-
Comment -
Thanks heaps Stifler. I'm sure you realise, but I'll reiterate the other praise you've received and say just how brilliant your work is and how much we appreciate it! Kudos for being able to apply yourself to a passion so fully, and share it with the rest of us!Comment -
updated.
21.11.2012
S1
(B Bet) Den fade: Memphis -7,5 1,10u | Minnesota +3,5 2,31u
(A Bet) Sac fade: Lakers -5,5 1,10u
S4
(A Bet) Dal fade: NY Knicks -2,5 1,10uComment -
Stifler, I got a question regarding to the S4:when a game went to OT,which team are you chasing to lose?Comment -
BOTH if both teams are on the below list. S1 and S4 are the most logical of the systems and I think S4 is awesome.
S1 teams:
Boston (W streaks only)
Brooklyn (L streaks only)
NYK
Toronto
Chicago
Detroit
Indiana (W streaks only)
Milwaukee (W streaks only)
Atlanta (L streaks only)
Charlotte (W streaks only)
Denver
Utah
Sacramento (L streaks only)
SA Spurs
S2 teams:
Boston
Cleveland
Atlanta
Orlando
Utah
S3 teams:
Toronto
Indiana
Atlanta
Charlotte
Golden State
S4 teams:
Toronto
Chicago
Atlanta
Miami
Washington
Minnesota
LA Clippers
Sacramento
Dallas
MemphisComment -
Whats the over/under on Overtime games tonight 5? sheesh!!Comment -
jeez kevin love practice your 3 pointers more. 2 for 9.Comment -
-
For sure Asset - Got some stressin' coming up but I suppose we should get used to it. Have a dozen games on Saturday at this rate LOLComment -
22.11.2012
no plays obviouslyComment -
Love the threadComment -
Happy Thanksgiving guys!Comment -
Stifler,
I want to start out by saying you are running a great thread here. I know how complicated it is to run a multi-level system with different criteria for each of the systems, and the barage of repeat questions by newbies who refuse to read the thread before asking, and the same handful of people who ask the same questions everyday, regardless of how many times they were asked already. You have a very great deal of patience with that, with which at times, I have had a tendancy of losing in my threads, which after the fact I sometimes regret. I'm very impressed with that. I have spent the last hour reading the 503 posts prior to this one, and if everyone would do that when first coming in here, this thread could probably be about 100-200 posts shorter at this point. But that is how it is on SBR and that will never change.
I did have a few questions though:
1) Do you happen to know the A, B, C, D breakdown of you S1 for the losing streak portion? The reason I ask, is because the criteria for your S1 losing streak plays are a direct contradiction to my Chase 110 system criteria (which I post in JM thread) for the same losing streaks. In Chase 110, we are BETTING ON a team that has lost 3 games ATS, not fading them. One of the very interesting facts about Chase 110 is I have a very high win % on A bets as compared to a lot of systems. Since that is true, the opposite (fading the team) would have to be a much lower percentage I would think. Perhaps skipping one game after the losing streak, and starting the bet on the second game, may increase profits significantly, possibly even eliminating some of your (D) bet losses, since series would be going 1 game further than usual. I am not trying to redesign your system at all, just comparing your system to my 10 years of backtested results for similar qualifying plays in both of our systems.
2) How many of your season losses were a result of having to play both sides of a game on a (D) bet, because both of those teams qualified around the same time, and both of their fourth games were to be played against each other? I noticed this on occasion when I was backtesting Chase 110, two teams qualified with losing streaks and they were due to play each other in their respective 4th games. I now try to eliminate these potential disaster (D) bet head to head matches. When teams qualify, I post on my spreadsheet their next four opponents. If two of these teams are playing against each other in both (D) bets, I won't begin series until the following:
hA) The team that starts their series first, I will play that team, and not play the other team until the first team has concluded their series, and provided the second team hasn't won their series in the meantime. This could cost you a couple of wins during the season, but not having the opportunity to play the second team usually doesn't happen 18.45 times, which is what it will cost you in EVERY one of these (D) bet face-offs (provided there's no push).
gB) If two teams start their series on the same day, I will play neither team until game 2.
- At this point, if both teams lost game 1, I will then play both teams as normal (A) bets in their next game, which originally would have been their (B) bets. Now, if the teams should happen to face each other, it will be in their (C) bets instead of their (D) bets, and the bets will be even stronger because at this point, the losing streaks are even longer than the standard, and you will still have a chance to win the (D) bet which would have been a guaranteed loss by one of the teams in the previous game if using the regular format (outside of a push).
- If 1 team wins the game that we skipped and the other team loses, I will play the team that lost for a normal (B) bet wager amount to try and recoup the unit we didn't get on the team that won that we skipped. Continue the rest of that series as normal, trying to recoup 2 units instead of 1. A loss will be 16.52 units this way (instead of 18.45), and you will still win the 1 unit for each team that qualified originally if one of these bets win (2 units).
- If both teams win their game 1 bet (the one that we skipped) then there would be no wagers on either team. From the backtests from my system, this doesn't happen too often to cause significant loss in profits, but obviously, different systems could have different results. Because I believe these certain plays (3 game losing streaks ATS) are a less winning percentage on (A), only because the opposite plays in Chase 110 are strong in (A) bets, I think it would be very rare in this system that neither team would end up being a play at some point.
As I said, you are doing a phenomenal job in here. Even though most of my systems have produced great long-time results, I am still constantly going back to try to find any little things that can eliminate a few losses and not sacrifice a lot of wins in the process. One of the obvious ways to do so is by trying to avoid (D) bet matchups while playing ATS on both sides, which will 100% of the time, end in a loss if the teams face each other (ouside of a push). Thanks for all your work, you are a great asset to this forum.Last edited by Wallco99; 11-22-12, 04:04 PM.Comment -
Remember that there are not many teams that play the losing side of S1.
what I have seen is that losing D games are winning A games.
not answering for Stifler but from my testing very few times does #2 come up since all teams are not playing all sides, if at all. Some teams really SUCK fading.Comment -
How can I "remember that" if I don't even know what the breakdowns if the S1 system on the losing streaks are? Which in fact, was actually my question. And as far as item #2 goes, it doesn't have to happen a "lot" to do damage, only once. And from MY testing, it happens enough to pay attention to it. Thanks for your reply, but I'll wait for his response.Last edited by Wallco99; 11-22-12, 03:58 PM.Comment -
Fair enough. There are dozens of things that can mess this up and I'm just waiting to see what happens. For instance. A D game will and also be an A game going the other direction while one team is coming off an overtime game. Plus the whole S2 thing. When that happened i walked away and gotta beer and wait to see what happens. LOL
Sorry if the previous response tweaked you.Comment -
Not bothered by it at all, it seemed sincere, I saw no malice in your statements. My response wasn't intended that way either. Just inquiring about a few points that I noticed with my system, and wondering if there were any similarities here. With so many different criteria, I can see your point on the "not skipping the first bet" portion of my way too long post below. But regardless of what system(s) you are playing in conjunction with each other, or what different criteria are used in each of these syatems, you really never want to be betting both sides of a game in the (D) bets, regardless of which systems the plays come from, even if the systems are non-related.
Happy Bird Day.Comment -
Did I say that?? LOL"not skipping the first bet"
There a number if situations that can come up such as in S3. You have a 4 game home series and are betting one of 4 will cover The team goes LLLP ummmm what now!! or LL nl L and then go on the road.
I figure I'll just wait to see what happens and move on from there.
JM thread????Comment -
1) We are just playing 3 teams on their losing streaks in S1:
records:
Brooklyn:
A Bet: 21-18
B Bet: 11-7
C Bet: 4-3
D Bet: 3-0
Atlanta:
A Bet: 13-17
B Bet: 6-11
C Bet: 9-2
D Bet: 2-0
Sacramento:
A Bet: 21-17
B Bet: 9-8
C Bet: 4-4
D Bet: 3-1
overall:
A Bet: 55-52
B Bet: 26-26
C Bet: 17-9
D Bet: 8-1
2) I cant tell u if that scenario happened over the last 6 years. I did the backtesting team by team. Odds that happening is pretty low, they both need to face each other on D bets at the same time. I see this happening maybe 1x every 10 years, as im not playing every team.
_________________
I always thought ur just posting JM in ur thread, seems like i need to check this out. Ur probably playing every team on ur system. On a sidenote 2 teams facing on D bets means 1 sure winner
Comment -
Or do u wanna see the whole card on S1? Filtering out only the losing streaks on the teams we are playing W and L streaks?
I could give that stats aswell, but im doing this tomorrow.Comment -
ok done...S1 teams listed only losing streaks:
overall: 294-9
A Bet: 156-147
B Bet: 83-64
C Bet: 39-25
D Bet: 16-9Last edited by Stifler; 11-22-12, 06:49 PM.Comment -
The odds of it happening are lower in my system because I only have 80-100 plays per season in Chase 110. But when you start getting into systems that generate an excess of 200 plays, like my MLB Plu$$ did (almost 300),and this one, then you would actually be surprised how often that happens, especially since many players in here are playing a few other systems along with this one. There are several plays every day in these different systems, many times on opposite sides of the fence.. Just keep an eye on who is playing who their next 4 games and decide for yourself if the risk is worth it at the time, if two of the teams you are betting on are going to face each other during their series. But other than that, it all seems pretty cool and I'll be checking it out. I am not saying change anything, I think you have a pretty good thing going here. Just keep an eye on the future games of any teams you bet on, which may come from any different system, and know what "could" happen in any series before you start betting on it.1) We are just playing 3 teams on their losing streaks in S1:
records:
Brooklyn:
A Bet: 21-18
B Bet: 11-7
C Bet: 4-3
D Bet: 3-0
Atlanta:
A Bet: 13-17
B Bet: 6-11
C Bet: 9-2
D Bet: 2-0
Sacramento:
A Bet: 21-17
B Bet: 9-8
C Bet: 4-4
D Bet: 3-1
overall:
A Bet: 55-52
B Bet: 26-26
C Bet: 17-9
D Bet: 8-1
2) I cant tell u if that scenario happened over the last 6 years. I did the backtesting team by team. Odds that happening is pretty low, they both need to face each other on D bets at the same time. I see this happening maybe 1x every 10 years, as im not playing every team.
_________________
I always thought ur just posting JM in ur thread, seems like i need to check this out. Ur probably playing every team on ur system. On a sidenote 2 teams facing on D bets means 1 sure winnerComment -
Great jobComment -
The record he posts is for a 4 game SERIES, not each individual match. As long as a team wins once in those next 4 games, than the series has been won. A series loss only occurs if all 4 games have lost (losing 18.45 units). A series win yields 1 unit.
Hope that clears it up.Comment -
-
If the 2 teams meet lets say on B and C Bet its ok for me. Only real problem is they meet both on D bets and i still cant see this happening very often. I still think this happens just 1 time in 10 years for those system. Crossover systems with JM or any other is not my problem, if anyone decides to play multiply chase systems during one season he has to live with crossover games.
Figured out yesterday that Detroit and Spurs would be more profitable just playing the winning streaks. I somehow like them overall, atleast for this season. So far i will keep the teams exactly like i listed them.Hey Stifler, does this mean that 9 losses out of your 23 total from '06-12 were due to S1 teams with losing streaks? So then teams with a losing streak account for 9 losses out of 13 total from '06-12 in S1?
I do have them, but didnt i post it before? If not im going to post it later today.Do you have the A-D Bet records for the other 3 systems?Comment -
23.11.2012
S1
(C Bet) Den fade: Memphis -7,5 1,10u | Minnesota +3,5 2,31u | Golden State - waiting on line movement
(B Bet) Sac fade: Lakers -5,5 1,10u | Utah - waiting on line movement
S2
(A Bet) Cle fade: Orlando -4 1,10u
S4
(A Bet) Atl fade: Charlotte - waiting on line movement
(A Bet) LAC fade: Brooklyn - waiting on line movementComment -
S2
(A Bet) Cle fade: Orlando -4 1,10u
I hope this game wins today, because if it doesn't we gonna have a problem for the next bet on 11/24/2012 S4 (A Bet) Maimi fade: Cleveland.
Maybe i'm wrong?Comment
