Originally posted by Andy3568
-
Ok then. Great job for that guy with the win.Comment -
I will have to compile all that. I just wanted to get the main numbers up for now. The average loss is 26.52 u, ALL losses will be 26.52 units.Originally posted by Maxi_EVComment -
Bet365 also had +8 early morning yesterday.Originally posted by Andy3568Comment -
I bought 3 1/2 points. Bet365 had the game at +8 when I placed my bet. After your backtest results I am seriously considering moving to 1-7-5 without filters. What are your thoughts on changing to it mid-season?Originally posted by Wallco99
Edit: I guess changing to the system mid season makes no difference at all if I intend to play for a long time.. sorry for the stupid question. Thank you Wallco for your great work! I'm having a lot of fun with it!Comment -
Did yal get the Lakers at +5 or +5.5?Comment -
I got it at +5. push... i cant believe gasol missed that open lay upComment -
5.5 @ Bookmaker.Originally posted by imotiv8Comment -
what about Golden State? did everyone get -1Comment -
NO, -1 1/2, but M/L on Chase 110 luckily.Originally posted by imotiv8Comment -
I got it at +4 hahaOriginally posted by imotiv8Comment -
Morrison 11/26 Results & 11/27 Plays
"Comment -
Wallco NBA Chase 110
2013-14 System to Date: 9-0 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +9.00 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 2 (-17.62 units)
(11/26/13):
#10 Brooklyn (+7) (B) - Win
#11 Golden State (M/L) (A) - Win
v1 Plays
(A) 5-6
(B) 3-3
(C) 0-3
(D) 1-0
Losses: None
Games for (11/27/13):
#8 N.Y. Knicks (+10) @ L.A. Clippers (D) (10:35 pm EST)
#9 Washington @ Milwaukee (+3) (D) (8:05 pm EST)
We will ALWAYS play the M/L on favorites and the point spread (-110) on dogs. The team underlined and highlighted blue is the play. There is no point buying in this system, with one exception, if your team is the favorite, and buying down to a (-½) 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 do change. However, it is the individual bettor’s responsibility to get the appropriate line if it differs from the line in my post.
System rules and backtest can be found in posts #44 & #45.
Note: The lines I have listed were the current lines at the time of my post and may not reflect the final lines used to determine wins & losses.Comment -
It would be essential for establishing the right unit size. If we average 2 series losses is not the same risk as if we average 5 series losses…Originally posted by Wallco99
For now, just with the 2005-2006 season, we can establish that anything above 0.5% of roll would be dangerous.Comment -
All I got to say is the Knicks better freakin' win tonight.Comment -
How can golden State be a win for the 1-5-7 (no Filters)?
i got them at -1.5Comment -
Most Recent Spread Win/Loss Results
cover
New York Knicks Los Angeles Clippers Date Opp Score Line 11/25 @POR L 91-102 +7.0 11/23 @WSH L 89-98 +1.5 11/20 IND L 96-103 +6.5 11/19 @DET L 86-92 +4.0 11/16 ATL L 90-110 -4.5 11/14 HOU L 106-109 +1.5 11/13 @ATL W 95-91 +4.5 11/10 SA L 89-120 +3.0 11/8 @CHA W 101-91 -3.5 11/5 CHA L 97-102 -9.5 Date Opp Score Line 11/24 CHI W 121-82 -6.5 11/23 SAC W 103-102 -10.5 11/21 @OKC L 91-105 +5.5 11/20 @MIN W 102-98 +2.0 11/18 MEM L 102-106 -8.0 11/16 BKN W 110-103 -13.5 11/13 OKC W 111-103 -4.5 11/11 MIN W 109-107 -6.5 11/9 @HOU W 107-94 +2.5 11/7 @MIA L 97-102 +6.0 Comment -
moneyline playOriginally posted by jadaComment -
Most Recent Spread Win/Loss Results
cover
Washington Wizards Milwaukee Bucks Date Opp Score Line 11/26 LAL W 116-111 -5.5 11/23 NY W 98-89 -1.5 11/22 @TOR L 88-96 +4.5 11/20 @CLE W 98-91 +3.0 11/19 MIN W 104-100 +3.5 11/16 CLE L 96-103 -7.5 11/13 @SA L 79-92 +10.5 11/12 @DAL L 95-105 +5.5 11/10 @OKC L 105-106 +8.5 11/8 BKN W 112-108 +1.5 Date Opp Score Line 11/25 @DET L 94-113 +7.0 11/23 CHA L 72-96 -2.5 11/22 @PHI L 107-115 +3.0 11/20 POR L 82-91 +5.5 11/16 OKC L 79-92 +10.5 11/15 @IND L 77-104 +14.0 11/13 @ORL L 91-94 +7.0 11/12 @MIA L 95-118 +13.5 11/9 DAL L 83-91 +3.0 11/6 CLE W 109-104 +3.0 Comment -
I've watched this site for years just never post or signed up until recently. With tomorrow being Thanksgiving I just wanted to give Thanks to WALLCO thelimit Kev and anyone else who has contributed to posting Morrison NBA & NHL as well as WALLCO systems. I have made great money for years now using these. I dont play them all I sort of pick my spots and handicap based on what the plays are for each system. But it has been a huge success. Your contributions do not go unnoticed and I am sure there are many guys like me who check your posts daily but never have time to contribute.
Thank you..Keep up the great work..Happy thanksgiving to you and your families..and lets keep stealing $$$$$Comment -
I am going to work on putting the seasons in chronological order to see what our lowest points were. But working on Chase 110 backtest now.Originally posted by Maxi_EVComment -
It was an (A) bet push. So the series is technically over. However I also got it at -1.5 and foolishly I will continue as well. Since there are no M/L plays in the unfiltered 1-7-5, or in the filtered version for that matter, this play was definitely not an official system win.Originally posted by JadaComment -
Thanks. I will continue too.Originally posted by Wallco99Comment -
I'm continuing with both seriesComment -
I had 'em at -3, which must've been the worst line anywhere.Comment -
I pushed Lakers that technically won, and lost Golden State which technically tied. So I am stopping Lakers with no harm done and continuing with (B) bet on Golden State. Going against my own rule, but what the hell, I'm up a bunch already from unfiltered 1-7-5.Originally posted by imotiv8Comment -
If the Knicks lose tonight, there is a V1C bet on Fri that'll almost be a lockComment -
That, my friend, would be the winner!Originally posted by Andy3568Comment -
***Comment -
Take your time buddy!Originally posted by Wallco99Comment -
I like the results of the unfiltered version, but I still believe the filtered version is superior due to its stability over the unfiltered version. The stability it provides is obvious when you look at the numbers Wallco provided. First when looking at the 2005-6 season, which if you were playing 1% bankroll for units, would have left you with 5% of your bankroll if not drained completely, as the number was probably over -100 at some point. Next when you look at the totals, discounting this season in progress, unfiltered is only ahead at the end of the sample by around 20 units. Being up a small amount over the total despite many more plays tells me there's a lot of ups and downs involved in playing unfiltered. Lastly, in terms of cash growth over the entire sample, you would have earned much more money playing it filtered, again due to the 2005-6 season. If you invested 1000 dollars into both methods at the beginning of the sample, you'd have earned over 160,000 by the end with the filters in place, but only 17,000 without the filters (at 1% unit size for both). This is exactly what the filters are in place to prevent, without them you have no protection.
Now the easy fix for this is to reduce your unit size, but this will shorten your winnings as well. Playing at .5% units instead of 1% will cut all those winning seasons in half, destroying the entire reason to play the unfiltered way as playing 1% on the filtered method would be much more profitable at that point. Not only that, playing filtered allows you to even double your unit size to 2%, and double your unit gains per season, and still the worst season wouldn't even come close to when using 1% units without the filters.
I just wanted to get my 2 cents in on the results, and explain why I will still be using the filters and why I believe using them is superior to not using them. Fact of the matter is, I could never play a system where there's a possibility to lose 94% of your bankroll, and that's what the filters are there for. You would have to stick to 1% unit size without the filters max, realistically you would want to play at .5%. Meanwhile you could hit 2% while using the filters and still be okay, doubling the earnings per season.
I'm just going to mimic what Wallco said - play whatever your preference is. The unfiltered has performed better recently and risk takers might like it. In my opinion, I would just double my unit size and still play filtered.Comment -
Any system could cost you your bankroll in a given season on a given year. You are negating an entire method based on one performance year 8 years ago. And even with that, it was still ahead. I don't know how you came up with that irrelavent 160000/17000 stat, but if you played both systems from the beginning for the same amount per unit, which I do, you would be ahead with the unfiltered, and over the past 6 seasons, you would be way ahead with unfiltered. Play it as you wish, and the filtered version may be your preference out of fear for maybe having a bad season somewhere along the line, but the filtered version is not "more profitable" as you claim, even with the horrible 2005-06 season included. The filter wasn't added to make anything more stable, it was added to take more losses away in previous seasons to make the backtest results more attractive to people. That's all any filter is, since there is no possible way to tell how many future games will be affected by that filter. You may do a backtest 5 years from now and realize that filter ended up costing you a hell of a lot more money than it did in the shorter test that you ran last year. Or, you may see 5 years from now that the filter actually did save you money over a larger sample. But since recent history shows that it is costing us money, and the whole sample that we currently have favors the unfiltered, which is a larger sample than your previous backtest provided, I will play the strategy that provided the most profit over 11 years, which is the unfiltered, regardless of how 1 season did 8 years ago.Originally posted by thelimit0310
As I said in my post, I don't care how people play it, I just posted the numbers, and I definitely prefer the unfiltered 1-7-5 strategy.Comment -
Wallco I wasn't trying to offend you. I apologize. There's no need to be defensive. Both the methods have their merits, one isn't definitely better than the other. One has made more units in recent years, the other is clearly more stable. My main point was, if you're trying to earn more units per season, you are better off and risking less by doubling your unit size and playing the filtered version. The biggest losing season that way would be about -66 units, which is almost 30 units less than the -94.4 units posted for the unfiltered version, and the winning seasons profits would be doubled. It's more money and less risk.
The stat you find irrelevant I was only using to show how cash growth is affected by 1 bad season, and why that bad season should be minimized. If you play your units as a percentage of bankroll, adjusting your unit season to season to match a percentage of your total bank, you would earn less playing it unfiltered over the course of the sample. Much less. Because that 1 bad season would have destroyed your bankroll, and the following seasons unit would be a percentage of your devastated bank, which earns less return. From the moment I started testing even the 7/5 last year, I was trying to avoid seasons like that. People like me don't want to play a system that has the potential to fail that massively. Now you could just say hey, that was years ago - but that completely throws out the reason we backtest. Regardless you need to prepare for the worst, at least that is my mentality. Also, filters aren't just for appeal, if you backtest a large enough sample to account for anomalies, they are very useful. You know this.
Again we agree it comes down to preference. You wan't to play it unfiltered due to it's recent history, okay then. I don't see it as objectively better however, and I don't want the filters to be put away, so I spoke up.Comment -
But realistically, who changes the size of their unit amount every day? And for the stat you posted, if your unit was to fluctuate daily, you would need to know the value of each unit when it was won and when it was lost while doing these backtests, and that is not going to happen. I would think most people play a consistent unit amount across the board, once they decide what that amount is. Otherwise, what is really the point of the "unit", if you are constantly changing your unit amount based on what you have at every given moment, then every day, you will ALWAYS have 100 units in your bank, and all posted records, both mine and yours would be moot. Even bets within the same series would be less each time, because as you are losing A and B bets, your bankroll is decreasing. This means that when you actually do win a series, you won't be winning as many units as you thought. I am not looking to argue either, but I will say that while filtered is definitely a safer way to play, the non filtered has generated more profits for most people who bet units on a fixed amount. And as I said, all filters do is hide previous losses to pad stats and in no way gaurantee they will be necessary for future seasons, just because a few losses disappeared in some past seasons. Everyone likes to constantly compare this to a stock market, but in reality it is not. You don't just put in 1000, walk away, and a few years later have more money. That can happen in stock market though. You can put in 1000, the stock can tank down to almost nothing, you can leave it there and there is a chance it can come back to where it was or better by not having to add any more money, because you still own the stock certificates. Sports betting doesn't work that way, when money drains down, you have to add more to attain possible future profits. So even if money had to be added in the 2005-06 season, which it probably wouldn't have, once it climbed to a high enogh number, like it did, you could have pulled your money back out. People can say what they want, but almost NO ONE ever makes a deposit into a sports book and says "When this money is gone, then I am done forever". That is why I am sick of hearing about ROI, what matters to me is how many units the system did overall with an unfluctuating bet size.Originally posted by thelimit0310Comment -
I wasn't talking about changing your unit size on a daily basis, but on a season to season basis. Analyzing what you have and setting your amount at the start of a season, riding it to the end, and the next season readjusting. Not day to day.
We will just have to agree to disagree, or really just conclude that it depends on your style. I'm sure people can decide what they want to do for themselves. At the end of the day I'm sure we will all be successful.
Comment -
Sounds good to me. Good luck.Originally posted by thelimit0310I wasn't talking about changing your unit size on a daily basis, but on a season to season basis. Analyzing what you have and setting your amount at the start of a season, riding it to the end, and the next season readjusting. Not day to day.
We will just have to agree to disagree, or really just conclude that it depends on your style. I'm sure people can decide what they want to do for themselves. At the end of the day I'm sure we will all be successful.Comment
