The JM "Chase system" $1000 bank roll

[Dexter]

Bet A Loss: $170 (Risking $170 to Win $100 [Rate is 1.7 on this bet])
Bet B Loss: $425 (Risking $425 to Win $250 [Rate is 1.7 on this bet])
Bet C Loss: $1105 (Risking $1105 to Win $650 [Rate is 1.7 on this bet])

thats not the math - at -170, this would the exact numbers..

heres the math for a 3pt buy at -170

bet a = 170 to win 100
bet b = 459 to win 270
bet c = 1241 to win 729

[netinfo]

Dexter,

The $1000 does factor in the three points, but it is based on a Risk, rather, than Win strategy.

thats not the math - at -170, this would the exact numbers..

heres the math for a 3pt buy at -170

bet a = 170 to win 100
bet b = 459 to win 270
bet c = 1241 to win 729

How do you understand the example given in the pdf of $100, $250, $650?

Here is my understanding:

For Bet A, $170/100 = 1.7
For Bet B, if you take this 1.7 and multiply it by $250 (the amount given in the pdf), then you get $425 as the Risk.
For Bet C, if you take this 1.7 and multiply it by $650 (the amount given in the pdf), then you get $1105 as the Risk.

If you add $170 + $425 + $1105, you get $1700, the exact number of 17 $100 Units. This matches the -170 of the books.

netinfo

[Dexter]

Dexter,

The $1000 does factor in the three points, but it is based on a Risk, rather, than Win strategy.

How do you understand the example given in the pdf of $100, $250, $650?

Here is my understanding:

For Bet A, $170/100 = 1.7
For Bet B, if you take this 1.7 and multiply it by $250 (the amount given in the pdf), then you get $425 as the Risk.
For Bet C, if you take this 1.7 and multiply it by $650 (the amount given in the pdf), then you get $1105 as the Risk.

If you add $170 + $425 + $1105, you get $1700, the exact number of 17 $100 Units. This matches the -170 of the books.

netinfo

the pdf i have makes no mention of the math when buying 3 pts at -170 on page 1. later on he mentions the -170 from betus, but does not give a clear example like i did showing the exact amount be risked on each bet. yeah, i was puzzled at his mention of 100, 250, then 650 when i read it - guess that was a way of making it look less risky.

why are you multiplying 1.7 x $250? it should be 1.7 x $270 ($170 lost on bet a + $100 you are chasing) = $459

then bet C would be 170 + 459 + 100 = 729x1.7 = $1240

1240+459+170 = $1869 to win $100....looks scary - thats why morrison doesnt list it clearly.

[JohnMorr08]

Exactly right Dex - Like I said before - bottom line is that the system works and I love. The only problem is that the man we know as JM is a VERY good business man. He is a master at Marketing as well (obviously he has a team that helps)... but the product is there - he just has to make it look even better to make the sale.

I don't necessarily agree with the way he does it but he is extremely successful!

[Dexter]

yeah, i'm looking over this pdf again now and it makes no sense on page 1. he states that bet a = $100, then says that if bet a fails, you make bet b to make up for any losses from bet a plus any profit achieved from bet a. well, later he mentions the -170 for 3pts at betus.

how the heck does he get "bet 250" for bet b? if you lost bet a thats -170. 170+100 = 270, not 250. so its risk 459 to win 270 for the b bet.

the pdf is not clear - who cares though - i love the system

[BouncedCheck]

My interpretation of the PDF is that if you follow those numbers, your net gain on a B or C win will be less than it would have been on an A win.

Here's how I got the numbers, which are basically the same as Dexter's, except for a $2 difference on game C, since he listed $1241 and I listed $1239. I'll again use $100 for a unit, and work off the premise that I'm trying to win (not bet) one unit per series.

Game A, I wager $170 to win $100 on the -170 line. If game A wins, I stop betting because I've already won my single $100 unit for the series.

If game A loses, I then have to win back the $170 I lost, plus another single unit of $100, meaning I have to win $270. To win $270 on a -170 line, I have to wager $459. If game B wins, I take my net profit of $100 and stop betting.

If game B loses, then I have to win back the $170 I lost on game A plus the $459 I lost on game B plus the $100 profit unit. The sum total here is $729. To win $729 on a -170 line, I have to wager $1239.30. If game C wins, I take my net profit of $100 and breathe a huge sigh of relief.

If game C loses, then I've effectively lost $170 + $459 + $1239.30 = $1868.30. So I was wrong that it's not between 19-20 units, but it's actually "only" 18.7 units as Dexter described.

Using JM's numbers that you posted from his PDF:

Game A, he suggests starting with a $100 wager. This will net you a win of $58.82 if game A wins at -170.

If game A loses, he suggests wagering $250 on game B. If game B wins, you'll win $147.06, but you have to subtract the $100 you lost in game A, so your net win is only $47.06.

If game B loses, he suggests wagering $650 on game C. If game C wins, you'll win $382.35, but you have to subtract the $100 you lost in game A and the $250 you lost in game B, so your net win is only $32.35.

If game C loses, you will have lost $1000 in an attempt to win at most $58.82. If you divide $58.82 into $1000 you will see that you've lost 17 "win" units. And in reality, your actual win unit would have to be rated on a scale, since several of your wins will be less than $58.82. Therefore, your actual win unit will be somewhere in the vicinity of $45-50 on average.

I agree with Dexter on this. JM uses those numbers in his PDF to deceive people into thinking there's less risk involved than there really is. If you lose $1000 trying to win $50, that means every series loss costs you 20 units.

[dbartinbwgc]

JM

I know he says to buy 3 points at 170/100

but his numbers look more like the buying 2 at 150/100

100/66.67
250/166.67
625/416 he might of moved up to 650 to make the series worth $1000

[JohnMorr08]

BouncedCheck - first of all, that's a great screenname haha. 2nd - Read through some of my posts over the last couple of months to see how I play that system. I did not play the Sacramento series (among at least 4 that were winners)... I have different reasons for each.

I've been doing this a LONG time and never suffered more than 2 series losses. ALWAYS profited. There are many pessimists here that call for a "regression to the mean" and maybe they are right BUT the $$ in my safe tell me differently.

I urge you all to be careful with the system especially if you are joining right now! In fact, you shouldn't play it exactly as it reads at this point because if a series loses you won't recover as there are only 16 or so series left to play.

[Slim]

2 or 3 losing series in a row will put you in the poor house.

[netinfo]

Dexter,

I believe that the $100, $250, and $650 on page 1 of the pdf are based on what one should try to risk, and not on what one should try to win. JM is not saying that one should win $100 on A, win $250 on B, and win $650 on C. He's saying that one should risk $100 on A, risk $250 on B, and risk $650 on C. These numbers on page 1 only make sense if one looks at them from a Risk, and not a Win, betting strategy.

Game A, he suggests starting with a $100 wager. This will net you a win of $58.82 if game A wins at -170.

If game A loses, he suggests wagering $250 on game B. If game B wins, you'll win $147.06, but you have to subtract the $100 you lost in game A, so your net win is only $47.06.

If game B loses, he suggests wagering $650 on game C. If game C wins, you'll win $382.35, but you have to subtract the $100 you lost in game A and the $250 you lost in game B, so your net win is only $32.35.

BouncedCheck,

I agree that this is the intent of JM.

If game C loses, you will have lost $1000 in an attempt to win at most $58.82. If you divide $58.82 into $1000 you will see that you've lost 17 "win" units. And in reality, your actual win unit would have to be rated on a scale, since several of your wins will be less than $58.82. Therefore, your actual win unit will be somewhere in the vicinity of $45-50 on average.

I agree that when you loose the $1000, you are loosing 17 Win Units, but not actual Risk Units. The actual Risk Units that you loose are only 10, which I think is the betting strategy of JM, that is, to base the bets on Risks and not Wins. You are also right that the wins will come on a scale if one is using a Risk betting strategy.

I agree with Dexter on this. JM uses those numbers in his PDF to deceive people into thinking there's less risk involved than there really is. If you lose $1000 trying to win $50, that means every series loss costs you 20 units.

I don't think he's deceiving people with the pdf, so long as one understands that he's not basing his betting strategy on what you Win, but rather on what you Risk. Second, each series loss, as you pointed out in the previous paragraph, costs you 17 Win Units. But as I pointed out, the real Risk Units that you loose are only 10, which is what one should go by if one is using a Risk betting strategy as JM seems to be doing.

netinfo

[BrandonLaz]

netinfo I think you nailed it all in that post right there good write up and nice pulling all the quotes to answer it.

[BouncedCheck]

JohnMorr08, I don't doubt that you've been able to tweak the system to your benefit. All I'm saying is that anyone who plays the system as advertised for a full season is taking a substantial risk in that 4-7 series losses for the year will result in a bust-out. I agree with you that anyone who starts using this system should do so with extreme caution and take the risk blinders off. There is no such thing as a perfect system, and I think you'd agree with that.

netinfo, I understand what you're saying, and your description of risk units vs. win units was very clear. You can spin it any way you like. The fact is that when every bet you make is at -170, the risk is very high, especially when using a martingale-type system like JM.

Losing $1000 may have only lost you 10 risk units, but what you have to keep in mind is that you have to win about 17-20 win units to get back those 10 risk units. Risk units don't matter when you win, because you get your original bet back plus your winnings. Risk units only matter when you lose. This is a good discussion though. In order to break even, your win units won have to equal your risk units lost. Using the JM system, a series record of 18-1 breaks even every time, give or take.

[netinfo]

I'm looking again at the pdf info., and something just doesn't seem to add up on page 1, even under a Risk betting strategy. I'm beginning to think that the numbers on page 1 are approximations, and not concise calculations. Here is the pdf info. again:

======================================== =============================
Bet A = Your beginning bet. I recommend you set your beginning bet at $100 when you first start out.

Bet B = In case Bet A fails, you make bet B to make up for any loss you’ve suffered from Bet A, plus any profit you would have achieved from bet A. So, if your Bet A was $100, your Bet B can be $250.

Bet C = In case Bet B fails, you make bet C to make up for any loss you’ve suffered from Bet A plus Bet B, plus profit you would have achieved from bet A. So, if your Bet A plus Bet B was $350, your Bet C can be $650.
======================================== ======================

So, under a Risk betting strategy:

Bet A looses $100.

Bet B is the wager that covers the Actual Loss from Bet A ($100), and the Profit Loss from Bet A ($58.82). So Bet B would have to Risk $270 in order to win back $158.82 ($100 + $58.82).

Bet C is the wager that covers the Actual Loss from Bet A ($100), the Actual Loss from Bet B ($270), and the Profit Loss from Bet A ($58.82). So Bet C would have to Risk $729.00 in order to win back $428.82 ($100 + $270 + $58.82).

If C looses, then one looses $1099 ($100 + $270 + $729). A series loss would therefore cost one about 11 Risk Units.

I see then that the numbers on page 1 of the pdf are approximations, and not calculated exactly. Only Bet A is exact, but whereas JM has $250 for Bet B, the actual figure is $270, and whereas JM has $650 for Bet C, the actual figure is $729.

I think I've gotten to the bottom of this confusing system.

netinfo

[BouncedCheck]

You certainly have!

And since your win unit is $58.82, and each series loss costs you 11 risk units, we can divide to figure out how many win units you'd have to secure in order to replace those 11 risk units and break even.

1099 divided by 58.82 = 18.68 win units for every series loss that costs 11 risk units. Putting it in simpler terms, 18.68 win units divided by 11 risk units comes out to 1.7, which is the line you're playing (-170).

Therefore, 18-1 or 19-1 in series records is really a break-even proposition. If people are comfortable with those odds, by all means, good luck, and I hope you win some money. But I think JM's marketing strategy is deceptive and unethical.

[netinfo]

BrandonLaz, thanks

BouncedCheck, you make good sense, thanks for contributing

Take care,

netinfo

[Dexter]

netinfo - i dont see how on page 1 he could be recomending to "risk" $250 if your A bet was $100...the math does not add up at -170.

i am not at all getting your 10 unit loss mention - but its late, and im tired..lol

[Dexter]

ohhh - i think i see now...your saying that in his pdf - 1 unit won = $58, not $100?

[dec03001]

Hey bud just to give you a heads up there are gonna be some guys that will bash you here for tryig to promote something that cost $. especially cuz ur new. Believe me I know they did it to me and i didnt even try to sell anything. LOL but good luck.

I would hope I'd get all sorts of crap for trying to promote something.

Except,.... I'm not. I haven't tried either one. This seemed like the right crowd that would know about other systems.

Thanks for the heads up anyway!

[netinfo]

netinfo - i dont see how on page 1 he could be recomending to "risk" $250 if your A bet was $100...the math does not add up at -170.

i am not at all getting your 10 unit loss mention - but its late, and im tired..lol

Dexter,

The pdf should say $270 instead of $250, that's why the math is not adding up at -170, because the pdf is making an approximation, not an exact amount. I'm not sure why JM chose not to put in an exact amount.

The 10 Risk Units turned out to be 11 Risk Units. The losses are 11 Risk Units because each series loss equals $1099 of money risked on the three bets ($100 risked on A + $270 risked on B + $729 risked on C). So, $1099 divided by $100 for each Risk Unit, equals 11 Risk Units.

ohhh - i think i see now...your saying that in his pdf - 1 unit won = $58, not $100?

Yeah, I think what JM is implying is that one Risk Unit of $100 equals a win amount of $58.82 (When I enter 100 on the risk column of Betus, with a three point purchase, I get $58.82 as the win amount). The $100 is on the Risk, not on the Win. This is what I think JM is doing. I could be wrong, but this is how I'm understanding the pdf.

Only by emailing him I guess, will one get the right answer on what he means by the $100 on Bet A, whether its a Risk Bet or a Win Bet.

netinfo

[BouncedCheck]

I doubt he means either. He's just throwing out numbers that look good for marketing purposes.

The main thing he's selling here is not money management. He's selling his picks, which is fine, except that he's just going about it in a bad way that will get a lot of inexperienced people hurt when the system suffers a short losing streak.

[Dexter]

again, i could care less since i understand how to handicapp sports and i do follow baseball/basketball religously. i'll know when to lay off a C bet etc....i'm not greedy.

[jsmith00075]

I have a fast question guys.. Did anyone try this system without buying any points? What are the results? hmm

[kaspbart]

in this year you wold have better bankrol whitout buying points. i calculate tak your bankroll will be better by 5-15% .... but its risky play

[dbartinbwgc]

todays bet

Toronto @ Phoenix A bet

[ThomasKranked]

I have a fast question guys.. Did anyone try this system without buying any points? What are the results? hmm

Toronto 'A' bet won on 11/30 vs. Lakers (+12 +3pts.) would be lost without buying points (99-112) - also the 2 following games were lost...

Minnesota 'B' bet won on 12/03 vs. Magic (+10 +3pts.) would be lost (89-100) without points ... following 3rd games also lost ...

as you know, one lost series takes the win of 15-20 covered series -> buying points is quite usefull ...

[JohnMorr08]

jsmith -

I am 59-0 (chase) and have needed the points 9 times...

59 - 19 in terms of single games.... so if i didn't buy any points I would have gone 50 - 28 (64%).

[MJT1212]

I always took it as 250% of the previous bet...

Example:

A- 50
B- 125
c- 312.50


PS: why isn't the toronto pick on ANY of my books, what gives

[rgga86]

I always took it as 250% of the previous bet...

Example:

A- 50
B- 125
c- 312.50


PS: why isn't the toronto pick on ANY of my books, what gives

It hasnt open the line yet, on my book has just opened, toronto +3.5, and Im only can buy 2 points (+5.5)

[stevecontact]

also considering moving to Betjam as BETUS is fully aware of the games that JM is providing to us, and the odds sometimes get kinda screwed up. I'm skipping the raptors match tonite

[stevecontact]

toronto picks just released in Betus. Seems like they didn't change the odds today. Still the same odds after logging in.

toronto +3.5

I always took it as 250% of the previous bet...

Example:

A- 50
B- 125
c- 312.50


PS: why isn't the toronto pick on ANY of my books, what gives

[The Seer]

Isn't Cleveland a bet as well tonight?

[netinfo]

Isn't Cleveland a bet as well tonight?

Not under the JM system. JM only plays road games in which the team you're betting on is playing a team in the opposite conference.

It's a B bet play for those who are following Cartytay's spreadsheet. Cartytay plays all road games irregardless of conference.

netinfo

[alukk]

actually +5.5 @betus

[netinfo]

I'm beginning to buy at least an extra 1 or 1.5, in addition to the 3 points, just to compensate for the bad line that Betus is giving us. I have Toronto +7 for today.

netinfo

[DukeJohn]

you are most likely right, but 0 losses sounds good to me
and congrats on ur nite!!!

In your case, you have done phenomenal catching it at the right time and the right year. I wish you would seriously consider stopping now. You are way ahead. Now if you could show this system worked year after year, then by all means continue, but we know that is not the case... I would suggest some sort of stopping time frame... You decide when to stop, not the system.

Anyway, if you decide to stay in this, then I really hope it works out beautifully in the end.

For everyone else that is just starting... realize this system does not work year after year, I hope however you make it through on top, but please, if you make some money now, get out, before it is through, just to be safe...

Have fun and be safe... BOL...