Pendulum Cycle Theory Dual Martingale NBA Experiment

[tonywayne]

Why not do your test with SOME money: start with $1.10 bets and do the increases from there. At a minimum, you could end the season up $40-50 or so and treat yourself to a nice dinner to celebrate a winning strategy.

Also, based on your initial example (Steelers), I was following you: increase the bet after a loss (ie chase) to recoup the losses. Given that, why are you increasing your Thunder bet today after a win? That's the only part I am not following.

[arpeggiomeister]

Why not do your test with SOME money: start with $1.10 bets and do the increases from there. At a minimum, you could end the season up $40-50 or so and treat yourself to a nice dinner to celebrate a winning strategy.

Also, based on your initial example (Steelers), I was following you: increase the bet after a loss (ie chase) to recoup the losses. Given that, why are you increasing your Thunder bet today after a win? That's the only part I am not following.

Without going into depth, because that is not how I operate. I find an idea and back test it. If it checks out with the back tests I then test it with a paper trade. This allows me to see if I made any mistakes. If I did it does not cost a dime to figure that out. If it passes I then put real money on it. There is absolutely no point in blowing up money to test an idea. Chasing systems have a way of fooling people into thinking they are working when they are not. I am fully prepared to discover that is actually what is happening here. I could have made a math error or tripped on an anomaly that will correct itself. Paper trading allows me to figure that out without losing anything. As far as increading on the Thunder it is because we are chasing the loss we incurred on the Trailblazers. You are counting on the idea that the Thunder will not lose enough games in row to blow up your account. By betting the opposite side and chasing the loss with the favored team you gain 1 unit for every bet you place as long as the Thunder do not lose 7 in a row.

[arpeggiomeister]

Thunder loses. We are on the 3rd tier now. Next game is on the 20th vs the Heat. I will put $48.51 on the Thunder and $11 on the Heat.

[tonywayne]

Thanks for the further explanation.

[arpeggiomeister]

Ever since Bad Luck Santa asked why I do not start on tier 2 I have been chewing on that thought. Every time I finish a chase with the favorite there is a loss incurred by the underdog. You therefore must start on the second tier when you chase it with the favorite in the next game. I was trying to hang onto the extra tier but I am losing that anyways. I have therefore concluded that he is right. You want to start on the second tier with the favorite every time. This changes the math.

[arpeggiomeister]

I also found a math error on the 2007 Patriots that made me rethink the exit strategy. In 2007 the Patriots ended the season with a 3 game losing streak. I originally subtracted 3 tiers from the profits and came out with a profit of $773.90. This is incorrect because we must start that final chase on tier 2 in order to chase the loss we incurred on the underdog. This means we lost 4 tiers in the end, not 3. When I calculated for this it changed the profit to a $244 loss. Considering that everything else was averaging over 30% gains this is not a horrific result but what really was bugging me is that I had a sizeable profit on my target exit date of week 15. Since there are only 17 weeks in the regular season I could only make it to tier 4, which does not allow me to complete the 5 tier chase. This short changes the system by one tier. To make matters worse, If the chase does resolve in those two weeks you only stand to gain another $90. You win $200 in weeks 16 and 17, and lose $110 on the underdog if the Patriots manage to cover in their last week. What I realized is that I am risking showing a loss to try and gain an extra $90 at the end of the season. That makes no sense. Just accept the loss of 2 tiers take the profit you have at week 15. If I do this then it alters the results of to 2007 Patriots and the 2011 GB Packers. Warren Buffet's first rule of making money is not to lose it. His second rule is to always remember the first rule. If you have profit in week 15 take it.

[arpeggiomeister]

I have modified the results to reflect these changes. Bad Luck Santa's suggestion of starting on tier 2 increased the profit margin of each year by $110. Exiting with a profit on week 15 despite being on the second tier of an unresolved chase changed the 2007 Patriots profit to over 25%. It also reduces the 2011 Packers to the same amount. Here are the modified results:Dual
Martingale 10 Year NFL Experiment





Green means win

Red means lose

Blue means push









2004 NE Patriots

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

NE

NE

BYE

F

NE

F

NE

F

NE

F

NE

F

NE

F

F

F

NP

F

F

BYE

NE

F

NE

F

NE

F

NE

F

NE

F

NE

NE

NE

NP

Win $1,300 – ROI 31.8%









2005 NE Patriots

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

NE

F

F

NE

NE

F

BYE

F

F

F

NE

NE

NE

F

NE

NP

NP

F

NE

NE

F

F

NE

BYE

NE

NE

NE

F

F

F

NE

F

NP

NP

Win $1,400 – ROI 34.2%









2006 SEA Seahawks

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

SEA

SEA

F

SEA

BYE

SEA

SEA

SEA

SEA

F

F

F

F

SEA

SEA

SEA

NP

F

F

SEA

F

BYE

F

F

F

F

SEA

SEA

SEA

SEA

F

F

F

NP

Win $1,500 – ROI 36.6%









2007 NE Patriots

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

NE

F

NE

F

NE

F

NE

F

NE

BYE

NE

F

F

F

NE

NP

NP

F

NE

F

NE

F

NE

F

NE

F

BYE

F

NE

NE

NE

F

NP

NP

Win $1,059 – ROI 25.9%













2008 NE Patriots

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

NE

NE

F

BYE

F

NE

NE

F

F

NE

F

F

NE

NE

NE

NP

NP

F

F

NE

BYE

NE

F

F

NE

NE

F

NE

NE

F

F

F

NP

NP

Win $1,400 – ROI 34.2%









2009 PIT Steelers

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

PIT

PIT

PIT

PIT

F

F

F

BYE

PIT

F

F

F

PIT

PIT

PIT

PIT

PIT

F

F

F

F

PIT

PIT

PIT

BYE

F

PIT

PIT

PIT

F

F

F

F

F

Win $1,500 – ROI 36.6%









2010 IND Colts

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

IND

IND

F

IND

IND

F

BYE

F

IND

F

F

IND

IND

IND

IND

NP

NP

F

F

IND

F

F

IND

BYE

IND

F

IND

IND

F

F

F

F

NP

NP

Win $1,300 – ROI 31.8%









2011 GB Packers

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

GB

F

F

GB

F

GB

F

BYE

F

GB

F

F

GB

GB

F

NP

NP

F

GB

GB

F

GB

F

GB

BYE

GB

F

GB

GB

F

F

GB

NP

NP

Win $1,059 – ROI 25.9%









2012 GB Packers

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

GB

GB

F

F

F

F

GB

F

F

BYE

GB

F

F

GB

GB

NP

NP

F

F

GB

GB

GB

GB

F

GB

GB

BYE

F

GB

GB

F

F

NP

NP

Win $1,300 – ROI 31.8%

2013 SEA Seahawks

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

SEA

F

SEA

F

SEA

SEA

SEA

F

F

F

SEA

BYE

F

SEA

SEA

NP

NP

F

SEA

F

SEA

F

F

F

SEA

SEA

SEA

F

BYE

SEA

F

F

NP

NP

Win $1,400 – ROI 34.2%

• Average Return over 10 years – 32.3%
  
• If
  you compounded $1,000 over the 10 years displayed here you would now
  have $16,366.52

[Trep]

Makes absolutely no sense to bet both sides on the same game regardless of the charts proving the system works. Those bets will cancel out with just extra juice.

[arpeggiomeister]

Makes absolutely no sense to bet both sides on the same game regardless of the charts proving the system works. Those bets will cancel out with just extra juice.

That is completely false. The bets are not for the same amounts. You recuperate your losses through the chase system. The only way you are losing money is if the chase system fails to recuperate those losses. Can that happen? Of course it can. The fact that it has not happened in the last 10 years is pretty compelling evidence to support my theory. I have given proof that this system is defying the preconceived notion that these are random events. Saying that this makes no sense regardless of charts that prove it works is like saying dinosaurs never existed while standing in front of the fossils in a museum. That makes no sense.

[arpeggiomeister]

The forces that are causing this system to work are boom and bust cycles inside of a bubble phenomenon. I believe with enough study I will eventually be able to use that information combine with handicapping to accurately forecast games. Once I can do that I can dump the chase systems for more traditional approaches. I am not even close to being able to do that yet. I know these boom and bust cycles exist. The chase system acts like a net that captures these wins even though I can not accurately predict when they will happen. I just know that they will oscillate from winning to losing and back again in a time frame that defies the notion of being random. The #1 ranked team in the power rankings is being scrutinized more then any other team. It would only make sense that this team would experience the most volatility. People will ride them while they are winning ATS and get scared when they lose, only to jump right back on the bandwagon when they start winning again. You can not do this with just any team and expect to win. It has to be the team that is attracting the most money. That is how bubbles are created. The chase system simply takes advantage of those bubbles.

[redtagboys]

if it works continue it, why bash a system that has worked positively in his favour for over 10 years? so what he loses juice and so what he makes small wagers. If the general outcome is money in his pocket than he is a good better. Your onto something, keep going brother.

[mlfan]

Betting both sides is paying for juice unnecessarily. And the seemingly small juice compounds. Take out the other team's bet and adjust your bet size according to what you want to do with it.

I'll show you the math of betting both sides using your steelers example...
a) will be betting both sides and b) will be betting 1 side.

week 1
a) -$1
b) $0

week 2.
a)
bet $23.1 on Team. $11 on Opp.
win..+$21 - $11 - $1(week 1) = $9
lose... -$14.1.
b)
bet $9.9 on Team.
win ... $9
lose ... -$9.9

week 3
a)
bet $48.51 on Team. $11 on opp.
win ... $44.1 - $14.1 - $11 = $19
lose ... -$52.6 (mistake on your part here. It isn't $51.6...48.5+14.1)

b) your goal is to win $19 here.
bet ($19+$9.9)*1.1 = 31.79
win ... $19
lose ... 31.79 + 9.9 = -$41.69

week 4
a)bet $101.87 on team.
win ... $29
lose ... -101.87 - 52.6 + 10 = -$144.47

b) goal is to win $29
bet ($29 + $41.69 )*1.1 = $77.76
win ... $29
lose ... $77.76 + $41.69 = -$119.45

You adjust your bet goal every week and the win amount acheived is the same but you are taking smaller hit on the loss.

[arpeggiomeister]

Betting both sides is paying for juice unnecessarily. And the seemingly small juice compounds. Take out the other team's bet and adjust your bet size according to what you want to do with it.

I'll show you the math of betting both sides using your steelers example...
a) will be betting both sides and b) will be betting 1 side.

week 1
a) -$1
b) $0

week 2.
a)
bet $23.1 on Team. $11 on Opp.
win..+$21 - $11 - $1(week 1) = $9
lose... -$14.1.
b)
bet $9.9 on Team.
win ... $9
lose ... -$9.9

week 3
a)
bet $48.51 on Team. $11 on opp.
win ... $44.1 - $14.1 - $11 = $19
lose ... -$52.6 (mistake on your part here. It isn't $51.6...48.5+14.1)

b) your goal is to win $19 here.
bet ($19+$9.9)*1.1 = 31.79
win ... $19
lose ... 31.79 + 9.9 = -$41.69

week 4
a)bet $101.87 on team.
win ... $29
lose ... -101.87 - 52.6 + 10 = -$144.47

b) goal is to win $29
bet ($29 + $41.69 )*1.1 = $77.76
win ... $29
lose ... $77.76 + $41.69 = -$119.45

You adjust your bet goal every week and the win amount acheived is the same but you are taking smaller hit on the loss.

The chase system has already compensated for the juice. Each
consecutive tier in the system is multiplied by 2.1. The 7 tier
chase system for the NBA would look like this:

Tier	Bet	Money Spent
1	$11.00	$11.00
2	$23.10	$34.10
3	$48.51	$82.61
4	$101.87	$184.48
5	$213.93	$398.41
6	$449.25	$847.66
7	$943.43	$1,791.09

Each tier has been rounded to the closest penny. For the 5 tier
NFL system simply move the decimal point over so you are starting
with $110 instead of $11.





You must add one unit to the total to bet the opposite side. This
brings the total bankroll up to 1,802.09.





If you reach the 7^th tier and score a win this meansfor the past 6 games that the underdog has won. You have collected$60. $943.43 x 0.91 = $858.52. That is how much you would win onthis 7^th tier winning bet. You have lost $847.66 up to
this point in the chase. $858.52 - $847.66 = $10.86. You gain $10
and are now ready start your next chase.






If you chose to leave at this point you would have gained $70 and
lost $11 on the final loss from the underdog. This is a gain of $59.





Had you just played the favorite you would have only won 1 unit:
$10. By paying the “unnecessary” juice and betting the opposing
team you gained 4.9 units.





Everybody who is hung up on paying the juice for both sides is
hung up on the wrong thing. Chase systems recuperate losses. That
is what they were designed to do. As long as the chase system does
not get blown up your argument is null and void.






I have demonstrated a considerable amount of evidence that
suggests this idea is worth further investigation. I have studied
the Martingale System and many of its variations in several games
including blackjack, craps, and roulette. It shows its cracks
usually within 100 trials or less. I have done thousands. For this
system to hold up for so long suggests there is something more then
luck happening. I am suggesting that the point spread system is not
random. It's balancing act is too perfect. There is something else
at work here; a free market system complete with market bubbles. I
am suggesting those bubbles have an average duration of less then 7
games in the NBA and 5 in the NFL. If I am right then chasing
systems are the perfect tool to exploit this phenomenon. This
phenomenon is strongest on the top ranked team.





The only legitimate concern would be the amount you are risking to
win this money. The risk of ruin with chase systems are extremely
high compared to flat betting. If a streak goes beyond 7 tiers deep
the damage to the bankroll is catastrophic. If I can refine this
system to the point where I can actually predict specific games
accurately then flat betting is the way to go.






If the odds go from 50/50 to 80/20 of winning a bet by paying a
little extra juice I will take that bet any day.

[arpeggiomeister]

We are on tier 3 for today's game. I will put $48.51 on the Thunder and $11 on the Heat.

[mlfan]

My numbers show that it makes $9 at tier 2, $19 at tier 3, $29 at tier 4. So at tier 7, it makes $59 and not $10. For example, at tier 4, i bet $77.76. I lost $31.79 on tier 3 and $9.9 on tier 2. So if I win at tier 4, i win 77.76/1.1 - 31.79 - 9.9 = $29 and not just 1 unit like you do in your favourite bet.

I adjusted the bet amount to match your win expectation per tier. This resulted in lower losses. You say the chase will recuperate the extra juice paid. This is only true if you never incur a loss. If your system goes perfect, then it won't matter that you are paying more to win the same amount. But in your football example, you exited 1 year with a loss. Betting 1 side would of resulted in smaller loss.


Regarding the odds of the chase. You have 10 years of football data. It seems like a lot but what is your sample size. Your tier 1 is a guaranteed loss. So you don't get a win until tier 2. So it's really a 4 tier system to get a win. So anytime your team covers, then you restart your chase. So in 2007, you don't start to bet expecting to win money on the patriots till week 11. So up to that point of the year, your sample size was 1. So your sample size for the 10 years is well under 140 games.

You compare a roulette chase system saying it can still crack with 100 trials. I assume you're betting a red or black scenario. So assume that's a 50/50 odd. With the football system, you have 4 tiers so the odds of losing 4 consecutive 50/50 is 2^4 = 1 in 16. It's not comparable to compare 100 trials of a 50/50 odd to 100 trials of a 1 in 16 odd.

You say you have thousands of trials. If that's for basketball on a 7 tier system. Odds of losing a chase = 2^7 = 1 in 128. Again, you can't compare thousands to the 100 trials of a 50/50 roulette chase since your odds of losing 1 are so much smaller.

[arpeggiomeister]

My numbers show that it makes $9 at tier 2, $19 at tier 3, $29 at tier 4. So at tier 7, it makes $59 and not $10. For example, at tier 4, i bet $77.76. I lost $31.79 on tier 3 and $9.9 on tier 2. So if I win at tier 4, i win 77.76/1.1 - 31.79 - 9.9 = $29 and not just 1 unit like you do in your favourite bet.

I adjusted the bet amount to match your win expectation per tier. This resulted in lower losses. You say the chase will recuperate the extra juice paid. This is only true if you never incur a loss. If your system goes perfect, then it won't matter that you are paying more to win the same amount. But in your football example, you exited 1 year with a loss. Betting 1 side would of resulted in smaller loss.


Regarding the odds of the chase. You have 10 years of football data. It seems like a lot but what is your sample size. Your tier 1 is a guaranteed loss. So you don't get a win until tier 2. So it's really a 4 tier system to get a win. So anytime your team covers, then you restart your chase. So in 2007, you don't start to bet expecting to win money on the patriots till week 11. So up to that point of the year, your sample size was 1. So your sample size for the 10 years is well under 140 games.

You compare a roulette chase system saying it can still crack with 100 trials. I assume you're betting a red or black scenario. So assume that's a 50/50 odd. With the football system, you have 4 tiers so the odds of losing 4 consecutive 50/50 is 2^4 = 1 in 16. It's not comparable to compare 100 trials of a 50/50 odd to 100 trials of a 1 in 16 odd.

You say you have thousands of trials. If that's for basketball on a 7 tier system. Odds of losing a chase = 2^7 = 1 in 128. Again, you can't compare thousands to the 100 trials of a 50/50 roulette chase since your odds of losing 1 are so much smaller.

I appreciate that you are trying to prove your point mathematically and not just argue for the sake of arguing. I will reiterate what I said before. We will start by betting on the OKC and their opponent. We are going to assume that OKC loses 6 times in a row and covers on the 7th. You have bet $11 on their opponent 6 times in a row and covered. Your gains on the opponent are $60. You lose on the opponent on the last bet so you must subtract $11 from your $60 profit. $60 - $11 = $49. That is what you profit from the opponent. Now what happened with OKC? We had a 6 game losing streak followed by a win on the 7th game. We start at $11 and everytime we lose we multiply this number by 2.1. $11 + $23.10 + $48.51 + $101.87 + $213.93 + $449.25 = $847.66. This is how much money you lost on OKC up to this point. On the 7th bet you wager $943.43. In my example above I multiplied by 0.91 which is a rounded number. You divided by 1.1. Dividing by 1.1 will give us a more accurate number so we have $943.43/1.1 = $857.66363. We will round to $857.66. We lost $847.66 so $857.66 - $847.66 = $10.00 We gained $10 on the 7th tier. We gained $49 by betting the opponent. $49 + $10 = $59.

[arpeggiomeister]

OKC gets smoked by Miami. They lost against the spread by 25 points. When I use this theory in the NFL on 10 point teasers this is the kind of situation I am looking for. Any result within 10 points of a push is normal. By losing to the spread by 25 points OKC backers just got burned. Let's look at what is happening psychologically. The OKC backers just got burned so they will feel a little leary about backing them against a quality Clippers squad. Theoretically this makes the spread weaker. The bookmakers will have to set the spread a bit lower to get people to come in on the Thunder. If the Thunder had blown out Miami the spread would need to be bigger to get people to back the Clippers. This is basic human psychology. On the other hand, the Thunder just got their asses handed to them. They are going to be looking for redemption. They will play harder then ever. This is the cornerstone of my entire theory. It is this psychology that balances the spread, not random chance. As such it means that the results of a previous games have a clear and profound affect on future games. These pendulum swings in crowd psychology balance sports wagers almost to perfection. That is why I believe they are vulnerable to chase systems. It is a theory. I could be right , I could be wrong, but I have seen enough evidence to support the idea, and that is what I am trying to share with you guys.

[arpeggiomeister]

I will be on the 4th tier vs the Clippers. It will be $101.87 on OKC and $11 on LAC on Sunday.

[arpeggiomeister]

My numbers show that it makes $9 at tier 2, $19 at tier 3, $29 at tier 4. So at tier 7, it makes $59 and not $10. For example, at tier 4, i bet $77.76. I lost $31.79 on tier 3 and $9.9 on tier 2. So if I win at tier 4, i win 77.76/1.1 - 31.79 - 9.9 = $29 and not just 1 unit like you do in your favourite bet.

I adjusted the bet amount to match your win expectation per tier. This resulted in lower losses. You say the chase will recuperate the extra juice paid. This is only true if you never incur a loss. If your system goes perfect, then it won't matter that you are paying more to win the same amount. But in your football example, you exited 1 year with a loss. Betting 1 side would of resulted in smaller loss.


Regarding the odds of the chase. You have 10 years of football data. It seems like a lot but what is your sample size. Your tier 1 is a guaranteed loss. So you don't get a win until tier 2. So it's really a 4 tier system to get a win. So anytime your team covers, then you restart your chase. So in 2007, you don't start to bet expecting to win money on the patriots till week 11. So up to that point of the year, your sample size was 1. So your sample size for the 10 years is well under 140 games.

You compare a roulette chase system saying it can still crack with 100 trials. I assume you're betting a red or black scenario. So assume that's a 50/50 odd. With the football system, you have 4 tiers so the odds of losing 4 consecutive 50/50 is 2^4 = 1 in 16. It's not comparable to compare 100 trials of a 50/50 odd to 100 trials of a 1 in 16 odd.

You say you have thousands of trials. If that's for basketball on a 7 tier system. Odds of losing a chase = 2^7 = 1 in 128. Again, you can't compare thousands to the 100 trials of a 50/50 roulette chase since your odds of losing 1 are so much smaller.

In rebuttal to your argument that I can not compare these chasing systems on sports to the roulette wheel you missed one very important point. The roulette tests were using Martingale systems as well. I typically use a 7 tier Martingale starting with $1 and go to $64. This is because your typical online roulette game has a minimum $1 bet and maximum $100. Since I am comparing chase systems of the exact same size then the math is comparable between roulette and sports. If betting against the spread in sports is truly random then the results should be comparable to the results I receive betting on roulette. I am comparing the exact same betting systems between 2 different games that are assumed to be random. If a 7 tier martingale is 1/128 for sports that it is the exact same odds for that system on roulette. This is an experiment. I have used roulette as the control. I can tell you that if you use this dual martingale on red and black in roulette it is financial suicide. The fact that it is working in sports means one of two things. 1. I have hit an anomalous streak of variance. According to your math I should lose approximately once out of every 16 games using the 4 tier system in the NFL. I have gone 160 games without a loss. That is way beyond any standard deviation. The NBA should be losing once out of every 128 games. I have only shown one loss for 840 games. Is this just variance? This is entirely possible, and that is exactly why I am paper trading this instead of using real money. I am testing it. I want to see if this is just a fluke 2. The other possibility is that sports are not random. The spread is controlled by bubble patterns caused by fear and greed. That is what I believe is happening. If I am right it is simply a matter of having a chase system big enough to capture these cycles without blowing up your bankroll.

[pip2]

I appreciate your arguments about how the outcomes of the games can affect the spreads and the outcomes of future games, unlike in games of pure chance. But your small number of back-tested games over 10 years is not enough to test a system such as this. Would you test the martingale system on a roulette wheel by making a single bet on a wheel spin every 2 or 3 days for 8 months out of the year for ten years? Such a system might never lose in the entire 10 years you were spinning the wheel under those conditions. But the test would not be worth much, and yet you might walk away proudly proclaiming that your system never failed you once in ten years!

But good luck at any rate!

[arpeggiomeister]

I appreciate your arguments about how the outcomes of the games can affect the spreads and the outcomes of future games, unlike in games of pure chance. But your small number of back-tested games over 10 years is not enough to test a system such as this. Would you test the martingale system on a roulette wheel by making a single bet on a wheel spin every 2 or 3 days for 8 months out of the year for ten years? Such a system might never lose in the entire 10 years you were spinning the wheel under those conditions. But the test would not be worth much, and yet you might walk away proudly proclaiming that your system never failed you once in ten years!

But good luck at any rate!

I appreciate your point of view and frankly that is what makes betting on sports so difficult. If you focus in on a certain set of criteria it makes the sample size so small that you do not know if your idea is working or you are simply experiencing variance. When the Jacksonville Jaguars were 26 point underdogs to the Denver Broncos this year one of the featured touts in the SBR videos backed them claiming that all spreads over 20 favored the underdogs. His sample size was something like 6-2. I do not remember the exact stats but the sample size was under 10. He turned out to be right but the logic is very much the same as what you are referring too. Each NFL team plays 16 games in a season. A 10 year study is 160 games. That is enough games to start seeing cracks in a 4 tier system. Could it just be variance? I can not argue that. If I had 20 years of data would that change your mind? Probably not. What about 30? When you test a roulette wheel for bias you need a minimum of 4,000 spins to get any kind of reliable data. 30,000 spins are much better. We simply do not have that luxury in sports betting. All I can do is present my idea and tell you why I think it is working. If you agree with my idea and it gets you to think differently about sports betting that is great! If you think my idea is just a fluke there is really nothing I can say or do to convince you otherwise, just remember that everyone telling you that homedogs of -6 or more beat the spread 60% of the time are dealing with sample sizes just as small as mine. If you make any betting decision based on that data you are taking a leap of faith because all of our sample sizes are too small in this game to accurately tell us anything. Everything you said is spot on and I totally respect that.

[arpeggiomeister]

OKC is -5.5 today vs LAC. We are on the 4th tier. $101.87 on OKC and $11 on the Clippers.

[arpeggiomeister]

if it works continue it, why bash a system that has worked positively in his favour for over 10 years? so what he loses juice and so what he makes small wagers. If the general outcome is money in his pocket than he is a good better. Your onto something, keep going brother.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do believe I am on to something. I could fall on my face and it would not be the first time, but if my theory is correct about the point spread system it means we must re-examine the validity of the gambler's fallacy. (the logic that all chase systems are built on)

[arpeggiomeister]

OKC is starting to make me sweat. lol They get beat by the Clippers 125 to 117. This brings is to tier 5. We have 3 tiers left to capture a win or the system will bust. The next game is on Wednesday against the Cavaliers. It will be $213.93 on OKC and $11 on CLE.

[arpeggiomeister]

OKC tanks again. We are now on tier 6 against Memphis on Friday. $449.25 on OKC, and $11 on Memphis. I just realized that I did not update what the spread was against Cleveland, which was -15. They lost ATS by 25 points. They have 2 games left to turn this around. The good news is they face Charlotte on Sunday. As long as the spread is not -30 they should be able to beat on them pretty good. I will keep plugging away to see what happens.

[pip2]

Whether your system works or not, your luck seems to be astonishingly bad. One would expect any problems to occur somewhere way down the line, not right off the bat like this. It was bad timing, though, to jump on OKC just as Westbrook came back. Miami seems to be gearing up for post season, so maybe that would have been a better choice timing-wise...unfortunately, Charlotte this year is often outplaying the spread, so your best chances might actually be with Memphis. Hope your luck turns tomorrow night!

[arpeggiomeister]

Whether your system works or not, your luck seems to be astonishingly bad. One would expect any problems to occur somewhere way down the line, not right off the bat like this. It was bad timing, though, to jump on OKC just as Westbrook came back. Miami seems to be gearing up for post season, so maybe that would have been a better choice timing-wise...unfortunately, Charlotte this year is often outplaying the spread, so your best chances might actually be with Memphis. Hope your luck turns tomorrow night!

Agreed. lol OKC had not had a losing streak larger then 3 ATS when I started this. This is why I paper trade these things before jumping in with real money. I get to simulate what doing this for real would be like. Even if I pull out of this with a win, at this point it would be really scary. I have two games left to cover. If I lose then I blow up a bankroll of almost $2,000. I am going to stick it out and see what happens. If I survive these next two games I noticed that the Heat has just jumped to #1 on the ESPN power ranking list. We will see where I stand on Sunday.

[arpeggiomeister]

OKC is -5.5 tonight. $449.25 on OKC, and $11 on Memphis.

[arpeggiomeister]

Whether your system works or not, your luck seems to be astonishingly bad. One would expect any problems to occur somewhere way down the line, not right off the bat like this. It was bad timing, though, to jump on OKC just as Westbrook came back. Miami seems to be gearing up for post season, so maybe that would have been a better choice timing-wise...unfortunately, Charlotte this year is often outplaying the spread, so your best chances might actually be with Memphis. Hope your luck turns tomorrow night!

Charllotte often outplaying the spread may work to my advantage. Look at how many times the Thunder have lost ATS now. Two of those losses were over 20 points. They were favored by 15 against Cleveland. They lost by 10. That is a loss of 25 ATS. People must be experiencing the same kind of fear I am right now. I would expect them to reach a threshold of pain and back off from the Thunder. Meanwhile you would expect the Thunder to bounce back here pretty soon. They have not just lost ATS, they lost the past 3 games SU, at home no less. You would expect them to fire back. That is precisely what this theory is all about. On one side you have the public losing money and getting scared. This theoretically should cause the spread to drop. Then you have one of the top ranked teams in the league getting beat at home. You would expect them to get angry and say "not on my turf!!!!". It should create the perfect storm. If I can ever figure out a way to pinpoint when that breaking point is going to be then I can dump the chase system and grind it out like the pros. I am not there yet. I can't tell you when the reversal will be, just that it will happen. If the chase system is deep enough it will capture it when it does. If Charlotte has been covering spreads people will be leary of them. That combined with OKC's poor performance as of late could be the breaking point we are looking for.

[arpeggiomeister]

Finally we conclude the first series in this chase. Goldsheet
listed this as -6.5 which would be a loss, but when I checked the
game this morning on BETdsi it was -5.5. I am counting it as a win.

We won on OKC vs POR. We then started chasing the POR loss with
OKC on the following games. It took us to tier 6 to cover. This
erases all of the losses and recoups the $11 lost on POR.





To this point we have won $60 and the bet on Memphis loses $11.
We are currently up by $49.






The Miami Heat has moved to the top of the ESPN power rankings so
I may give chase with them for the next series. I will sleep on it
and see what I think in the morning.

[arpeggiomeister]

We are starting our second chase series now. The Miami Heat have moved to #1 in the ESPN power rankings so we are going to switch to them. We are now chasing the $11 loss on Memphis. Miami is -14 against Orlando according to BETdsi. $23.10 on Miami and $11 on Orlando.

[arpeggiomeister]

The Heat push: 112-98 Still on tier 2 against the Bobcats on Monday.

[arpeggiomeister]

Just checked the Heat on BETdsi and they are currently -12.5. $23.10 on the Heat and $11 on the Bobcats.

[arpeggiomeister]

The Heat cover and thus concludes the second chase. We are currently up by $59.

[cchobo]

Well this has been entertaining ...

As I understand it, on level 7 you are betting $943.43 to win $10. Best of luck on that 7th game, should it come.

I don't understand your math though. For the illustrated betting seasons, it appear there were 62 wins and 77 losses for the opposite game. You would have had better results over those samples just going with the martingale.

For the 2007 Patriots, there were 10 martingale wins and 1 loss [the series wasn't closed out]. Just using your martingale, you should have netted 9 units [if I understand the progression]. Using $100 units, it would be $900 [I understand that is what you were using, but I might be confused]. The opposite series was 4-10 that year, or -6 units. I would think you netted 3 units combined, yet the caption is

Win $1,059 – ROI 25.9%

Equal weighted bets would have gone 10 - 4

Equal weights on the power team over 10 years went 77 - 62 or 55.4% ....

Anyway I liked the concept of yours. I have used opposite systems on craps, but always cancelled opposing bets. But that was just so I didn't look any more stupid than I already did