[itsjhurley]

Stifler just a friendly suggestion but you should probably record Utah as a push even if the series won't continue. If you were backtesting this season that's what you would have seen and that's what you would have recorded. If you record it as a win your record will be inaccurate in comparison to your backtested records.

the spread was 5.5, they won

[Nino7]

not the closing line

[itsjhurley]

not the closing line

gotcha

[kosti]

I wonder if we should wait until just before tip off to place our bets...at least we will be staying consistent with the backtesting

[kosti]

Hoping for some insight on this...I've been thinking about this system quite a bit the last day or two and I've played it and researched it since Stifler first posted it. I understand the selection of teams fitting each system likely by the high % of hit rate.

Here is my thought though...are we a little naive to pick and choose specific teams for each system based on 6 years of back testing? Since within a 6 year period teams can undergo drastic changes from players, to coaches, to management. In essence, we are betting on the organization and not the actual team. Why would an organization have certain trends if the personnel is constantly different? If teams stayed the same year after year I completely see the validity of choosing specific teams but they don't.

For Example (and this is very unrealistic but gets my point across)....Chicago is a team that we fade after an OT game (S4), they have likely shown extremely strong numbers to lose ATS shortly after an OT game. During the summer the 5 starters, 3 guys first off the bench, the coaches, and GM get traded/moved to Denver (not an S4 team) in exchange for Denver's 5 starters, 3 guys first off the bench, the coaches, and the GM. The next season Chicago is still an S4 team as they have still shown extremely strong numbers supporting this trend however the team has completely changed from one season to the next. So if we are continuing to fade Chicago it is the city/organization and not the actual team.

My point is that I feel this should be an NBA wide system rather than team specific since teams change constantly. If this is a league-wide trend then we definitely have something special here...but choosing specific teams based on back-testing is a bit of a crap-shoot since you completely rely on the teams makeup in the past and not what it currently is.

Definitely may be over thinking this, but would like to here some insight into this thought.

[fooubar]

Hoping for some insight on this...I've been thinking about this system quite a bit the last day or two and I've played it and researched it since Stifler first posted it. I understand the selection of teams fitting each system likely by the high % of hit rate.

Here is my thought though...are we a little naive to pick and choose specific teams for each system based on 6 years of back testing? Since within a 6 year period teams can undergo drastic changes from players, to coaches, to management. In essence, we are betting on the organization and not the actual team. Why would an organization have certain trends if the personnel is constantly different? If teams stayed the same year after year I completely see the validity of choosing specific teams but they don't.

For Example (and this is very unrealistic but gets my point across)....Chicago is a team that we fade after an OT game (S4), they have likely shown extremely strong numbers to lose ATS shortly after an OT game. During the summer the 5 starters, 3 guys first off the bench, the coaches, and GM get traded/moved to Denver (not an S4 team) in exchange for Denver's 5 starters, 3 guys first off the bench, the coaches, and the GM. The next season Chicago is still an S4 team as they have still shown extremely strong numbers supporting this trend however the team has completely changed from one season to the next. So if we are continuing to fade Chicago it is the city/organization and not the actual team.

My point is that I feel this should be an NBA wide system rather than team specific since teams change constantly. If this is a league-wide trend then we definitely have something special here...but choosing specific teams based on back-testing is a bit of a crap-shoot since you completely rely on the teams makeup in the past and not what it currently is.

Definitely may be over thinking this, but would like to here some insight into this thought.

Yes I was thinking the exactly same thing.
It might be better to leave out teams, which undergo drastic personel changes.
Just play those, who remained similar.

e.g. the Spurs are a very good example I know exactly, when you can make money with them. It's really easy because they remained nearly the same team for years and you can easy find the spots, when they were profitable in the past. And they remained profitable in the same spots for years now.
Same with Miami, fading them on this road trip was pure gold and that was the case the last two years with them during regular season they are fade material on the road in many spots.

But I did not have the time to really test anything yet, when I find it I'll be looking in a few more things too.

[Grinder12000]

kosti and fooubar - I am of the same mind as you guys but here is the thing. If you take the entire league the system will fail - I guarantee it. I've been playing with systems for 40 years running sims and so forth and if you put this up to a simulation at some point - it will fail using the entire NBA.

NOW - you say

It might be better to leave out teams, which undergo drastic personel changes.

WELL - true true - but just how complicated do you want to make this. What you are suggesting is to take the system one or two steps further - It would probably be better,.but bang for buck better? Do you want to spend 80 hours tweaking "the system" to get an extra 0.1% profit? You probably could eek out a slightly better % but at what time/cost. OR you could really make it better but . . . at the moment it looks pretty darn good to me already.

I THINK Stif used 6 years of data but he is not counting all 6 years into THIS years data - perhaps only the last couple years. Plus MAYBE it does not change. Maybe the reason certain teams are better/worse is not personal but travel difficulties! Time zone changes, jet lag and not a "team/ human" thing. (does that make sense?)"

As kosti says "So if we are continuing to fade Chicago it is the city/organization and not the actual team."

That actually might be the case and why the system seems to work.

My football system has worked for 22 years and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual game of football.

FURTHERMORE - THE RECORDS AND LINES USED DEBATE.

One of the hardest things to do when giving out picks and records are the problems with a game is close and the lines have changed. It is a freaking nightmare and will ruin a good handicapper with bickering.

You either have to trust a guy or move on. This is going to happen a LOT and people just have to understand that they are in charge of their own money. Stif is not trying to boost his record. He's back tested up the ying yang and now let him place his bets and make his money while we place our bets and make our money.

I say that he should use what HE gets for a line as long as it's not outlandish. As long as he posts the line it's good. He can't post -5.5 and then use a different number for the record. What he posts that is what he should use. If someone has a worse line, well, that is his problem (not being mean but wagering is an individual thing).

[cubfan2121]

Stifler,

Do happen to have the w/l record from last year or previous years?
or
Do you know the longest streak of A bets that were winners?

I do a little bonus parlay with the JM system.
I invest $1 on an open 10 team parlay and just keep playing the A bets until it loses
On two occations last year there were 9 wins in a row with the A bet game
so Im just experimenting with trying to hit a 10 team open parlay via 5 dimes

Payout is 650 to 1

[Stifler]

Hey Stifler, if people that pushed are still fading boston at home their next 4 home games, well they play raptors next. And we are fading raptors, do we just play both bets for their respective amounts and keep chasing the loser of the two i'm assuming?

System play was to fade Boston S2, the next 4 games would be:

17.11. play Toronto spread
21.11. play Spurs spread
23.11. play OKC spread
28.11. play Brooklyn spread

Stifler just a friendly suggestion but you should probably record Utah as a push even if the series won't continue. If you were backtesting this season that's what you would have seen and that's what you would have recorded. If you record it as a win your record will be inaccurate in comparison to your backtested records.

no, i will list it like i posted the plays. Here is the thing about what ur saying. Lets say im getting a worser line than the closing line on covers and the closing line is a winner, mine is a loser. Should i list it as a win then? Would be blatant stupid.

I will recap everything again after the nba season with the closing lines on covers, same goes for mlb.

[Nino7]

no, i will list it like i posted the plays. Here is the thing about what ur saying. Lets say im getting a worser line than the closing line on covers and the closing line is a winner, mine is a loser. Should i list it as a win then? Would be blatant stupid.

I think thelimit0310 is right myself.you should keep the closing line record...

[thelimit0310]

no, i will list it like i posted the plays. Here is the thing about what ur saying. Lets say im getting a worser line than the closing line on covers and the closing line is a winner, mine is a loser. Should i list it as a win then? Would be blatant stupid.

The lines wouldn't differ by more than a point or half a point. And yeah If i were you I would list it the way covers has it because it matches your backtest. Anything else is inaccurate win or lose. But of course it's your thread and you can do as you wish.

[J.M. Disciple]

S4 11-5-12 GSW +2 (A) push
S1 11-7-12 LAL +3 (A) Lose
S4 11-7-12 DET +5.5 (A) Win
S1 11-9-12 Den -4.5 (B) Win
S2 11-9-12 Den -4.5 (A) win
S4 11-9-12 Mil -3 (A) win
S1 11-10-12 min +8 (A) win
S3 11-11-12 LAC -5.5 (A) win
S1 11-12-12 POR -2.5 (A) Lose
S4 11-12-12 Min +6.5 (A) win
S1 11-13-12 Por +3 (A) win
S4 11-13-12 IND -9.5 (A) Lose
S1 11-14-12 gsw -1.5 (B) win
S2 11-14-12 UTA +5 (A) push
S1 11-15-12 SAS -5 (A) Pending

A) 8w – 2P – 3L
B) 2 – 0 (1 PENDING)

overall winning percentages:
record: 1308-23
A Bet: 731-600 (54,92%)
B Bet: 344-256 (57,33%)
C Bet: 166-90 (64,84%)
D Bet: 67-23 (74,44%)

post #1 for rules, post #77 for qualifying teams.

[Stifler]

Stifler,

Do happen to have the w/l record from last year or previous years?
or
Do you know the longest streak of A bets that were winners?

1. page 1 post #1, record for 2011/2012 listed
2. dunno, could be around the same, like 9W or 9L in a row

I wonder if we should wait until just before tip off to place our bets...at least we will be staying consistent with the backtesting

nah, stupid. If im getting a better line than the closing line i will take it everyday.

Here is my thought though...are we a little naive to pick and choose specific teams for each system based on 6 years of back testing? Since within a 6 year period teams can undergo drastic changes from players, to coaches, to management. In essence, we are betting on the organization and not the actual team. Why would an organization have certain trends if the personnel is constantly different? If teams stayed the same year after year I completely see the validity of choosing specific teams but they don't.

I could go and check it for every team, but i dont like it anyway. All i know is there are teams out there who also would put +units for the system. Example: Dallas is 59-2 (+22,1 units) on S2 over the 6 years or Houston is 55-2 (+18,1 units) on S2 aswell. I just dont like their stats overall, it may be because they had alot D bets or smth like that. I wasnt just looking for pure record or +units stats when i choose the teams. Same goes for mlb.

On a sidenote there is one thing u should not forget. In the end ur not betting on the moneyline, even if teams change the spread changes aswell. Miami wouldnt get the same spreads a few years ago they are getting now. In the end ur not betting on a team or against a team. Ur betting against the bookie line, cause they try to even out the team differences on spreads.

[CrazyCarl]

I would just like to say that you're incredibly awesome for dealing with all of these questions without losing your mind. Thanks again for your work in here.

One small addition: I think I agree with thelimit that you could simply put the play as 'it will be based on the closing line, so if you want to make sure you get the same line as the system, wait until the closing line'. I think this is how Wallco sets his systems. But, your way certainly has advantages too and honestly is not that big of a deal, and I don't think anyone is trying to claim that you are being malicious with this in any way. Your system, run it how you want. xD

[Stifler]

The lines wouldn't differ by more than a point or half a point. And yeah If i were you I would list it the way covers has it because it matches your backtest. Anything else is inaccurate win or lose. But of course it's your thread and you can do as you wish.

ur getting way to serious about that. We are just talking about an inaccurate W or L record if the outcome of the series is different. Means for example if S2 Boston fade the next 4 games will all be loser, the record will be different. If one of those 4 games go through, nothing will actually change, its +1 unit like i listed it.

[Stifler]

I would just like to say that you're incredibly awesome for dealing with all of these questions without losing your mind. Thanks again for your work in here.

One small addition: I think I agree with thelimit that you could simply put the play as 'it will be based on the closing line, so if you want to make sure you get the same line as the system, wait until the closing line'. I think this is how Wallco sets his systems. But, your way certainly has advantages too and honestly is not that big of a deal, and I don't think anyone is trying to claim that you are being malicious with this in any way. Your system, run it how you want. xD

actually im more dishonest if i would use the closing lines. Money is involved when i put in the play, even if the line is better or worser. The closing line is just important for backtesting issues. U will never get the exactly closing line when u put in the play.
Whatever, like i said above, record just changes if we had a different outcome on series.

[CrazyCarl]

Yeah, there's no perfect way to do it.

[kosti]

On a sidenote there is one thing u should not forget. In the end ur not betting on the moneyline, even if teams change the spread changes aswell. Miami wouldnt get the same spreads a few years ago they are getting now. In the end ur not betting on a team or against a team. Ur betting against the bookie line, cause they try to even out the team differences on spreads.

Great Point.....didn't think about that sort of thing either. Thanks

[Want2Win]

Who cares really, I even hate to post to just muddle up this thread....the guy is giving us winners. Why try to reinvent the wheel!

Jezzzz, with all the posts trying to make his system better or how he is posting his record this will be an 8000 post thread by the end of the season

[J.M. Disciple]

I see SAS at -5.5 right now, but majority of the public is on NYK, so line should move in our favor.

[mrk77]

Who cares really, I even hate to post to just muddle up this thread....the guy is giving us winners. Why try to reinvent the wheel!

Jezzzz, with all the posts trying to make his system better or how he is posting his record this will be an 8000 post thread by the end of the season

I tried to point this out already. Realized that idiots will be idiots and there's nothing I can do to change that. I love this system in MLB and now nba, following the picks that are posted and even buy points to match the spread that is posted, I'll add the extra juice that I paid on the next bet if I lost. Why doesn't everyone just relax and stop stressing about stupidities?

[Grinder12000]

I suppose I would muddy the waters if I said I put a different amount on $ on each of the 4 systems?

[Bdeng]

for those of us who pushed on +5 on utah the other day, the next system play would be the 17th vs Boston, which would coincide with the toronto fade "B" bet on that exact game. What would you do in this situation? Wouldnt it be better to just wait it out for the outcome of the game, and bet on the next game of the losing series to win 2 units in order to save on the juice?

[swankk]

I'm in disbelief on how you guys are really telling him to modify & develop his system as if this record proven system is some fabricated pick out the hat. How selfish and ungrateful are you to hijack his thread with an interpertation on what would be a more prominent system.

[fooubar]

for those of us who pushed on +5 on utah the other day, the next system play would be the 17th vs Boston, which would coincide with the toronto fade "B" bet on that exact game. What would you do in this situation? Wouldnt it be better to just wait it out for the outcome of the game, and bet on the next game of the losing series to win 2 units in order to save on the juice?

You can play both

fade TOR -> B bet on BOS with 2.31 u
fade BOS -> A bet on TOR with 1.1 u

-> Meaning you only have to put down a bet of 1.31 u on BOS.

In case BOS wins -> fade TOR series finished and fade BOS will be a B bet in their next home game.
In case TOR wins -> fade BOS series is finished and there is a C bet gainst TOR in their next game.

[J.M. Disciple]

System is really easy to follow once you know which teams fit in each system. Just sit back let Stiff post the picks and enjoy the profits. He even post the risk amount on each one, all you have to do is view the pick and risk same amount.

[Nino7]

You can play bothfade TOR -> B bet on BOS with 2.31 ufade BOS -> A bet on TOR with 1.1 u-> Meaning you only have to put down a bet of 1.31 u on BOS.In case BOS wins -> fade TOR series finished and fade BOS will be a B bet in their next home game.In case TOR wins -> fade BOS series is finished and there is a C bet gainst TOR in their next game.

i think its actually "-> Meaning you only have to put down a bet of 1.21 u on BOS." because you chase 2,1 unit on BOS and 1 on TOR so if you play both at a time you chase 1,1 on BOS so u bet 1,21 not 1,31

[Grinder12000]

Small problem is that I always bet 1 unit to win 0.91 units! I had to do a little conversion. Plus if the moneyline is -105 and not -110 there are some small tweaks involved if you want to stay perfect.

I would LOVE it if someone had an excel formula for the MLB lines Stifler had going that blew me away. Losing a -140 and then having to play a +196 the next day blew my mind LOL

[J.M. Disciple]

If you have -105 or -108 but bet to win same way stiflier does, then just consider it extra winnings.

[Nino7]

You can play bothfade TOR -> B bet on BOS with 2.31 ufade BOS -> A bet on TOR with 1.1 u-> Meaning you only have to put down a bet of 1.31 u on BOS.In case BOS wins -> fade TOR series finished and fade BOS will be a B bet in their next home game.In case TOR wins -> fade BOS series is finished and there is a C bet gainst TOR in their next game.

i think its actually "-> Meaning you only have to put down a bet of 1.21 u on BOS." because you chase 2,1 unit on BOS and 1 on TOR so if you play both at a time you chase 1,1 on BOS so u bet 1,21 not 1,31

[Stifler]

i think its actually "-> Meaning you only have to put down a bet of 1.21 u on BOS." because you chase 2,1 unit on BOS and 1 on TOR so if you play both at a time you chase 1,1 on BOS so u bet 1,21 not 1,31

fade TOR -> B bet on BOS with 2.31 u
fade BOS -> A bet on TOR with 1.1 u

carefull, its too late to do some maths, but i dont think u will come out winning 1u each on every series when ur just betting the 1.21 units on Boston. I could be wrong here, its just my first impression when i was reading this. Thats why i always play it exactly the way it should be played. Means risking 2,31 on Tor fade (B Bet) and also risking 1,1u on Bos fade.

[fooubar]

fade TOR -> B bet on BOS with 2.31 u
fade BOS -> A bet on TOR with 1.1 u

carefull, its too late to do some maths, but i dont think u will come out winning 1u each on every series when ur just betting the 1.21 units on Boston. I could be wrong here, its just my first impression when i was reading this. Thats why i always play it exactly the way it should be played. Means risking 2,31 on Tor fade (B Bet) and also risking 1,1u on Bos fade.

Ok lets do this very detailed:

BOS loses -> 0 u lost | -1.31 u lost -> BOS fade is finished | C bet fade TOR will recover 1.1 + 2.31 + 1 u -> 1.1 + 1 + 1 u won (-1.1 from A bet fade TOR) -> 2 u
TOR loses -> 1.19 u won | 0 u lost -> TOR fade finished | B bet on BOS will recover 1.1 + 1 u -> 1.19 + 1.1 + 1 u won (-1.1 from A bet fade TOR) -> 2.19 u

So not betting both will result in a possible gain of +0.19 u, in case TOR loses, nothing extra if BOS loses.

[Riceboi]

Ok lets do this very detailed:

BOS loses -> 0 u lost | -1.31 u lost -> BOS fade is finished | C bet fade TOR will recover 1.1 + 2.31 + 1 u -> 1.1 + 1 + 1 u won (-1.1 from A bet fade TOR) -> 2 u
TOR loses -> 1.19 u won | 0 u lost -> TOR fade finished | B bet on BOS will recover 1.1 + 1 u -> 1.19 + 1.1 + 1 u won (-1.1 from A bet fade TOR) -> 2.19 u

So not betting both will result in a possible gain of +0.19 u, in case TOR loses, nothing extra if BOS loses.

That mumbo jumbo is confusing as shit lol. I'll just keep it simple and play BOTH series respectively, and chase the loser.

[Stifler]

15.11.2012

S1

(A Bet) SA: SA Spurs -5 1,10u

records:
S1: W 6 | L 0 (+6,00 units)
S2: W 2 | L 0 (+2,00 units)
S3: W 1 | L 0 (+1,00 units)
S4: W 3 | L 0 (+3,00 units)

pending:
- S4 Tor fade, B Bet on 17.11.2012
- S1 SA, B Bet on 17.11.2012

[Stifler]

16.11.2012

S1

(A Bet) NYK: NY Knicks +5,5 1,10u