View New Posts
12

Wanted to do a college football Pythagorean Expectation using yards rather than points. Came up with an exponent of 6.08 by taking average yards per point divided by the commonly used point exponenent of 2.37. Am I on the right track?

2. Originally Posted by murph69
Wanted to do a college football Pythagorean Expectation using yards rather than points. Came up with an exponent of 6.08 by taking average yards per point divided by the commonly used point exponenent of 2.37. Am I on the right track?
If the track is wasting your time with meaningless nonsense with no relevance to anything, then yes.

3. Originally Posted by murph69
Wanted to do a college football Pythagorean Expectation using yards rather than points. Came up with an exponent of 6.08 by taking average yards per point divided by the commonly used point exponenent of 2.37. Am I on the right track?
To find an exponent for Pyth you should get as much historical data as possible and run it through solver in Excel. Simply taking the exponent for points and doing a simple conversion to yards is not on the right track. You can back test this though. Grab a large sample and apply 6.08 exponent on a Pyth formula. See if you get consistent results.

BTP
Week 4
3-2-0 98 pts

BTP
Week 2
3-2-0 99 pts

4. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
If the track is wasting your time with meaningless nonsense with no relevance to anything, then yes.
I can tell by your attitude you are a very successful handicapper. Continued good luck.

5. Originally Posted by murph69
I can tell by your attitude you are a very successful handicapper. Continued good luck.
Lol. Someone who believes they can handicap with these worthless systems is funny. Nobody has ever created a system that wins games despite what you people buy into. Keep looking for the holy grail.

6. Wrong, lots of people "know" the system already. The problem is that it changes here and there, and books limit early in the week --- they clearly "mess up" (make an edge possible) early lines quite often.

7. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
Lol. Someone who believes they can handicap with these worthless systems is funny. Nobody has ever created a system that wins games despite what you people buy into. Keep looking for the holy grail.
Why are u here if u don't believe it's possible to handicap successfully?

8. Don't think Pythagorian yards is going to work for football. Consider that weaker teams yards count for less, as they will have more stalled drives and more 3 and outs, will be limited to field goals more often.

Additionally, you have to answer the more complex question of "How many yards should each team gain", which is the more important part of the equation.

But keep at it, no point in not trying

BTP
Week 6
4-1-0 353 pts

175 pts

3-QUESTION
SBR TRIVIA WINNER 10/09/2017

BTP
Week 4
4-1-0 225 pts

9. Originally Posted by Waterstpub87
Additionally, you have to answer the more complex question of "How many yards should each team gain", which is the more important part of the equation.
This is the key question. Let's say you can develop an excellent model that can actually predict final points based on yards gained. But if you can't accurately predict how many yards will be gained then you have nothing. Thar doesn't say that you don't try, it just says there are two projects. One is to build a good model and the other is how to predict the input data.

About a decade ago, I worked on a complex model based on linear regression of multiple statistics. The regression led me to a couple of interesting conclusions. First, the most important factor in a team's score is the number of opponent's turnovers (followed by their own). This is probably the most difficult factor to predict. Second, while rushing yards was a strong positive factor, passing yards was actually a negative. I surmised that teams behind tended to pass to catch up and thus accumulated more passing yards. Now this may have changed as passing has become more significant.

BTP
Week 6
4-1-0 351 pts

10. Originally Posted by murph69
Why are u here if u don't believe it's possible to handicap successfully?
I never said that. There has never been and never will be any "system" that has produced anything above any other regular bet win %. So why do people keep looking??? I can see young people who think that it is possible, but not anyone who knows gambling history. I was just busting your chops. You can do whatever you want but when you ask people to comment on it you can't be surprised when it gets laughed at.

Many factors go into winning, including luck. Bankroll management creates winning or losing money as well.

11. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
I never said that. There has never been and never will be any "system" that has produced anything above any other regular bet win %. So why do people keep looking??? I can see young people who think that it is possible, but not anyone who knows gambling history. I was just busting your chops. You can do whatever you want but when you ask people to comment on it you can't be surprised when it gets laughed at.

Many factors go into winning, including luck. Bankroll management creates winning or losing money as well.
What I was referring to isn't a, "system." It's math. Please share your winning formula.

12. Originally Posted by Bsims
This is the key question. Let's say you can develop an excellent model that can actually predict final points based on yards gained. But if you can't accurately predict how many yards will be gained then you have nothing. Thar doesn't say that you don't try, it just says there are two projects. One is to build a good model and the other is how to predict the input data.

About a decade ago, I worked on a complex model based on linear regression of multiple statistics. The regression led me to a couple of interesting conclusions. First, the most important factor in a team's score is the number of opponent's turnovers (followed by their own). This is probably the most difficult factor to predict. Second, while rushing yards was a strong positive factor, passing yards was actually a negative. I surmised that teams behind tended to pass to catch up and thus accumulated more passing yards. Now this may have changed as passing has become more significant.

I'm more interested in games that should be won based on previous yards gained, not guesstimating future yardage.

13. Originally Posted by murph69
What I was referring to isn't a, "system." It's math. Please share your winning formula.
Math has never led to winning picks. Millions have tried with zero success. Their is no winning formula. Every bet is different. I try to factor in numerous things but over analyzing is a death sentence. It is an activity that can't be analyzed to death. The most successful gamblers ever, like Walters, win no higher a % than anyone else. Their bankroll allows them to chase and win money where normal people can't lose a large amount. What helps you win 1 game will cause you to lose the next game. Suppose I think one team has the emotional advantage and has to win a game. Sometimes that can be a good thing to bet on when the other team is mailing it in. But how many times do we see teams with everything to play come out flat and the other team plays loosy goosy and kills them???

There is no winning formula. The biggest key to winning is self control. Thinking you should hammer 1 game and bet more than another is insane. Chasing losses in insane. Feeling the need to bet on alot of games is insane. It took me quite a while to break out of that behavior. Math has nothing to do with gambling. Yards gained can be something to look at but it is just like all other variables. It is prone to being misleading due to the varying factors in games. Some teams get up early and go into a prevent defense. It looks like the trailing team has gained alot of yardage when in fact the winning team is trading time for yardage.

If you need that explained to you you shouldn't be gambling.

14. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
1. Math has never led to winning picks.
2.Millions have tried with zero success.
3.Their is no winning formula.
4. The biggest key to winning is self control.
5. Thinking you should hammer 1 game and bet more than another is insane.
6. Chasing losses in insane.
7. Math has nothing to do with gambling.
8. If you need that explained to you you shouldn't be gambling.
You made some interesting statements. I hope I tend to keep my posts to things I know and leave my opinions and judgements out, but I'll make an exception here.

You state 1 and 2 as facts. That may be true, but there isn't evidence of this. The same applies to number 3. What I do know about 3 is that I've worked hard at this for decades and haven't found it. I totally agree with items 4, 5, and 6. Item 7 shocks me. Casinos are built on the math of gambling. Item 8 should probably apply to all of us.

BTP
Week 6
4-1-0 351 pts

15. Originally Posted by Bsims
This is the key question. Let's say you can develop an excellent model that can actually predict final points based on yards gained. But if you can't accurately predict how many yards will be gained then you have nothing. Thar doesn't say that you don't try, it just says there are two projects. One is to build a good model and the other is how to predict the input data.
About a decade ago, I worked on a complex model based on linear regression of multiple statistics. The regression led me to a couple of interesting conclusions. First, the most important factor in a team's score is the number of opponent's turnovers (followed by their own). This is probably the most difficult factor to predict. Second, while rushing yards was a strong positive factor, passing yards was actually a negative. I surmised that teams behind tended to pass to catch up and thus accumulated more passing yards. Now this may have changed as passing has become more significant.

Nice post

16. Originally Posted by Bsims
You made some interesting statements. I hope I tend to keep my posts to things I know and leave my opinions and judgements out, but I'll make an exception here.

You state 1 and 2 as facts. That may be true, but there isn't evidence of this. The same applies to number 3. What I do know about 3 is that I've worked hard at this for decades and haven't found it. I totally agree with items 4, 5, and 6. Item 7 shocks me. Casinos are built on the math of gambling. Item 8 should probably apply to all of us.
I think you are confused. If you claim that math has ever shown any long term success in sports gambling, you have the burden to prove that, which you can't because it never has. The reason it is fact is because countless people have tried using math in sports betting and not one has been successful. If there was one everyone would be using it including both of us.

You are being intellectually dishonest. You know I was talking about sports betting when I meant math has nothing to do with sports handicapping. Obviously casinos do. I didn't know I had to say that since everyone knows it. The 2 things are totally different. Please list all of the math based systems that have created any obvious long term win percentages above the norm.

17. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
Math has never led to winning picks. Millions have tried with zero success. Their is no winning formula. Every bet is different. I try to factor in numerous things but over analyzing is a death sentence. It is an activity that can't be analyzed to death. The most successful gamblers ever, like Walters, win no higher a % than anyone else. Their bankroll allows them to chase and win money where normal people can't lose a large amount. What helps you win 1 game will cause you to lose the next game. Suppose I think one team has the emotional advantage and has to win a game. Sometimes that can be a good thing to bet on when the other team is mailing it in. But how many times do we see teams with everything to play come out flat and the other team plays loosy goosy and kills them???

There is no winning formula. The biggest key to winning is self control. Thinking you should hammer 1 game and bet more than another is insane. Chasing losses in insane. Feeling the need to bet on alot of games is insane. It took me quite a while to break out of that behavior. Math has nothing to do with gambling. Yards gained can be something to look at but it is just like all other variables. It is prone to being misleading due to the varying factors in games. Some teams get up early and go into a prevent defense. It looks like the trailing team has gained alot of yardage when in fact the winning team is trading time for yardage.

If you need that explained to you you shouldn't be gambling.
So on one hand successful gamblers win because they have big enough bankrolls to chase, but on the other hand chasing losses is crazy. Thanks for the insight.

18. Originally Posted by Bsims
You made some interesting statements. I hope I tend to keep my posts to things I know and leave my opinions and judgements out, but I'll make an exception here.

You state 1 and 2 as facts. That may be true, but there isn't evidence of this. The same applies to number 3. What I do know about 3 is that I've worked hard at this for decades and haven't found it. I totally agree with items 4, 5, and 6. Item 7 shocks me. Casinos are built on the math of gambling. Item 8 should probably apply to all of us.
again

Where maggie gets out of wack here is that he realizes some sound things (as B points out above) but is far too adamant about other things he doesn't, or maybe even can't, know about. The only thing that can be said is that no system (frozen in time) can win --- LONG TERM. Too many adaptive players, including the book who has already 10% vig on you. As I said before, math has found out sides and most totals, and pretty much everyone knows it. So maggie is a victim of a weird paradox, but doesn't even know it.

I beat other bets (not sides and totals) that I can get much higher ROI on than the sides and totals (for NFL for example) which again, have been found out and are, long term, losing bets with that 10% vig. Short term though, you can always have an angle --- but likely a lot less volume [number of plays].

19. Originally Posted by murph69
So on one hand successful gamblers win because they have big enough bankrolls to chase, but on the other hand chasing losses is crazy. Thanks for the insight.
What a dumb fuuckkk you are. It says in what YOU quoted that high rollers can do it because they have endless money. Normal people can't. Are you retarded or something???

20. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
What a dumb fuuckkk you are. It says in what YOU quoted that high rollers can do it because they have endless money. Normal people can't. Are you retarded or something???
So only high rollers win. Got it. LOL. Again, why are you here other than to be an a\$\$?

21. Originally Posted by StackinGreen
again

Where maggie gets out of wack here is that he realizes some sound things (as B points out above) but is far too adamant about other things he doesn't, or maybe even can't, know about. The only thing that can be said is that no system (frozen in time) can win --- LONG TERM. Too many adaptive players, including the book who has already 10% vig on you. As I said before, math has found out sides and most totals, and pretty much everyone knows it. So maggie is a victim of a weird paradox, but doesn't even know it.

I beat other bets (not sides and totals) that I can get much higher ROI on than the sides and totals (for NFL for example) which again, have been found out and are, long term, losing bets with that 10% vig. Short term though, you can always have an angle --- but likely a lot less volume [number of plays].
Are you kidding??? Short term angles??? What angles??? How many bets is short term?? You know when to stop using them???? Short term success is usually random with luck being the main factor. Nothing is an angle that doesn't produce long term results. Please show me all the success you have had with your short term angle system.

22. Originally Posted by murph69
So only high rollers win. Got it. LOL. Again, why are you here other than to be an a\$\$?
So you completely don't read my post and try to catch me up in something I actually made crystal clear IN WHAT YOU QUOTED, and I am the bad guy. You sound like a chick.

What is wrong with you. Two posts in a row you distort what I said. I never said high rollers only win. I said they can chase losses and end up winning because they can take big financial hits normal people can't. You can't argue with that 1st grade logic so you make it look like I said something I didn't. You're pathetic. You are a liar or you don't have 1st grade level reading comprehension. I will let you decide.

23. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
So you completely don't read my post and try to catch me up in something I actually made crystal clear IN WHAT YOU QUOTED, and I am the bad guy. You sound like a chick.

What is wrong with you. Two posts in a row you distort what I said. I never said high rollers only win. I said they can chase losses and end up winning because they can take big financial hits normal people can't. You can't argue with that 1st grade logic so you make it look like I said something I didn't. You're pathetic.
No, you're an idiot and an a\$\$hole. You clearly said high rollers win because they can afford to chase while at the same time saying chasing losses is,"inane." I realize you have little man syndrome and need to feel superior, but if you have anything constructive to say we'd all love to hear it.

24. Originally Posted by murph69
No, you're an idiot and an a\$\$hole. You clearly said high rollers win because they can afford to chase while at the same time saying chasing losses is,"inane." I realize you have little man syndrome and need to feel superior, but if you have anything constructive to say we'd all love to hear it.
I love it. Repeating the same lies over and over. It's all in the posts dude. Anybody who reads it knows you are are a pathological liar or a retard that can't understand English. The funniest part of all is you quote me as saying chasing losses is 'inane' when if you read my post it clearly says 'insane'. You do realize that when you quote someone it should be somewhat accurate of what they actually said, right??? Thanks for helping me prove what a loser you are. I really didn't have to do much. Just let you post.

25. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
I love it. Repeating the same lies over and over. It's all in the posts dude. Anybody who reads it knows you are are a pathological liar or a retard that can't understand English. The funniest part of all is you quote me as saying chasing losses is 'inane' when if you read my post it clearly says 'insane'. You do realize that when you quote someone it should be somewhat accurate of what they actually said, right??? Thanks for helping me prove what a loser you are. I really didn't have to do much. Just let you post.
You really need professional help. You are a pathological liar with anger issues.

26. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
If you claim that math has ever shown any long term success in sports gambling, you have the burden to prove that, which you can't because it never has. The reason it is fact is because countless people have tried using math in sports betting and not one has been successful. If there was one everyone would be using it including both of us.
With all due respect, I disagree with this. My objection is the use of the word never. You can't possibly know that no one has developed a system based on math that is profitable. If they did they wouldn't have any incentive to publish it.

I've worked on analysis for decades and know how futile it is. In fact I have only found one that makes a profit year after year. But the only way I could prove it would be to post the concept and give away the programs and data. That's not going to happen. It's going to the grave with me.

I'm currently working on another system and will do so for football. My guess is that will good but will fall short. Even knowing this, I will make an enormous effort because programming and analyzing data is fun for me. (And my wife will love the car I buy with this year's winnings.)

I'm not interested in getting in an insulting back and forth, just respectfully disagree with you. Peace brother.

BTP
Week 6
4-1-0 351 pts

27. Originally Posted by Bsims
With all due respect, I disagree with this. My objection is the use of the word never. You can't possibly know that no one has developed a system based on math that is profitable. If they did they wouldn't have any incentive to publish it.
Plenty of people have, and yes, they absolutely won't be publishing it, or even sharing their picks.

Now, getting rich off it ......... that's a whole different ball game. Most successful model (a better word than "system", which historically implies no-edge silliness like martingale) players struggle to get their money down, and can make a living, but it's basically just a decent normal wage for a professional. That's a full working day preparing data, placing the bets, and then research like reading the latest machine learning papers, building new models etc etc.

How can I say that with certainty? Because I've just described myself, and a few acquaintances.

Those making big money? They're chasing tiny edges on very high liquidity, low juice markets, like soccer. If you can find 1k bets a month, put down 5k on each, and make 1% RoI, that's 50k a month income. You'd need a bankroll in low 7 figures to absorb the swings with that though.
Points Awarded:
 KVB gave HeeeHAWWWW 5 Betpoint(s) for this post.

28. Originally Posted by Bsims
With all due respect, I disagree with this. My objection is the use of the word never. You can't possibly know that no one has developed a system based on math that is profitable. If they did they wouldn't have any incentive to publish it.

I've worked on analysis for decades and know how futile it is. In fact I have only found one that makes a profit year after year. But the only way I could prove it would be to post the concept and give away the programs and data. That's not going to happen. It's going to the grave with me.

I'm currently working on another system and will do so for football. My guess is that will good but will fall short. Even knowing this, I will make an enormous effort because programming and analyzing data is fun for me. (And my wife will love the car I buy with this year's winnings.)

I'm not interested in getting in an insulting back and forth, just respectfully disagree with you. Peace brother.
I have no problem with you. You aren't a pathological liar.
You must see the inherent problem with several people saying these systems exist but nobody is willing to show it. I have no reason not to trust you but you are a man on the internet making what I believe is an outrageous claim with not a shred of proof. Am I just supposed to believe it??? I have been betting on sports for 40 yrs and have seen countless failed systems and not 1 successful one. That is why I said you have the burden of proof.

29. Originally Posted by HeeeHAWWWW
Plenty of people have, and yes, they absolutely won't be publishing it, or even sharing their picks.

Now, getting rich off it ......... that's a whole different ball game. Most successful model (a better word than "system", which historically implies no-edge silliness like martingale) players struggle to get their money down, and can make a living, but it's basically just a decent normal wage for a professional. That's a full working day preparing data, placing the bets, and then research like reading the latest machine learning papers, building new models etc etc.

How can I say that with certainty? Because I've just described myself, and a few acquaintances.

Those making big money? They're chasing tiny edges on very high liquidity, low juice markets, like soccer. If you can find 1k bets a month, put down 5k on each, and make 1% RoI, that's 50k a month income. You'd need a bankroll in low 7 figures to absorb the swings with that though.
How many people on SBR have a 7 figure bankroll??? That is exactly what I said. I just don't think you can call it a system when the entire system is dependent on being a millionaire. Being a millionaire IS the system. That is the only reason Billy Walters has ever made a penny gambling. All he does is chase losses. Is that a system as well????

30. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
How many people on SBR have a 7 figure bankroll??? That is exactly what I said. I just don't think you can call it a system when the entire system is dependent on being a millionaire. Being a millionaire IS the system. That is the only reason Billy Walters has ever made a penny gambling. All he does is chase losses. Is that a system as well????
He is saying, to earn 50k a month, you would need a 7 figure bankroll. To earn 5 dollars a month, you would need a bankroll of 1,000. You would still be a winning gambler.

BTP
Week 6
4-1-0 353 pts

175 pts

3-QUESTION
SBR TRIVIA WINNER 10/09/2017

BTP
Week 4
4-1-0 225 pts

31. Originally Posted by Waterstpub87
He is saying, to earn 50k a month, you would need a 7 figure bankroll. To earn 5 dollars a month, you would need a bankroll of 1,000. You would still be a winning gambler.
That is an estimate based on an optimistic outlook. You still need a lot of money to make any money and there is just a good chance you will lose your ass. It is not a guarantee. Nothing is. Hits and losses can't be calculated. You could just as easily lose as win. No lines, even soccer, can produce calculated wins. Every fluctuation cannot be measured for a given time frame.

32. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
That is an estimate based on an optimistic outlook. You still need a lot of money to make any money and there is just a good chance you will lose your ass. It is not a guarantee. Nothing is. Hits and losses can't be calculated. You could just as easily lose as win. No lines, even soccer, can produce calculated wins. Every fluctuation cannot be measured for a given time frame.
Nothing is guaranteed. The S&P 500 could drop to 0 at one point, the US government could default on treasury bonds, Ect Ect.

Please tell me which of the following statements you disagree with:

1. Closing Lines represent an accurate prediction of game results in large markets

2. Opening lines are often far apart enough from closing lines to generate profits based on implied probability, using the opener as your bet, and the closer as its true odds.

3. It is possible to build a formula using data to predict a better line than the opener

If you disagree only with 3, why do you think the lines move? If it is because of "sharp" action, you really think those people don't run math models, but instead just intuitively know which game to bet on?

All you need to do to make lots of money with a small bankroll is to know how to bet well enough to break even, and take advantage of bonuses. Additionally, consider if you make 10\$ a month on 1000, you would return over 12% a year, dominating the stock market and other investments. After 20 years, adding no money in, you would have over 10,000.

BTP
Week 6
4-1-0 353 pts

175 pts

3-QUESTION
SBR TRIVIA WINNER 10/09/2017

BTP
Week 4
4-1-0 225 pts

33. Originally Posted by Waterstpub87
Nothing is guaranteed. The S&P 500 could drop to 0 at one point, the US government could default on treasury bonds, Ect Ect.

Please tell me which of the following statements you disagree with:

1. Closing Lines represent an accurate prediction of game results in large markets

2. Opening lines are often far apart enough from closing lines to generate profits based on implied probability, using the opener as your bet, and the closer as its true odds.

3. It is possible to build a formula using data to predict a better line than the opener

If you disagree only with 3, why do you think the lines move? If it is because of "sharp" action, you really think those people don't run math models, but instead just intuitively know which game to bet on?

All you need to do to make lots of money with a small bankroll is to know how to bet well enough to break even, and take advantage of bonuses. Additionally, consider if you make 10\$ a month on 1000, you would return over 12% a year, dominating the stock market and other investments. After 20 years, adding no money in, you would have over 10,000.
I am saying the risk of losing \$1000 dollars is not worth the optimistic \$10 dollars you might win. All it takes is a couple uncontrollable variables and you lose. I don't see that as an advantage at all. You can call it a system if you want.

I disagree with everything. Opening lines are made as a 50/50 goal of action on the game.. The final line is a direct result of where the money is bet to maintain the closest even amount bet on each bet. They do have an uncanny way of being close but books have no concern of predicting any outcome. The only outcome they care about is getting even money on both sides. If they have to radically modify the line to do so they will with no concern that it predicts any outcome.

The idea of so called sharps winning or knowing when to bet is ridiculous. They win no more % of their bets than anyone else. The only thing thing whales do is change the line to get even action on the game. Billy Walter would put a ton of money down just to move a line where he wanted it. He has a horrible win %. He just makes larger bets til he wins one and everyone thinks he knows something nobody else knows. With all due respect, it seems like you have inaccurate view of sports betting in general.

34. Originally Posted by maggiethebestdog
I am saying the risk of losing \$1000 dollars is not worth the optimistic \$10 dollars you might win. All it takes is a couple uncontrollable variables and you lose. I don't see that as an advantage at all. You can call it a system if you want.

I disagree with everything. Opening lines are made as a 50/50 goal of action on the game.. The final line is a direct result of where the money is bet to maintain the closest even amount bet on each bet. They do have an uncanny way of being close but books have no concern of predicting any outcome. The only outcome they care about is getting even money on both sides. If they have to radically modify the line to do so they will with no concern that it predicts any outcome.

The idea of so called sharps winning or knowing when to bet is ridiculous. They win no more % of their bets than anyone else. The only thing thing whales do is change the line to get even action on the game. Billy Walter would put a ton of money down just to move a line where he wanted it. He has a horrible win %. He just makes larger bets til he wins one and everyone thinks he knows something nobody else knows. With all due respect, it seems like you have inaccurate view of sports betting in general.
Looks like we are too far apart to go any further, good luck with betting large till you hit one.

I would encourage you to look at how much money you would make by taking the right side of opening lines that move significantly till the close. Test it in any major sport.

BTP
Week 6
4-1-0 353 pts

175 pts

3-QUESTION
SBR TRIVIA WINNER 10/09/2017

BTP
Week 4
4-1-0 225 pts

35. Originally Posted by Waterstpub87
Looks like we are too far apart to go any further, good luck with betting large till you hit one.

I would encourage you to look at how much money you would make by taking the right side of opening lines that move significantly till the close. Test it in any major sport.
You don't think I have tried that 1000 times??? No higher win %. Works great on some games and flops on just as many. I certainly don't bet like Billy Walters. Just explaining he will dump a lot just to get the line he wants. That doesn't mean he knows something.

I hope you win this year. Although I don't think any system can win overall, I hope you prove me wrong.

12 Last
Top