[Wallco99]

Well, thelimit didn't actually create 1-7-5, he just posted about the way I had already been playing it for 1 year, and the backtest i've been performing is NOT fully complete. Thelimit and I both had abbreviated tests done at the time I first mentioned this, but extensive testing at that point had not been completed, and I did mention that then. I am still in the process of completing the 10 year test. Although most seasons have been more profitable by adding the (A) bets, there is at least one season that hasn't, and by a good amount. I am testing several different criteria, including the criteria I used when I started it last season, to determine, in fact, which way is most profitable for a 10-12 year run. At the moment, I am leaning towards the 1-7-5 with thelimit's filters, but that could change as the test progresses. There are several seasons where playing the 1-7-5 without the filters did outperform all other strategies. However, there were other seasons that the filters came in handy. I have four more years to complete before I will truly know which way is better, but as I said in earlier posts, I would reccommend playing 1-7-5 with the filters for now, even though I personally am not using the filters myself at the moment.

Thank you very much, Kevin, for stepping up. I know you will be thorough and do a fantastic job. You have always been one of the guys I truly respected on here, and it will be a pleasure working with you.

[Wallco99]

Wallco NBA Chase 110
2013-14 System to Date: 4-0 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +4.00 units (fin.series)
Current open series: 0

(11/15/13)
#2 Detroit (+2) (B) - Win
#4 Brooklyn (+1) (A) - Win


v1 Plays
(A) 2-2
(B) 1-1
(C) 0-1
(D) 1-0
Losses: None


Games for (11/16/13):
#5 Cleveland (+8) @ Washington (A) (7:05pm EST)


** New Orleans qualifies as a system play, but faces Cleveland in their respective (C) bets. New Orleans will not be listed as an official play until the Cleveland chase has concluded, provided New Orleans losing streak continues.


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.

[Andy3568]

** New Orleans qualifies as a system play, but faces Cleveland in their respective (C) bets. New Orleans will not be listed as an official play until the Cleveland chase has concluded, provided New Orleans losing streak continues.

The way they've been playing, it'll probably continue. Hey, at least we have the Saints.

[Wallco99]

The way they've been playing, it'll probably continue. Hey, at least we have the Saints.

I take it you're from Cajun Country?

[Andy3568]

New Orleans born and raised.

[Kev the Brit]

"

[Kev the Brit]

"

[analyzer]

Thanks Kev!

[thelimit0310]

Kev you list Philly twice on 11/15 when one of them should be Memphis with a Push, series stopped. Otherwise good job and thank you for stepping up, I like the format!

[knugen]

Wasnt OKC filtered out after A bet?

[dlunc3]

Wasnt OKC filtered out after A bet?

Yes, it should have been

[Kev the Brit]

Wasnt OKC filtered out after A bet?

Yes, dealing with it now

[Kev the Brit]

Yes, it should have been

And now has been. Thanks, guys.

[ken23lau]

Thanks for doing this Kev. I tend to miss the filters such as injuries and worst road record (Utah). With you stepping in I can now be happily spoon fed

[dlunc3]

Over/under on JMD's triumphant return with a new $100 bankroll ready to lose along with the new system he has been Backtesting for 24 whole hours? I say February 1st...

[play4win]

very bad start for A bets if you don't buy 3 points for all jm systems( all 3 road games)!!

does anyone know if there was a season with this bad start?

[thelimit0310]

The only losing A bets when playing 1-7/5 are the ones that fall within the range of the 3.5 filter and are eliminated, otherwise it's a win/win situation. People should be looking forward to the 7/5 bets!

[Wallco99]

very bad start for A bets if you don't buy 3 points for all jm systems( all 3 road games)!!

does anyone know if there was a season with this bad start?

I agree, it's been a rough start for the (A) bets thus far. But that should turn around as most seasons seem to have some lengthy streaks of (A) bet wins. I think most bettors would prefer to win 100% of the (A) bets and just get series over with and take their winnings rather than extend series for potential higher profits. However, once we get to those later bets, we are happy that they are valued higher than the A's but also realize we are risking more to attain those higher profits. All wins are good, but this system would be a lot more comfortable for some people if so many bets weren't going to (B) so often so early, and a few more units were picked up on some of the (A) bets. Personally, I love (B) bets, but I am very happy as well when a run of (A) bets goes our way.

[adidas-b 88]

Thanks Kev for stepping in!!

[Wallco99]

Wallco NBA Chase 110
2013-14 System to Date: 5-0 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +5.00 units (fin.series)
Current open series: 0

(11/16/13)
#5 Cleveland (+8) (A) - Win


v1 Plays
(A) 3-2
(B) 1-1
(C) 0-1
(D) 1-0
Losses: None


There are no system plays for (11/17/13)



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.

[Kev the Brit]

Hi Everyone,

I might have taken my eye off the ball last season or earlier this season, but this morning I opened an e-mail from Morrison, dated 11/1. Attached to it was a list of the V2 plays for the season ahead. I noticed that adjacent to the list, in the attached file, he added the following (new?) rule, which I was unaware of:

"If your team is still a favourite after buying 3 points, then you can either bet on the money line, OR bet on the point spread with 3 points as normal, but do not continue betting on the series if the bet does not win."

Regardless of when he first published it, I think it is a decent change, It allows subscribers to play the cheaper point buy, but it comes with the possibility of a dead stop at the A or B bet. I like it. I also note that the recent C Bet loss on NOR would not have happened due to the B Bet result. Morrison published this change well before the NOR loss, so I think it is a genuine attempt to reduce risk.

I will now retrospectively incorporate the traditional 3-point buy vice the ugly ML bet (when the team is ATS -3 or greater), but stopping the series and accepting the loss if the bet loses.

Regards
Kev

[dlunc3]

very bad start for A bets if you don't buy 3 points for all jm systems( all 3 road games)!!

does anyone know if there was a season with this bad start?

i love losing A bets... why would i want to win 1 unit when i can win 7 on the next bet?

[Wallco99]

Hi Everyone,

I might have taken my eye off the ball last season or earlier this season, but this morning I opened an e-mail from Morrison, dated 11/1. Attached to it was a list of the V2 plays for the season ahead. I noticed that adjacent to the list, in the attached file, he added the following (new?) rule, which I was unaware of:

"If your team is still a favourite after buying 3 points, then you can either bet on the money line, OR bet on the point spread with 3 points as normal, but do not continue betting on the series if the bet does not win."

Regardless of when he first published it, I think it is a decent change, It allows subscribers to play the cheaper point buy, but it comes with the possibility of a dead stop at the A or B bet. I like it. I also note that the recent C Bet loss on NOR would not have happened due to the B Bet result. Morrison published this change well before the NOR loss, so I think it is a genuine attempt to reduce risk.

I will now retrospectively incorporate the traditional 3-point buy vice the ugly ML bet (when the team is ATS -3 or greater), but stopping the series and accepting the loss if the bet loses.

Regards
Kev

Did it mention if that rule ONLY applied to the v2 plays, or is it ALL versions? Besides, by playing 1-7-5 our risk/reward has already been reduced due to all plays being (-110). This is his way of eliminating a large M/L loss which we will never have playing 1-7-5. Our loss should always be the same (-26.52 units). If he loses a large M/L series (say -30 units), he would need 30 more system victories just to be back to the even point. In 1-7-5, we realistically could be back in as little as 4 or 5 series. So possibly eliminating one loss by adding a new filter is much more critical in the traditional version of JM NBA than in the new strategy we have implemented.

You need to see how many plays would be eliminated that could have been 5 or 7 unit wins had we continued those series, vs. how many actual losses per season this filter is going to eliminate. It could turn out being beneficial for traditional style betting 1-1-1, but detrimental to 1-7-5 results. Until I know it would help us, I will continue to play all series, but would definitely change if I see the filter would benefit 1-7-5 as well. It could be good, who knows, but you know his track record of throwing away years of victories by adding new filters just to eliminate one loss in one season just to keep his unblemished record and appear to be a genius every time a new customer logs on to his website and sees backtests with never having lost any series.

[Wallco99]

i love losing A bets... why would i want to win 1 unit when i can win 7 on the next bet?

It's not that you want to lose them, it's that you don't mind if they happen to lose. Because if you hoped all A bets lose, they why bother playing them in the first place?

[dlunc3]

It's not that you want to lose them, it's that you don't mind if they happen to lose. Because if you hoped all A bets lose, they why bother playing them in the first place?

I do "want" them all to lose. But I know that they won't (which is why I still play them). But absolutely I hope to lose A bets when I have only 1.1 units on them. The real money is made later in the series. I won't complain with 1 unit, but id rather take the chance at 7 or 5 with a historically higher winning %.

[Wallco99]

I do "want" them all to lose. But I know that they won't (which is why I still play them). But absolutely I hope to lose A bets when I have only 1.1 units on them. The real money is made later in the series. I won't complain with 1 unit, but id rather take the chance at 7 or 5 with a historically higher winning %.

You're right, but my point was that we really don't want them all to lose like they have been. Having too many units tied up on several series at once, in one system, can be a lot for some to deal with. Some A bet wins help rebuild the pot when we have 3 and 4 open B & C bets going at once.

[Kev the Brit]

"

[Kev the Brit]

Did it mention if that rule ONLY applied to the v2 plays, or is it ALL versions? Besides, by playing 1-7-5 our risk/reward has already been reduced due to all plays being (-110). This is his way of eliminating a large M/L loss which we will never have playing 1-7-5. Our loss should always be the same (-26.52 units). If he loses a large M/L series (say -30 units), he would need 30 more system victories just to be back to the even point. In 1-7-5, we realistically could be back in as little as 4 or 5 series. So possibly eliminating one loss by adding a new filter is much more critical in the traditional version of JM NBA than in the new strategy we have implemented.

You need to see how many plays would be eliminated that could have been 5 or 7 unit wins had we continued those series, vs. how many actual losses per season this filter is going to eliminate. It could turn out being beneficial for traditional style betting 1-1-1, but detrimental to 1-7-5 results. Until I know it would help us, I will continue to play all series, but would definitely change if I see the filter would benefit 1-7-5 as well. It could be good, who knows, but you know his track record of throwing away years of victories by adding new filters just to eliminate one loss in one season just to keep his unblemished record and appear to be a genius every time a new customer logs on to his website and sees backtests with never having lost any series.

It didn't say it was for V2 only, but I suspect that he applies it universally. I'm not going to apply it to modified betting strategies (eg 1-7-5) that use -110 throughout.

[thelimit0310]

No 1-7/5 games until the 19th, take a breather fellas.

Kev loving how in depth you're making the posts, very professional and easy to keep records. Good job bud!

[Wallco99]

Kevin, I believe the running totals for the 1-7-5 portion of your update are incorrect. I have been playing ALL the series so far, but I believe you are keeping records with the 3.5 point filter, and if so, we have differences.

You have 2 C bet wins for 1-7-5, there should only be 1 (Dallas). The only other two games that went to (C) and won, were San Antonio and Detroit. Both of these series should have been filtered out on (A) with a -1.10 unit loss for both series, meaning there is also 6 (A) bet losses and not 5.

Total difference = -6.10 units. I believe the total for 1-7-5 if using the filters is -21.64 units, not -15.54. Let me know if I missed something. Thanks for the updates.

[Wallco99]

I'm giving Memphis a go on (B) bet tonight.

[BuckeyeKaptn]

I'm giving Memphis a go on (B) bet tonight.

Me too

[BCC585]

Feeling -2 for the Griz is a solid play tonight

[kdavis]

Kevin, I believe Wallco is correct in his post. Other than that, excellent job. Much appreciated.

[Kev the Brit]

Kevin, I believe the running totals for the 1-7-5 portion of your update are incorrect. I have been playing ALL the series so far, but I believe you are keeping records with the 3.5 point filter, and if so, we have differences.

You have 2 C bet wins for 1-7-5, there should only be 1 (Dallas). The only other two games that went to (C) and won, were San Antonio and Detroit. Both of these series should have been filtered out on (A) with a -1.10 unit loss for both series, meaning there is also 6 (A) bet losses and not 5.

Total difference = -6.10 units. I believe the total for 1-7-5 if using the filters is -21.64 units, not -15.54. Let me know if I missed something. Thanks for the updates.

Yep, agreed. I'm using the filter and the post has been corrected. Thanks.