nba chase 12/13

[Akajason18]

Will follow for couple of days

[gamewinninglv]

Will follow for couple of days

Sometimes it will take more than couple of days til the system shows results.

[comala57]

Well I'm kinda new here so 3-0 and for me. Did not understand the system with betting both sides of Dallas game so knew which side to take based on the bad spot for Grizz. Miami was up like 32 with 6 min to go when I 1st posted so I figured we were "pretty safe' lol. Good winning boys!

It is a system chase. You are playing both teams until they cover the spread. Even head to head, you still bet both. For one wins like tonight, then if the other wins within the chase, there is no loss.

I know its a lot of pages but examples have been given to explain in more details.
Great night everyone and once again, thank you Stifler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stifler]

12.01.2013


S1

(A Bet) Sac fade: Miami -7 1,10u

S2

(A Bet) Atl fade: Washington +3 1,10u

S4

(A Bet) Mem fade: Dallas +2 1,10u
(A Bet) Dal fade: Memphis -2 1,10u
(A Bet) Sac fade: Miami -7 1,10u

records:
S1: W 39 | L 2 (+ 2,10 units)
S2: W 18 | L 0 (+18,00 units)
S3: W 10 | L 0 (+10,00 units)
S4: W 29 | L 0 (+30,00 units)

pending:
- S2 Bos fade, C Bet on 20.01.2013
- S2 Cle fade, B Bet on 22.01.2013
- S4 Dal fade, B Bet on 14.01.2013


________________________________________ ________________________________________ ____________

all rules and qualifying teams for every system can be found on post #1586

[o2matic]

Thanks again stif!

[Stifler]

13.01.2013

S1

(A Bet) SA fade: Minnesota +12,5 1,10u


________________________________________ ________________________________________ ___________

all rules and qualifying teams for every system can be found on post #1586

[dshaffe4]

Just a quick thought Stifler,

Im not sure if this has been discussed before or not, but it would be interesting to see the percentages of bets won on each A,B,C and D bet for each system. I got to thinking about this and thought I would share...

Lets say theoretically that each systems record is 100-0, resulting in 100 units won for each system...

For system S1,
A-bet covers 40 times out of 100 chases...
B-bet covers 35 times out of the remaining 60 chases...
C-bet covers 20 times out of the remaining 25 chases...
D-bet covers the last 5 remaining chases...

A-bet is responsible for covering the original chase 40% of the time
B-bet is responsible for covering the original chase 35% of the time
C-bet is responsible for covering the original chase 20% of the time
and D-bet is responsible for covering the original chase the remaining 5% of the time

Depending on the percentages that A-bet covers the original chase, if it is low enough like it is in my example, you could theoretically begin to skip A-bet all together and start the chase on B-bet wagering your normal 2.20 units to win 2 units. So now every cover through out the rest of the chase results in winning 2 units. In my example, B,C and D-bet are responsible for covering 60 of the remaining chases. 60*2 units = 120 units. A 20% higher ROI. Now this would definitely have to be back tested multiple years to prove its worth, but its food for thought. Just by looking at a few numbers, S4 seems to cover at a high rate on A-bet, so this system would probably not yield better results. Simple math shows that if A-bet covers less than 50%, then this way is more profitable.

Thanks, and appreciate the thread!

[Wallco99]

It is a system chase. You are playing both teams until they cover the spread. Even head to head, you still bet both. For one wins like tonight, then if the other wins within the chase, there is no loss.

I know its a lot of pages but examples have been given to explain in more details.
Great night everyone and once again, thank you Stifler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bad advice. If one is to play it that way, that's fine. But to suggest that is the proper way to do it to a newbie is bad advice. Playing both sides of a game with the same line is foolish, and NEVER profitable, even though several people in here do it because they can't keep accurate records. You will never win more, but can definitely lose more. How can that possibly be a good strategy?

[Stifler]

S1 1.Game: 339-294

2.Game: 163-131

3.Game: 86-45

4.Game: 32-13 S2 1.Game: 142-129 2.Game: 75-54 3.Game: 35-19 4.Game: 14-5 S3 1.Game: 82-59 2.Game: 37-22 3.Game: 12-10 4.Game: 8-2 S4 1.Game: 168-118 2.Game: 69-49 3.Game: 33-16 4.Game: 13-3

Im not sure if this has been discussed before or not, but it would be interesting to see the percentages of bets won on each A,B,C and D bet for each system. I got to thinking about this and thought I would share...

[R.P. McMurphy]

No worries this newbie may be new to this thread but not the game. I would NEVER bet both sides of a game regardless of the reasoning of any system. If you bet both sides at the same price then you can only lose with juice and might as well lay off. I just took the 1 side that I felt which was correct. That was Dallas obviously the spot was terrible for Memphis and a no brainer I felt. Other than that I like what I see in this thread and will continue to follow. Great work Stifler!

[comala57]

Bad advice. If one is to play it that way, that's fine. But to suggest that is the proper way to do it to a newbie is bad advice. Playing both sides of a game with the same line is foolish, and NEVER profitable, even though several people in here do it because they can't keep accurate records. You will never win more, but can definitely lose more. How can that possibly be a good strategy?

Sorry if I gave bad advice but this is what I understand of the system.
(A Bet) Mem fade: (Dallas +2 1,10u Win)
(A Bet) Dal fade: (Memphis -2 1,10u loss)
Then you have Dal fad B, C and D bets in the chase as normal. If Dal fade covers within those games you win 2 units, 1 for each series. Yes you could end up losing the Dal fade but that is the risk of any system series.

I am not wanting to be argumentative. Just read your post again and agree for a newbie to system betting.
Edited add my agreement to you post.

[Wallco99]

Sorry if I gave bad advice but this is what I understand of the system.
(A Bet) Mem fade: (Dallas +2 1,10u Win)
(A Bet) Dal fade: (Memphis -2 1,10u loss)
Then you have Dal fad B, C and D bets in the chase as normal. If Dal fade covers within those games you win 2 units, 1 for each series. Yes you could end up losing the Dal fade but that is the risk of any system series.

I am not wanting to be argumentative. Just read your post again and agree for a newbie to system betting.
Edited add my agreement to you post.

I may have come off a little strong, and by the end of my post, I was actually directing it at everybody, and not specifically you. I understand how you may have thought that wat the better way to do it, since someone every day seems to post that strategy as the proper way to play it, though completely illogical. The only reason anyone would play both sides is so they can remember what their next bet is for the one that loses. Simple solution, keep better notes.

[Huego]

Wallco is right. There's no benefit in playing both sides. There's only a downside: bigger loss if one of the chases ends up losing.

Personally, I've been playing both sides because my record keeping is horrible. I'm trying to improve my excel skills but at this point I'd rather play both sides and not risk losing out on a win due to a record keeping mistake.

[comala57]

Thanks for the input. I agree to an extent. Betting systems takes great discipline and picking the time to just make it a no bet is just that. Good words of wisdom at keeping a good tracking system to know where your picks stand.

[illisdre]

Minnesota.. What a headache of a game...

[Wallco99]

Wallco is right. There's no benefit in playing both sides. There's only a downside: bigger loss if one of the chases ends up losing.

Personally, I've been playing both sides because my record keeping is horrible. I'm trying to improve my excel skills but at this point I'd rather play both sides and not risk losing out on a win due to a record keeping mistake.

At least you're honest.

[samrock67]

Minnesota.. What a headache of a game...

They were in it the whole game then just blew it in the 4th. son of a B

[Fed_42420]

Just a quick thought Stifler,

Im not sure if this has been discussed before or not, but it would be interesting to see the percentages of bets won on each A,B,C and D bet for each system. I got to thinking about this and thought I would share...

Lets say theoretically that each systems record is 100-0, resulting in 100 units won for each system...

For system S1,
A-bet covers 40 times out of 100 chases...
B-bet covers 35 times out of the remaining 60 chases...
C-bet covers 20 times out of the remaining 25 chases...
D-bet covers the last 5 remaining chases...

A-bet is responsible for covering the original chase 40% of the time
B-bet is responsible for covering the original chase 35% of the time
C-bet is responsible for covering the original chase 20% of the time
and D-bet is responsible for covering the original chase the remaining 5% of the time

Depending on the percentages that A-bet covers the original chase, if it is low enough like it is in my example, you could theoretically begin to skip A-bet all together and start the chase on B-bet wagering your normal 2.20 units to win 2 units. So now every cover through out the rest of the chase results in winning 2 units. In my example, B,C and D-bet are responsible for covering 60 of the remaining chases. 60*2 units = 120 units. A 20% higher ROI. Now this would definitely have to be back tested multiple years to prove its worth, but its food for thought. Just by looking at a few numbers, S4 seems to cover at a high rate on A-bet, so this system would probably not yield better results. Simple math shows that if A-bet covers less than 50%, then this way is more profitable.

Thanks, and appreciate the thread!

Well if A bets covered less than 50% then the best thing to do would be to fade A bets not skip them , right

[CrazyCarl]

Well if A bets covered less than 50% then the best thing to do would be to fade A bets not skip them , right

Not unless they were 47% or less.

[Grinder12000]

HOWEVER. While its not rocket science knowing playing both sides is -EV. Look at the big picture. This system is up about 60+ units. Playing both sides you are maybe up only 58? So while is is a mistake to play both it's not a deal breaker.

Just sayin

[Wallco99]

HOWEVER. While its not rocket science knowing playing both sides is -EV. Look at the big picture. This system is up about 60+ units. Playing both sides you are maybe up only 58? So while is is a mistake to play both it's not a deal breaker.

Just sayin

I understand that, buy most players, including myself, are playing more than just this one system. Overlapping bets happen almost every day. All systems will take losses, and several of those losses will be on series that had one or more head to head games within the systems. The whole point of this sportsbetting past time is to make money. So why would anyone implement a strategy for any reason that acts on the contrary, even if it is only two units as you say. Although two units is $2 to some people, 2 units = $2000 to others. Three of my last four system losses had one skipped bet along the way. Each time I saved about .8 units, that's 2.4 units so far, and the season isn't half way over. Whether it is a large amount or not isn't really the issue, but rather the fact that it's more than $1 when it should be $0.

[Stifler]

13.01.2013

S1

(A Bet) SA fade: Minnesota +12,5 1,10u

records:
S1: W 39 | L 2 (+ 2,10 units)
S2: W 18 | L 0 (+18,00 units)
S3: W 10 | L 0 (+10,00 units)
S4: W 29 | L 0 (+30,00 units)

pending:
- S2 Bos fade, C Bet on 20.01.2013
- S2 Cle fade, B Bet on 22.01.2013
- S4 Dal fade, B Bet on 14.01.2013
- S1 SA fade, B Bet on 16.01.2013


________________________________________ ________________________________________ ____________

all rules and qualifying teams for every system can be found on post #1586

[SuperHappyTime]

Hi, new poster here. Looking to learn how to be patient and maybe earn some money on the side, so I'll be tagging along.
I find it interesting that head-to-head picks haven't ever been covered and put into rules before, so I'll give my two cents.
From the stats Stifler listed above, our worst System is #1, which fails ~2.05% of the time (13 D-Bet fails out of 633 trys), and fails 4.422% of the time if the A bet was a loser.
Playing 100 plays in a row (with 1 unit = $1), we earn about $97.95 off of each system play (98% Chance of Win), we lose ~$37.93 from losses ($-18.5/fail * 2.05 fails). Long Term this would be $60.02 per 100 plays.
If we skip the A Bet (which loses) and play Bets B, C, D, 100 plays (at $1 units) gives us $95.58 from wins and ~$36.53 from losses ($-8.26 * 4.422 fails) Long Term, about $59.05 per 100 plays.
I don't really want to do too much more math and want to get to the point, but if we were to extend to an E bet on the Skip-A Bet Strategy, we would probably don't end up closer to $60 per 100 plays (2 less fails = +$2, but our losses count for more).
Now what do I get from all of this?
When you decide to skip bets on conflicting systems, you aren't making a play on either system, so you will neither gain nor lose money.
However, from what I stated above, making plays tends to make us money.
And since we are trying to MAKE MONEY, I must ask:
Why are you skipping plays?
Disclaimer: I only tested this with System #1, because it has the highest failure rate. I did not do the following using any combination of the other systems, but I would assume the results still end up the same. (Also, Sorry for horrid formatting)

[Wallco99]

Hi, new poster here. Looking to learn how to be patient and maybe earn some money on the side, so I'll be tagging along.
I find it interesting that head-to-head picks haven't ever been covered and put into rules before, so I'll give my two cents.
From the stats Stifler listed above, our worst System is #1, which fails ~2.05% of the time (13 D-Bet fails out of 633 trys), and fails 4.422% of the time if the A bet was a loser.
Playing 100 plays in a row (with 1 unit = $1), we earn about $97.95 off of each system play (98% Chance of Win), we lose ~$37.93 from losses ($-18.5/fail * 2.05 fails). Long Term this would be $60.02 per 100 plays.
If we skip the A Bet (which loses) and play Bets B, C, D, 100 plays (at $1 units) gives us $95.58 from wins and ~$36.53 from losses ($-8.26 * 4.422 fails) Long Term, about $59.05 per 100 plays.
I don't really want to do too much more math and want to get to the point, but if we were to extend to an E bet on the Skip-A Bet Strategy, we would probably don't end up closer to $60 per 100 plays (2 less fails = +$2, but our losses count for more).
Now what do I get from all of this?
When you decide to skip bets on conflicting systems, you aren't making a play on either system, so you will neither gain nor lose money.
However, from what I stated above, making plays tends to make us money.
And since we are trying to MAKE MONEY, I must ask:
Why are you skipping plays?
Disclaimer: I only tested this with System #1, because it has the highest failure rate. I did not do the following using any combination of the other systems, but I would assume the results still end up the same. (Also, Sorry for horrid formatting)

Really not going to explain it again. Read the thread. Apparently you haven't or you wouldn't have made such an incorrect point. It's either that, or your math skills really need some work. Not to mention, in your second sentence you ask a question, however, the rest of your post, you are giving an example of something else.

[Grinder12000]

So basically your plan is to skip the canceling plays and play B,C,D,E as opposed to B,C,D. Correct? Yea, we have talked about that and personally I feel that is a personal choice.depends if you play 1 unit after the cancel or 2.1 It has not happened yet

[CrazyCarl]

When you decide to skip bets on conflicting systems, you aren't making a play on either system, so you will neither gain nor lose money.
However, from what I stated above, making plays tends to make us money.
And since we are trying to MAKE MONEY, I must ask:
Why are you skipping plays?

Because when you bet two sides of the same game, you lose money.

[Stifler]

14.01.2013

S2

(A Bet) Orl: Orlando - waiting on line movement
(A Bet) Utah: Utah - waiting on line movement

S4

(B Bet) Dal fade: Memphis -2 1,10u | Minnesota - waiting on line movement


________________________________________ ________________________________________

all rules and qualifying teams for every system can be found on post #1586

[pazim]

14.01.2013

S2

(A Bet) Orl: Orlando - waiting on line movement
(A Bet) Utah: Utah - waiting on line movement

S4

(B Bet) Dal fade: Memphis -2 1,10u | Minnesota - waiting on line movement


________________________________________ ________________________________________

all rules and qualifying teams for every system can be found on post #1586

I think Orlanda has a letdown game today after beating clippers.

[Grinder12000]

I think Orlanda has a letdown game today after beating clippers.

A letdown game after beating a meaningless non-conference team? and now are playing a division game . . . . .

Anyway - who cares. "A "games are sort of like free easy money if they win. Losing an "A' game is not a big deal.

[brewersMKE]

Today starts betting patience, im only going to bett what the system allows, ive been losing on extra bets and well its time to make money again im down too much, PATIENCE PATIENCE PATIENCE

[brewersMKE]

and on another note, STOP reading into the system, stop trying to change or correct the system, play it the way YOU think its played or just wait for the plays to be posted and lock em in. Honestly noone cares about your input, the back tests show the results if you dont like it move on...BTW i only stated following this system last Tuesday.

[Stifler]

- Utah line updated.

14.01.2013

S2

(A Bet) Orl: Orlando - waiting on line movement
(A Bet) Utah: Utah +2,5 1,10u

S4

(B Bet) Dal fade: Memphis -2 1,10u | Minnesota - waiting on line movement


________________________________________ ________________________________________

all rules and qualifying teams for every system can be found on post #1586

[UK_gixxer]

Just wanted to post a little success story, maybe it will encourage some of the newbies hopping on.

I started tailing this system a short while ago and quickly went up +9.7 units ($485 for me)

Then I hit a D loss of 18.7 units (-$936)

To add salt to the wound, I skipped a C bet that hit because I didn't want to lose too much in one night, so I lost another 3.3 units (-$165)

But I stuck with it, made some changes recently (increased S4 units size), and I am happy to say that as of today I am +14.6 units (+$730)

So, C bets are scary, D bets are scary, but stick with it, have faith in the system, and ride out the storm. The only person you are hurting when you hop on a system to take a loss, then hop off...is yourself.

Also, thanks again stif for all your work with this system! I'm hoping to pull in another ~35 units or so this season so keep up the great work!

[Grinder12000]

Sort of off topic here but since we use Covers.com - I have no idea where they get the 5Dimes numbers from as THERE offshore odds and what I see on my site rarely match up! For me Dallas has been at -6.5 -110 since I woke up at 6:00 this morning the Covers.com website has them at -7 -102 most of the day.

I just think it's weird. Covers.com vs. reality.

[Nino7]

Sort of off topic here but since we use Covers.com - I have no idea where they get the 5Dimes numbers from as THERE offshore odds and what I see on my site rarely match up! For me Dallas has been at -6.5 -110 since I woke up at 6:00 this morning the Covers.com website has them at -7 -102 most of the day.

I just think it's weird. Covers.com vs. reality.

The sbr odds tab is accurate.