Wallco NHL GOLD (+453 units in 6 years)

[Ri¢h Bank$]

Kind of hoping danhimal can take the reigns for a while until I am ready. I will be here to answer questions, but can't fully run it just yet.

I would run it if I had the time and knew what I was doing exactly

[BigBo$$]

Is anyone here know the link for NBA chase110? Tnx in advance

[Wallco99]

Is anyone here know the link for NBA chase110? Tnx in advance

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/foru...ase-110-a.html

[BigBo$$]

Tnx a lot wallco so the NBA chase 110 2016- 2017 not yet started right? Tnx

[MrHappy]

Checking in

[Ri¢h Bank$]

Are there any plays for tomorrow ?

[19th Hole]

Checking In

[skyscrapers]

Are there any plays for tomorrow ?

Short answer is NO. The first THREE games of v1 doesn't count and the first TWO games of v2 doesn't count. That means potentially at the earliest we have to wait till after game 5 completes.

[Ri¢h Bank$]

Short answer is NO. The first THREE games of v1 doesn't count and the first TWO games of v2 doesn't count. That means potentially at the earliest we have to wait till after game 5 completes.

THANKS

[danhimal]

Kind of hoping danhimal can take the reigns for a while until I am ready. I will be here to answer questions, but can't fully run it just yet.

No problem, I got you covered.

[Wallco99]

Tnx a lot wallco so the NBA chase 110 2016- 2017 not yet started right? Tnx

I would have to say "NO", since the NBA season hasn't even started yet.

[MalikHusam]

Won 3 - Vacouver and TampaBay
Lost 3 - Carolina, LA
Lost 4 - Anaheim

all 5 teams play on Thursday

[RollinDo]

Won 3 - Vacouver and TampaBay
Lost 3 - Carolina, LA
Lost 4 - Anaheim

all 5 teams play on Thursday

What does this mean?
I am going to pick and choose some plays on this system this season to see how it goes.
Or do we play every pick? Seems like a solid, profitable system!

[Wallco99]

Won 3 - Vacouver and TampaBay
Lost 3 - Carolina, LA
Lost 4 - Anaheim

all 5 teams play on Thursday

Don't confuse people with these irrelevant posts. Danhimal, and ONLY Danhimal, will be posting the plays in my absence. Nothing listed in post #5437 is a play in this system. Apparently no one is reading the rules. I suggest you do so you understand system and not have to ask questions that are already answered. THE RULES ARE VERY SIMPLE TO READ.

[gadzooks]

What are the chances sports books have seen this system + thread and have adjusted their odds to make it less profitable?

[gadzooks]

Don't confuse people with these irrelevant posts. Danhimal, and ONLY Danhimal, will be posting the plays in my absence. Nothing listed in post #5437 is a play in this system. Apparently no one is reading the rules. I suggest you do so you understand system and not have to ask questions that are already answered. THE RULES ARE VERY SIMPLE TO READ.

Since this guy is consistently cryptic, I'll help you understand Malik: I believe the rules he's referring to is that for v1 you can't count the first 3 games of the season and for v2 you can't count the first 2 games of the season.

[RollinDo]

Just read the rules...not really the system for me - may be profitable, but not enjoyable betting against a team with a 3-game win streak...rather ride the team until they fall. On the flipside, teams that can't even cover the PL for 3 straight don't have an interest in betting because they probably SUCK!

Well, GL to all who follow this...no knocks here - just not my cup of Joe. Have a great season y'all.

[Wallco99]

What are the chances sports books have seen this system + thread and have adjusted their odds to make it less profitable?

63 to 1

[Wallco99]

There is nothing cryptic about clearly written rules that don't get read.

[Ri¢h Bank$]

63 to 1

[Ri¢h Bank$]

There is nothing cryptic about clearly written rules that don't get read.

He was talking more about how pleasant you always come across. He never associated your rules with being cryptic.

[Wallco99]

[Ri¢h Bank$]

I can send you some girls that are in to that sort of thing.
But you'll have to pay the fee

[gadzooks]

There is nothing cryptic about clearly written rules that don't get read.

By cryptic, I mean that instead of helping people who are trying out your lovely system for the first time and don't quite get it, you choose to snap at them condescendingly and accuse them of "confusing people" as if it were intentional.

Maybe you keep your mattress flipped upside-down so you always wake up on the wrong side of the bed, I don't know.

I had a few fair questions about your system and all I get from you are joke answers like "divine intervention" and "63-1". Yeah buddy, you're really funny. I don't know why you even posted this system since being helpful clearly isn't in your nature.

[Andy3568]

Wallco has spent hours backtesting this system, his NBA Chase 110 system, and probably a bunch of others that failed backtest. He doesn't have much patience for someone who doesn't bother to read the rules or look to see if their question has been answered already.

Click here for the rules.

[Stryder]

Stop asking stupid questions and expecting informational answers. GTFO if you can't handle being ignored for your ignorance.

[gadzooks]

Stop asking stupid questions and expecting informational answers. GTFO if you can't handle being ignored for your ignorance.

Gee, I feel honored that one of your 20 posts since early 2014 was spent here, proving yourself as an ass.

I don't see how the questions are stupid, when they are in fact important to know and can't be easily looked up. When someone's ignorant but takes time out of their day to try and be informed, that shows a good quality. If you feel they should be ignored, you're a pretentious prick.

I understand not wanting to re-iterate rules that have already been written, but goddamn, Walco spent more time writing up a paragraph of condescending criticism than it would have taken to just say "read the rules, you can't count the first games of the season". Probably has to do with ego.

Whatever, I don't expect my questions to be answered at this point. I'll find the info out one way or the other eventually, no thanks to the community in this thread.

[alexknyc]

Hi all, I'm fairly new to sports betting and I have a few questions after looking over this system and thread.

1) Wallco, how did you come up with this system? Or a more general question, how does anyone come up with a system like this? For example, for v1, did you just think to yourself "hmm perhaps it is profitable to bet against teams that have been on a 3 game winning streak because streaks aren't sustainable / players get tired" and then start testing it? Or is there more to it?

2) Is this system something of a perfect version, or could minor tweaks yield unknown (perhaps even more profitable) results? For example, adjusting v1 or v2 to look for winning / losing streaks of 2 or 4 rather than 3. Or adjusting the amount of games we chase a profit (from 3 to X). Or perhaps not counting a shootout win towards a win streak, just as a wacky example.

3) What are the chances sports books have seen this thread and are now adjusting their odds to make this system less profitable?

4) What are the chances there are very simple "systems" out there that are profitable? As some nutty examples that probably aren't profitable (but in my mind, could be): Betting on every underdog listed above +130 all season long, or betting on every team whose previous game was a shutout, or betting on every team whose previous game was a win as an underdog, etc.

Sorry if my questions are dumb, but again I'm new and I'm trying to get a grasp of how everything works. Thanks!

The questions aren't dumb but you're asking people to go back years and test your theories for you.

Do your own homework-- want to know if a system where you bet +130 underdogs is profitable? Do the work in researching it.

[HockeyKid97]

Bruins - canadians - lightning parlay tonight for big $$$$

[gadzooks]

The questions aren't dumb but you're asking people to go back years and test your theories for you.

Do your own homework-- want to know if a system where you bet +130 underdogs is profitable? Do the work in researching it.

I gave silly examples, and I thought I made it clear that's all they were: examples. I don't want them tested. Answers I was looking for, for question 4, was perhaps "it's very unlikely such simple systems are profitable" or "it's quite possible such simple systems can be profitable" preferably with a little reasoning.

I want to start "doing my own homework" and maybe try to create a profitable system, and that's the whole reason I asked these questions. I'm knew to this, and these are things I feel I need to know.

[alexknyc]

I gave silly examples, and I thought I made it clear that's all they were: examples. I don't want them tested. Answers I was looking for, for question 4, was perhaps "it's very unlikely such simple systems are profitable" or "it's quite possible such simple systems can be profitable" preferably with a little reasoning.

I want to start "doing my own homework" and maybe try to create a profitable system, and that's the whole reason I asked these questions. I'm knew to this, and these are things I feel I need to know.

If you really want to start doing your own homework, the question to have asked is "where can I find the information I'll need?"

[gadzooks]

If you really want to start doing your own homework, the question to have asked is "where can I find the information I'll need?"

You're right, silly me to think that a forum was the place to ask 4 simple questions with the expectation that someone might be helpful enough to offer brief answers. That would be absolutely ludicrous, just simply preposterous.

Fine, where can I find the information I'm looking for without combing through data banks?

[alexknyc]

You're right, silly me to think that a forum was the place to ask 4 simple questions with the expectation that someone might be helpful enough to offer brief answers. That would be absolutely ludicrous, just simply preposterous.

Fine, where can I find the information I'm looking for without combing through data banks?

Oh, you wanted brief answers? Here ya go:

1. No idea, never asked. Likely, it's the same way you thought of your questions.

2. Why don't you backtest it and see?

3. Zero

4. Why don't you backtest it and see?

Wallco tends to use scoresandodds.com, i'm partial to covers.com.

[gadzooks]

Oh, you wanted brief answers? Here ya go:

1. No idea, never asked. Likely, it's the same way you thought of your questions.

2. Why don't you backtest it and see?

3. Zero

4. Why don't you backtest it and see?

Wallco tends to use scoresandodds.com, i'm partial to covers.com.

Hey, thanks. By backtest I suppose you mean going through those sites and researching the history/odds of games?

Why is the answer to 3 zero? If I were a sportsbook and saw a published way to make money off my odds, I might consider adjusting them whenever that system declares a play. Do they just not do that kind of thing?

[alexknyc]

Hey, thanks. By backtest I suppose you mean going through those sites and researching the history/odds of games?

Why is the answer to 3 zero? If I were a sportsbook and saw a published way to make money off my odds, I might consider adjusting them whenever that system declares a play. Do they just not do that kind of thing?

There probably aren't enough people betting enough money to move the lines.

Some scam books sign you up through an affiliate and those who signed up that way get shittier odds on the games that affiliate has published.