[Wallco99]

Oh ok my bad. I thought as long as they keep winning you kept fading so basically making more units in same series.

Thanks for the explanation!

One win - Series over.
Three losses - Series over.

[WILLIE]

Three losses - Series over.

What you talking 'bout Willis? Hush your mouth...lol

[Wallco99]

Wallco NBA Chase 110
2011-12 System to date: 46-2 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +8.71 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 2 (-5.13 units)

(3/9/12):
#50 N.Y. Knicks (M/L) (A) - Loss

v1 Plays
(A) 28-22
(B) 9-12
(C) 6-5
(D) 3-2

V2 Plays
In production


Games for (3/10/12):
#49 Houston (M/L) @ New Jersey (C) (8:05 pm EST)
#50 Resumes (B) on 3/11/12


We will ALWAYS play the M/L on favorites and the point spread (-110) on dogs. There is no point buying in this system, with one exception, if your team is the favorite, and buying down to a zero point spread is cheaper than playing the M/L, then by all means, buy the points, otherwise, M/L on all favorites and point spread on dogs. All results will be based on this principle. All lines and standings are based on FINAL lines from ScoresandOdds.com/. If one of the teams we are playing switches from a favorite to a dog, after my initial post, make sure you get the appropriate line if it differs from what I have posted. The wins and losses will be based on who is the dog team, and who is the favorite on ScoresandOdds.com/ final lines. I will try to update my post as often as I can throughout the day, if the lines change, but it is the individual bettor’s responsibility to get the appropriate line if it differs from my post. On occasion, we will have plays that go head-head. The system will grade ALL bets, regardless of opponents, how you wish to play these games is your choice.

[Wallco99]

Wallco NHL GOLD
2011-12 System to date: 172-7 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +61.31 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 4 (-6.00 units)

v1 Plays
(A) 73-58
(B) 42-13
(C) 8-5
Losses: OTT (-10.96 u), EDM (-14.96 u), DET (-22.03 u), MIN (-15.02 u), PHO (-9.61 u)

v2 Plays
(A) 35-17
(B) 6-10
(C) 8-2
Losses: MON (-18.60 u), DET (-19.51 u)


Games for (3/10/12):
#179 Columbus @ St. Louis (M/L) (B) (8:05 pm EST)
#180 Philadelphia @ Toronto (+1½) (B) (7:05 pm EST)
#181 San Jose (M/L) @ Phoenix v2 (B) (8:05 pm EST)
#182 Anaheim (+1½) @ Dallas (B) (8:05 pm EST)
#184 Columbus (+1½) @ St. Louis (A) (8:05 pm EST)


Do not place any wagers on teams unless you are sure your team is the dog or favorite. You may be overpaying for a loss if you play the P/L and should have been on the M/L, or lose a game that you would have won had you been on the (+1½) instead of the M/L. We will always play the M/L on favorites and (-110) games, and always play the (+1½) if the team we are betting on is a dog. ALL results will be based on this principle. If it is a close line game, you may want to wait til closer to game time to place your wager so you know whether or not we are on the (+1½) or the (M/L). All lines and standings are based on FINAL lines from ScoresandOdds.com/. If one of the teams we are playing switches from a favorite to a dog, or vice versa, after my initial post, make sure you get the appropriate line if it differs from what I have posted. The wins and losses will be based on who is the dog team on ScoresandOdds.com/ final lines.
System rules & backtest can be found in posts #1 and #2.

[Cutler'sThumb]

Hey Wallco, I'm really agonizing over whether or not to jump on board for the last 25% or so of the season. I figure that 1 more loss will still allow me to make a little coin, 2 losses will break me out around even, and 3 or more will mean a loss. I think I know the answer, but has there been any rhyme or reason to the loss distribution in years past? It's obviously my decision either way, but if you have any insight it would be appreciated. Either way, your work is very much appreciated, and I can't wait till next season.

[Wallco99]

Hey Wallco, I'm really agonizing over whether or not to jump on board for the last 25% or so of the season. I figure that 1 more loss will still allow me to make a little coin, 2 losses will break me out around even, and 3 or more will mean a loss. I think I know the answer, but has there been any rhyme or reason to the loss distribution in years past? It's obviously my decision either way, but if you have any insight it would be appreciated. Either way, your work is very much appreciated, and I can't wait till next season.

No pattern whatsoever, I probably would wait til next year if I were you.

[Nino7]

it doesnt make sense to wait.Seasons are just virtual limits,all the plays tail each other whatever summer break or spring break there is.jump in!

[Wallco99]

it doesnt make sense to wait.Seasons are just virtual limits,all the plays tail each other whatever summer break or spring break there is.jump in!

I don't agree, but it doesn't matter.

[GGPLAYER]

Hou line has jumped from -3.5 to -6! ML is now around -240

[tbs24]

So, I've been following this forum for a few months, and let me say that Wallco is amazing for keeping this up.

Now, I have some thoughts on the system. Please don't jump out and thrash me (I've seen others make suggestions and get criticized for challenging Wallco). I'm not challenging Wallco - he does know what he's doing, obviously. Just some thoughts:

This system is easy, it makes sense, and its intuitive. The only real problem is the exponential loss in units one gets as the 3 game chase goes one. If you loose a C game, you could wash away a month's worth of profit easily. There isn't really a way to get rid of that, but I think we can tilt the calculations more in our favor. The current system calls for a one unit 3 game chase. However, with every extra game the risk exponentially increases, but the payoff remains constant. With every extra game why not increase the units you aim to win to counter-balance the increased risk?

I did a simple model, assuming many constraints. The main assumption is that the line for each game is 1.5, which I made because we take more conservative bets in this system. The first excel sheet I post is the current system, under these constraints. And as Wallco noted in an earlier post, roughly 9 losses equals a loosing season.

Untitled.003.jpg

This next system is identical, except its a 3 game chase system where we're trying to win 1 additional unit for each game in the chase (i.e., A games = 1 unit win, B games = 2 unit win, and C games = 3 unit win).

Untitled.002.jpg

Notice how we just bought ourselves an extra 2 system losses. And it also makes it theoretically possible to win the season with a 2 game chase, which might be less scary for people with smaller bank rolls.

It becomes even more profitably using a linear multiple of 2.

Untitled.001.jpg

This is all theoretical right now, just wondering if others have had these ideas. I'm also not saying that a 1 or 2 unit increase is optimal, just throwing out an idea...

Wallco, I don't know if you can/want to send me your backtesting data, so I may fool around with it. We can also fool around with the data mores in the offseason, as long as you don't mind sharing it with me. Obviously, i'm not interesting in meddling with the system mid-season.

Also, all ya'll Wallco lovers... Please don't thrash me. I enjoy Wallco's work too, and this is not meant to be a critique or a slam or a challenge. I just feel Wallco is doing a lot of work to upkeep this system, and I just didn't want to keep on taking without trying see if the hive mind could help improve.

[Wallco99]

So, I've been following this forum for a few months, and let me say that Wallco is amazing for keeping this up.

Now, I have some thoughts on the system. Please don't jump out and thrash me (I've seen others make suggestions and get criticized for challenging Wallco). I'm not challenging Wallco - he does know what he's doing, obviously. Just some thoughts:

This system is easy, it makes sense, and its intuitive. The only real problem is the exponential loss in units one gets as the 3 game chase goes one. If you loose a C game, you could wash away a month's worth of profit easily. There isn't really a way to get rid of that, but I think we can tilt the calculations more in our favor. The current system calls for a one unit 3 game chase. However, with every extra game the risk exponentially increases, but the payoff remains constant. With every extra game why not increase the units you aim to win to counter-balance the increased risk?

I did a simple model, assuming many constraints. The main assumption is that the line for each game is 1.5, which I made because we take more conservative bets in this system. The first excel sheet I post is the current system, under these constraints. And as Wallco noted in an earlier post, roughly 9 losses equals a loosing season.

Untitled.003.jpg

This next system is identical, except its a 3 game chase system where we're trying to win 1 additional unit for each game in the chase (i.e., A games = 1 unit win, B games = 2 unit win, and C games = 3 unit win).

Untitled.002.jpg

Notice how we just bought ourselves an extra 2 system losses. And it also makes it theoretically possible to win the season with a 2 game chase, which might be less scary for people with smaller bank rolls.

It becomes even more profitably using a linear multiple of 2.

Untitled.001.jpg

This is all theoretical right now, just wondering if others have had these ideas. I'm also not saying that a 1 or 2 unit increase is optimal, just throwing out an idea...

Wallco, I don't know if you can/want to send me your backtesting data, so I may fool around with it. We can also fool around with the data mores in the offseason, as long as you don't mind sharing it with me. Obviously, i'm not interesting in meddling with the system mid-season.

Also, all ya'll Wallco lovers... Please don't thrash me. I enjoy Wallco's work too, and this is not meant to be a critique or a slam or a challenge. I just feel Wallco is doing a lot of work to upkeep this system, and I just didn't want to keep on taking without trying see if the hive mind could help improve.

My main critique is the same that I have with many others in this forum, and that is: LOSE has only one "o".

[tbs24]

I apologize. I remember you correcting that in a post a few days ago... But that one word, really isn't the meat of my arg. Why did you choose to keep the 1 unit win constant throughout the chase?

So can you pm me your data so I can backtest the idea?

[tbs24]

Also: "It becomes even more profitably using a linear multiple of 2" should be *profitable*.
And "... as the three game chase goes one" should be *on*
Sorry again

[Wallco99]

Thanks. But I am happy with it the way it is. More than +500 units in 6 1/2 years, I'll take it.

[WILLIE]

Thanks. But I am happy with it the way it is. More than +500 units in 6 1/2 years, I'll take it.

Oh com'on. Be a sport. Let's tweak this a tad and see if we can squeeze another 5-10 more units out of this bad boy a year.

[nrok2118]

Just placed my bets for tonight, and theres a lot of money on the table!

Getcha popcorn ready Gonna be a long night! BOL everyone!

[Cutler'sThumb]

I think I'll get on board, but just use $25 as a unit. That way I can get used to the system without too much exposure.

[tbs24]

Thanks. But I am happy with it the way it is. More than +500 units in 6 1/2 years, I'll take it.

Cool. No worries, and thank you for all your work here. I'm young, and less experienced with betting but do have a strong stats background. Is there a specific reason why you chose to keep the win at 1 units regardless of round? I'm not asking to challenge, I'm just wondering if I'm wasting my time with this idea.

Running some simulation models, with variable rate lines, I'm finding the optimal bet is weighted on the previous loss. Meaning, a B game should recapture the lost units from A, and also go after a win equal to the lost units. So if you lost 1.5 units on game A, then game B you try to win 3 units. I'm just a little excited over the idea, and don't know how to get my data to test it. The flaw, right now, is that assumes a constant win likelihood (based on the average of past seasons), which isn't accurate since win likelihood should be relative to the line.

The idea here is that because we always win the majority of A, B & C games, pure chasing doesn't acknowledge the increased likelihood on a win; and in doing so, the risks are being negatively skewed. The current system is dependent, but the sought win units remains independent, which is causing that massive C loss lag. If you think of this as a dynamic system, you need a lead to offset the lag. Think of it this way: your system produces at max 15 three game-straight losers a year. With that type of ratio, and proper weighting of sought wins, you could be rolling in it...

I'm sorry if you I'm annoying you with my longish posts. And I write this not to challenge, but more so out of respect. I respect what you've created here, which is why my ideas are fundamentally built upon yours. I promise this will be my last post, and I'll stop taking up your time.

Sincere thanks...

[Wallco99]

Cool. No worries, and thank you for all your work here. I'm young, and less experienced with betting but do have a strong stats background. Is there a specific reason why you chose to keep the win at 1 units regardless of round? I'm not asking to challenge, I'm just wondering if I'm wasting my time with this idea.

Running some simulation models, with variable rate lines, I'm finding the optimal bet is weighted on the previous loss. Meaning, a B game should recapture the lost units from A, and also go after a win equal to the lost units. So if you lost 1.5 units on game A, then game B you try to win 3 units. I'm just a little excited over the idea, and don't know how to get my data to test it. The flaw, right now, is that assumes a constant win likelihood (based on the average of past seasons), which isn't accurate since win likelihood should be relative to the line.

The idea here is that because we always win the majority of A, B & C games, pure chasing doesn't acknowledge the increased likelihood on a win; and in doing so, the risks are being negatively skewed. The current system is dependent, but the sought win units remains independent, which is causing that massive C loss lag. If you think of this as a dynamic system, you need a lead to offset the lag. Think of it this way: your system produces at max 15 three game-straight losers a year. With that type of ratio, and proper weighting of sought wins, you could be rolling in it...

I'm sorry if you I'm annoying you with my longish posts. And I write this not to challenge, but more so out of respect. I respect what you've created here, which is why my ideas are fundamentally built upon yours. I promise this will be my last post, and I'll stop taking up your time.

Sincere thanks...

Yes, because the average loss is 15-25 units. Risking to win 3 units (at a very very very conservative -150, -150, -150) would cost 44 units. This is a best case scenario, it's more like 60-70 units, especially if we are playing (+1 1/2). No matter what you do, when playing odds, will be the same win/loss unit ratio in a three game chase. As I said, I am content.

[WILLIE]

[QUOTE=tbs24;14080297]

Cool. No worries, and thank you for all your work here. I'm young, and less experienced with betting but do have a strong stats background. Is there a specific reason why you chose to keep the win at 1 units regardless of round? I'm not asking to challenge, I'm just wondering if I'm wasting my time with this idea.

Running some simulation models, with variable rate lines, I'm finding the optimal bet is weighted on the previous loss. Meaning, a B game should recapture the lost units from A, and also go after a win equal to the lost units. So if you lost 1.5 units on game A, then game B you try to win 3 units. I'm just a little excited over the idea, and don't know how to get my data to test it. The flaw, right now, is that assumes a constant win likelihood (based on the average of past seasons), which isn't accurate since win likelihood should be relative to the line.

The idea here is that because we always win the majority of A, B & C games, pure chasing doesn't acknowledge the increased likelihood on a win; and in doing so, the risks are being negatively skewed. The current system is dependent, but the sought win units remains independent, which is causing that massive C loss lag. If you think of this as a dynamic system, you need a lead to offset the lag. Think of it this way: your system produces at max 15 three game-straight losers a year. With that type of ratio, and proper weighting of sought wins, you could be rolling in it...

I'm sorry if you I'm annoying you with my longish posts. And I write this not to challenge, but more so out of respect. I respect what you've created here, which is why my ideas are fundamentally built upon yours. I promise this will be my last post, and I'll stop taking up your time.

Sincere thanks...

I can not speak for everyone else, but the way it is set up now, we will have already lost 1.5 to 2 units on an A (presuming -150 to -200 ) and lost 3.75 to 6 units on a B (@ -150 to -200) for a total of -5.25 to -8 units, so by the time we get to a C bet we will be risking 9.375 to 16 units (@-150 to -200) to win 1 unit. At this rate it would take 8 loses to wipe out our Bankroll and send us back to working for a living. Risky? Yes. But your way 2 C bets and you would be TOAST. Do you now understand?

[tbs24]

I can not speak for everyone else, but the way it is set up now, we will have already lost 1.5 to 2 units on an A (presuming -150 to -200 ) and lost 3.75 to 6 units on a B (@ -150 to -200) for a total of -5.25 to -8 units, so by the time we get to a C bet we will be risking 9.375 to 16 units (@-150 to -200) to win 1 unit. At this rate it would take 8 loses to wipe out our Bankroll and send us back to working for a living. Risky? Yes. But your way 2 C bets and you would be TOAST. Do you now understand?

Awesome. Thanks for the feedback, particularly Wallco. Totally understand why you don't want to change the system, I'm just talking about some of my own ideas that I may peruse separately.

I'm going to work on this over the summer, and backtest some of my ideas. Yes, the C losses will be much larger, but the B & C wins will be much larger too - namely, those larger B wins will help fight against the C losses. You'll have to adjust the unit size to compensate for the exponential rise. Willie, my idea (I believe) solves your problem - the problem your noting is exponential increased risk with no injection of benefits.

Anywho's Im out, thanks for the feedback. Best wishes!

[WILLIE]

Awesome. Thanks for the feedback, particularly Wallco. Totally understand why you don't want to change the system, I'm just talking about some of my own ideas that I may peruse separately.

I'm going to work on this over the summer, and backtest some of my ideas. Yes, the C losses will be much larger, but the B & C wins will be much larger too - namely, those larger B wins will help fight against the C losses. You'll have to adjust the unit size to compensate for the exponential rise. Willie, my idea (I believe) solves your problem - the problem your noting is exponential increased risk with no injection of benefits.

Anywho's Im out, thanks for the feedback. Best wishes!

It's that word 'IF' that keep[s coming up. What 'if' you had two C loses at the first of the year? 2 and done comes to mind. My favorite Quote, "Chance favors a prepared mind."

[nrok2118]

Empty netter sends Dallas fade to (C) against Minnesota. Nervous already


WOW, and I just realized that game could also be a v2 (C) bet with Minn. That could be the perfect storm to get raped

[Wallco99]

Empty netter sends Dallas fade to (C) against Minnesota. Nervous already


WOW, and I just realized that game could also be a v2 (C) bet with Minn. That could be the perfect storm to get raped

You gotta keep up. We won the Minnesota series already on 3/8/12. No C bet matchup to worry about. No rape to report!

[Wallco99]

Wallco NBA Chase 110
2011-12 System to date: 47-2 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +9.71 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 1 (-1.30 units)

(3/10/12):
#49 Houston (M/L) (C) - Win

v1 Plays
(A) 28-22
(B) 9-12
(C) 7-5
(D) 3-2

V2 Plays
In production


Games for (3/11/12):
#50 Philadelphia @ N.Y. Knicks (M/L) (B) (1:05 pm EST)


We will ALWAYS play the M/L on favorites and the point spread (-110) on dogs. There is no point buying in this system, with one exception, if your team is the favorite, and buying down to a zero point spread is cheaper than playing the M/L, then by all means, buy the points, otherwise, M/L on all favorites and point spread on dogs. All results will be based on this principle. All lines and standings are based on FINAL lines from ScoresandOdds.com/. If one of the teams we are playing switches from a favorite to a dog, after my initial post, make sure you get the appropriate line if it differs from what I have posted. The wins and losses will be based on who is the dog team, and who is the favorite on ScoresandOdds.com/ final lines. I will try to update my post as often as I can throughout the day, if the lines change, but it is the individual bettor’s responsibility to get the appropriate line if it differs from my post. On occasion, we will have plays that go head-head. The system will grade ALL bets, regardless of opponents, how you wish to play these games is your choice.

[Wallco99]

Wallco NHL GOLD
2011-12 System to date: 174-7 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +63.31 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 3 (-12.06 units)

(3/10/12):
#179 St. Louis (M/L) (B) - Win
#180 Toronto (+1½) (B) - Win
#181 San Jose (M/L) v2 (B) - Loss
#182 Anaheim (+1½) (B) - Loss
#184 Columbus (+1½) (A) - Loss

v1 Plays
(A) 73-59
(B) 44-14
(C) 8-5
Losses: OTT (-10.96 u), EDM (-14.96 u), DET (-22.03 u), MIN (-15.02 u), PHO (-9.61 u)

v2 Plays
(A) 35-17
(B) 6-11
(C) 8-2
Losses: MON (-18.60 u), DET (-19.51 u)


Games for (3/11/12):
#181 Resumes (C) on 3/12/12
#182 Resumes (C) on 3/13/12
#184 St. Louis @ Columbus (+1½) (B) (7:05 pm EST)
#185 Philadelphia (+1½) @ New Jersey (A) (8:05 pm EST)


Do not place any wagers on teams unless you are sure your team is the dog or favorite. You may be overpaying for a loss if you play the P/L and should have been on the M/L, or lose a game that you would have won had you been on the (+1½) instead of the M/L. We will always play the M/L on favorites and (-110) games, and always play the (+1½) if the team we are betting on is a dog. ALL results will be based on this principle. If it is a close line game, you may want to wait til closer to game time to place your wager so you know whether or not we are on the (+1½) or the (M/L). All lines and standings are based on FINAL lines from ScoresandOdds.com/. If one of the teams we are playing switches from a favorite to a dog, or vice versa, after my initial post, make sure you get the appropriate line if it differs from what I have posted. The wins and losses will be based on who is the dog team on ScoresandOdds.com/ final lines.
System rules & backtest can be found in posts #1 and #2.

[nrok2118]

You gotta keep up. We won the Minnesota series already on 3/8/12. No C bet matchup to worry about. No rape to report!

Thats weird. I marked it as a L on my spreadsheet but yeah it definitely won. At least I got to use the humping smileys!

[Wallco99]

Thats weird. I marked it as a L on my spreadsheet but yeah it definitely won. At least I got to use the humping smileys!

Yes, it was quite invigorating.

[Wallco99]

Wallco NBA Chase 110
2011-12 System to date: 47-2 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +9.71 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 1 (-4.52 units)

(3/11/12):
#50 N.Y. Knicks (M/L) (B) - Loss

v1 Plays
(A) 28-22
(B) 9-12
(C) 7-5
(D) 3-2

V2 Plays
In production


Games for (3/12/12):
#50 N.Y. Knicks (**) @ Chicago (C) (8:05 pm EST)

** Denotes line not available at time of post


We will ALWAYS play the M/L on favorites and the point spread (-110) on dogs. There is no point buying in this system, with one exception, if your team is the favorite, and buying down to a zero point spread is cheaper than playing the M/L, then by all means, buy the points, otherwise, M/L on all favorites and point spread on dogs. All results will be based on this principle. All lines and standings are based on FINAL lines from ScoresandOdds.com/. If one of the teams we are playing switches from a favorite to a dog, after my initial post, make sure you get the appropriate line if it differs from what I have posted. The wins and losses will be based on who is the dog team, and who is the favorite on ScoresandOdds.com/ final lines. I will try to update my post as often as I can throughout the day, if the lines change, but it is the individual bettor’s responsibility to get the appropriate line if it differs from my post. On occasion, we will have plays that go head-head. The system will grade ALL bets, regardless of opponents, how you wish to play these games is your choice.

[Wallco99]

Wallco NHL GOLD
2011-12 System to date: 175-7 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +64.31 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 3 (-13.21 units)

(3/11/12):
#184 Columbus (+1½) (B) - Win
#185 Philadelphia (+1½) (A) - Loss

v1 Plays
(A) 73-60
(B) 45-14
(C) 8-5
Losses: OTT (-10.96 u), EDM (-14.96 u), DET (-22.03 u), MIN (-15.02 u), PHO (-9.61 u)

v2 Plays
(A) 35-17
(B) 6-11
(C) 8-2
Losses: MON (-18.60 u), DET (-19.51 u)


Games for (3/12/12):
#181 San Jose (M/L) @ Edmonton v2 (C) (9:35 pm EST)
#182 Resumes (C) on 3/13/12
#185 Resumes (B) on 3/13/12


Do not place any wagers on teams unless you are sure your team is the dog or favorite. You may be overpaying for a loss if you play the P/L and should have been on the M/L, or lose a game that you would have won had you been on the (+1½) instead of the M/L. We will always play the M/L on favorites and (-110) games, and always play the (+1½) if the team we are betting on is a dog. ALL results will be based on this principle. If it is a close line game, you may want to wait til closer to game time to place your wager so you know whether or not we are on the (+1½) or the (M/L). All lines and standings are based on FINAL lines from ScoresandOdds.com/. If one of the teams we are playing switches from a favorite to a dog, or vice versa, after my initial post, make sure you get the appropriate line if it differs from what I have posted. The wins and losses will be based on who is the dog team on ScoresandOdds.com/ final lines.
System rules & backtest can be found in posts #1 and #2.

[KennyM10]

Wallco not sure if it was you but got something in my personal email from someone with a similar name. Trying to sell me some expensive system. Hopefully it was not you and this -300, +1.5, risk nine units to win one crap. But if it was please stop!

[Wallco99]

Wallco not sure if it was you but got something in my personal email from someone with a similar name. Trying to sell me some expensive system. Hopefully it was not you and this -300, +1.5, risk nine units to win one crap. But if it was please stop!

Not me bud, the only thing I'm selling is houses. What name is being used? Besides that, who are you, and how the hell would I know your personal email?

[Wallco99]

Wallco NBA Chase 110
2011-12 System to date: 48-2 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +10.71 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 0

(3/12/12):
#50 N.Y. Knicks (+8½) (C) - Win

v1 Plays
(A) 28-22
(B) 9-12
(C) 8-5
(D) 3-2

V2 Plays
In production


Games for (3/13/12):
#51 Washington @ Dallas (M/L) (A) (8:35 pm EDT)


We will ALWAYS play the M/L on favorites and the point spread (-110) on dogs. There is no point buying in this system, with one exception, if your team is the favorite, and buying down to a zero point spread is cheaper than playing the M/L, then by all means, buy the points, otherwise, M/L on all favorites and point spread on dogs. All results will be based on this principle. All lines and standings are based on FINAL lines from ScoresandOdds.com/. If one of the teams we are playing switches from a favorite to a dog, after my initial post, make sure you get the appropriate line if it differs from what I have posted. The wins and losses will be based on who is the dog team, and who is the favorite on ScoresandOdds.com/ final lines. I will try to update my post as often as I can throughout the day, if the lines change, but it is the individual bettor’s responsibility to get the appropriate line if it differs from my post. On occasion, we will have plays that go head-head. The system will grade ALL bets, regardless of opponents, how you wish to play these games is your choice.

[Hunner24]

Good win tonight Wallco. Loving this system so far (jumped on around Christmas). Big night tomorrow. Let's get it.

[Wallco99]

Wallco NHL GOLD
2011-12 System to date: 176-7 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +65.31 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 2 (-9.59 units)

(3/12/12):
#181 San Jose (M/L) v2 (C) - Win

v1 Plays
(A) 73-60
(B) 45-14
(C) 8-5
Losses: OTT (-10.96 u), EDM (-14.96 u), DET (-22.03 u), MIN (-15.02 u), PHO (-9.61 u)

v2 Plays
(A) 35-17
(B) 6-11
(C) 9-2
Losses: MON (-18.60 u), DET (-19.51 u)


Games for (3/13/12):
#182 Dallas @ Minnesota (+1½) (C) (8:05 pm EDT)
#185 New Jersey @ Philadelphia (M/L) (B) (7:05 pm EDT)
#186 San Jose (M/L) @ Calgary (A) (9:35 pm EDT)
#187 Washington @ N.Y. Islanders (+1½) (A) (7:05 pm EDT)


Do not place any wagers on teams unless you are sure your team is the dog or favorite. You may be overpaying for a loss if you play the P/L and should have been on the M/L, or lose a game that you would have won had you been on the (+1½) instead of the M/L. We will always play the M/L on favorites and (-110) games, and always play the (+1½) if the team we are betting on is a dog. ALL results will be based on this principle. If it is a close line game, you may want to wait til closer to game time to place your wager so you know whether or not we are on the (+1½) or the (M/L). All lines and standings are based on FINAL lines from ScoresandOdds.com/. If one of the teams we are playing switches from a favorite to a dog, or vice versa, after my initial post, make sure you get the appropriate line if it differs from what I have posted. The wins and losses will be based on who is the dog team on ScoresandOdds.com/ final lines.
System rules & backtest can be found in posts #1 and #2.