Profits · 03-13-10, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by skrtelfan

I understand the point is to keep out the stupid Martingale crap, but I find it useful to know something like "NBA teams who covered the spread at least 4 times in a row are 314-460 ATS in the next game." (That's a hypothetical example I just made up.) I wouldn't bet a system like that blindly but I would be more careful backing a team if I knew they'd covered 4 times in a row.

Even there, the reason that may be true is because the hot team is often overvalued in the fifth game. However, if that trend becomes more well known, the books will stop overvaluing the team in their next game and the trend will eventually reverse. Now if the original trend has some sort of PRICE filter that says to play it only at a certain number, it would have more promise.

goldseeker · 03-13-10, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by roasthawg

"Any" price is always going to be market price though.

I agree. The assumption here is, the market is kind of efficient. The systems based on the market price should have some merits no matter what it is (so the price is any price).

Peep · 03-13-10, 05:14 PM

I think there is as much value in examining "bad" systems for faults as there is in posting a "good" system that uses a line (but doesn't work).

Rules never saved anyone, and I doubt they will save the forum. If the regulars can't point out in an effective manner why two or three negatives added or multiplied together (aka a chase system) doesn't work..... we don't deserve a tech forum.

Justin7 · 03-13-10, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Peep

I think there is as much value in examining "bad" systems for faults as there is in posting a "good" system that uses a line (but doesn't work).

I generally agree. We were wasting too much time on everyone's random system that had no chance of winning.

DeluxeLiner · 03-13-10, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

If it used to work it he past, it won't going forward.

Isn't that the magic of RLM, that you are picking a side that few want (except for the big money)? Isn't it involving considerable line evaluation?

Peregrine Stoop · 03-13-10, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Peeig

If Justin can get this forum cleaned up, it would be a service to all of us

not sure I agree with this. It's good to have a high level of noise so that the good signals do not get spoon-fed to those not willing to put in some work.

MrX · 03-13-10, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Peregrine Stoop

not sure I agree with this. It's good to have a high level of noise so that the good signals do not get spoon-fed to those not willing to put in some work.

Yeah, that's kinda what I was thinking, too. It's not like this subforum is so active that it take too much time to look through.

And, as Peep pointed out, it's a good exercise to think about the shortcomings of bad ideas. Personally, I like seeing the whole range of ideas from laughably bad to valuable (well, not too valuable, of course).

Peeig · 03-13-10, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by MrX

Yeah, that's kinda what I was thinking, too. It's not like this subforum is so active that it take too much time to look through.

And, as Peep pointed out, it's a good exercise to think about the shortcomings of bad ideas. Personally, I like seeing the whole range of ideas from laughably bad to valuable (well, not too valuable, of course).

haha....i guess you guys are right.....it takes some work/thought to sift through here and find the nuggets........and most people don't have the ability or want to do so

DukeJohn · 03-13-10, 09:41 PM

I believe there is much value in examining the "bad" systems. People come up with some ingenious insight and most is remarkably bad when it comes to actually making a profit. However, the road to the "bad" system usually is based on some sort of winning bias strategy. I do find it strange that some people believe nothing at all can come of a system of just betting whatever the line is. If someone posts their system and it shows a profit, sure their system may have inherent flaws that a seasoned prognosticator can easily spot and know time will correct the issue, however, sometimes there are gems scattered throughout that dark matter of thought.

Anyway, whatever, it doesn't matter to me, I already have my betting strategies and all of them came from SBR and most started with some of the most off the wall "systems"

Best of luck to ya all.

Peeig · 03-13-10, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by DukeJohn

I believe there is much value in examining the "bad" systems. People come up with some ingenious insight and most is remarkably bad when it comes to actually making a profit. However, the road to the "bad" system usually is based on some sort of winning bias strategy. I do find it strange that some people believe nothing at all can come of a system of just betting whatever the line is. If someone posts their system and it shows a profit, sure their system may have inherent flaws that a seasoned prognosticator can easily spot and know time will correct the issue, however, sometimes there are gems scattered throughout that dark matter of thought.

Anyway, whatever, it doesn't matter to me, I already have my betting strategies and all of them came from SBR and most started with some of the most off the wall "systems"

Best of luck to ya all.

You can learn a lot more from the people ripping apart the system.....they give you the reasons why the system blows..........which is valuable info

HedgeHog · 03-14-10, 06:32 PM

The idea of the think tank is to discuss the merits of various betting systems. Chase systems are crap but they deserve to be discussed because many buy into it. Same goes for most mechanical systems. Normally I agree with Justin, but this seems like censorship to me. As long as the OP seems sincere, the thread should be allowed IMO.