70% math plays 2009-10 tracking

[Welt446+]

No plays for either game today

[Welt446+]

Which ones are ruled out by injury?

I believe Portland was one of them. Besides that, I don't recall.

[aoz1122]

Does anybody have a record of the plays this year?

I am willing to give points for detailed won/loss record for this year.

[PatrickBateman]

Just look through this thread and you will find an answer...From what I have seen this year and last year, it does hit around 70%

[barts185]

Does anybody have a record of the plays this year?

I am willing to give points for detailed won/loss record for this year.

12/07 DEN win 1-0
12/10 BOS loss 1-1
12/11 HOU win 2-1
12/12 SAC win 3-1
12/16 UTA win 4-1
12/18 IND loss 4-2
12/18 SAC loss 4-3
12/22 ATL win 5-3
12/26 HOU loss 5-4
12/28 OKC win 6-4
01/01 ORL win 7-4
01/04 NOR win 8-4
on 01/10 record quoted as 9-4, not sure which play I missed
01/12 LAC win 10-4 (Kaman was a late scratch, but this play is left in due to having played at opening line)

[Welt446+]

There are no plays today.

I know some people on here would like to qualify Boston since Garnett has been out for a while (and they would qualify if he was not injured) but I would strongly suggest not doing so since Boston is 5-5 without Garnett which is a strong contrast to their regular record.

[pelos879]

True. I can see Boston beating up on the Pistons though... Teams with the veteran leadership that Boston has takes advantage of opportunities to get an easy win.

[MexicanStallion]

There are no plays today.

I know some people on here would like to qualify Boston since Garnett has been out for a while (and they would qualify if he was not injured) but I would strongly suggest not doing so since Boston is 5-5 without Garnett which is a strong contrast to their regular record.

I don't know about this formula too much. I remember it from last year though. Since Garnett has been out for over a week or so I would assume this qualifies. Otherwise no plays would qualify since someone will usually always be injured.

[losturmarbles]

i think mexi is right here. i don't remember if it was a certain amount of games or a certain time length, but they should be a play now. (according to the system)

[HoulihansTX]

i think mexi is right here. i don't remember if it was a certain amount of games or a certain time length, but they should be a play now. (according to the system)

Its a week or at least 4 games. Since 4 games is about the max amount of games played per week, per team.

I used the system successfully last year, and would just wait 4-5 games per INJ.

[PatrickBateman]

Despite the duration of time of the Garnett injury, I personally would stay away...They just have not been all that spectacular without him.

[HoulihansTX]

Despite the duration of time of the Garnett injury, I personally would stay away...They just have not been all that spectacular without him.

duely noted

[WileOut]

Am I the only one here who wants to know what the system did in the missing years? We know it did great in 1999 and 2000. And it is doing good this year and did well last year, but what about the 8 or so years in between? Is that the reason it disappeared, because it fell into a long slump?

I'm not trying to damper the mood here and I hope the system hits 70% for the rest of eternity and every dies a billionaire. But I am a little wary of what happened in the years in between. Maybe in 2001 the system turned to a 30% system and stayed that way until last year? I'm just curious that's all. I don't understand why nobody else is interested in this or has tried to dig it up. I will try to dig it up around the WWW.

Because if the system hit 70% for 10 years, then it would be safe to say that it really is a dream come true. But I sort of doubt that is the case.

[barts185]

I didn't know it had disappeared for 8 years. I only saw it last season, and it did well then and is doing well now. Where did you see it in 1999 and 2000?

[filter15]

thats only a few plays

[mlmleads]

This system works, Mundane didn't invent it, he took it form a guy named LarryLegend on the Rx forums.. and yes it has worked at the same level or better for at least the last 4 years I have seen it in action. A modified version of it works for playing many more games and getting many more units of profit, but not past the end of Jan.. after that you have to go cold turkey to the original system. In December and until the end of Jan there are slight mods you can make to play 65% of the board each day and win at a 60%+ rate..

[THE PROFIT]

Sounds like the wonderful sagarin bowl system that did so well for 3-4 years & *hit the bed this year BAD!

[barts185]

This system works, Mundane didn't invent it, he took it form a guy named LarryLegend on the Rx forums.. and yes it has worked at the same level or better for at least the last 4 years I have seen it in action. A modified version of it works for playing many more games and getting many more units of profit, but not past the end of Jan.. after that you have to go cold turkey to the original system. In December and until the end of Jan there are slight mods you can make to play 65% of the board each day and win at a 60%+ rate..

Is there somewhere that the modifications are detailed?

[Welt446+]

Nothing tonight.

[Welt446+]

Am I the only one here who wants to know what the system did in the missing years? We know it did great in 1999 and 2000. And it is doing good this year and did well last year, but what about the 8 or so years in between? Is that the reason it disappeared, because it fell into a long slump?

I'm not trying to damper the mood here and I hope the system hits 70% for the rest of eternity and every dies a billionaire. But I am a little wary of what happened in the years in between. Maybe in 2001 the system turned to a 30% system and stayed that way until last year? I'm just curious that's all. I don't understand why nobody else is interested in this or has tried to dig it up. I will try to dig it up around the WWW.

Because if the system hit 70% for 10 years, then it would be safe to say that it really is a dream come true. But I sort of doubt that is the case.

I've only gotten into gambling recently, otherwise I would give you the details since I've written down the success of each system (handicapper) that I keep track of.

If you look at it completely rationally though, this system should never hit below 55% on a horrific year (I'm being generous with that 55% - more like 60%). It takes out most, if not all, of the variables that can ruin a teams performance despite their record: injuries, back to back games, large spreads (10 or more), etc. If these things are stable, the win/loss percentage of a team will tell you a lot. This is a sample over a large number of games.

[HoulihansTX]

Fellas dont get impatient with the system. It's meant for a low volume of play, but high % of wins.

Compulsive gamblers will not be able to win in the long run modifying this system.

[tonyhomo]

there are hundreds of systems available on the internet
one of them has to hit at a high percentage for a while ,
the best handicappers hit around 55-58 % of their plays, anyone who thinks a simple system would produce winners at a rate of 55 % or higher longterm, shouldn't be gambling at all.

[WileOut]

I didn't know it had disappeared for 8 years. I only saw it last season, and it did well then and is doing well now. Where did you see it in 1999 and 2000?

In 1999 the system produced like 103 games and hit 70%. In 2000 the system produced a little over 80 games and hit right at 70%. I've read this at a couple of places now, I will try to find a source but that is what is claimed by a few different people.

edit I had the years backwards but here is one person's claim on SBR (post 2):

http://forum.sbrforum.com/nba-basketball-handicapping/119874-nba-math.html

One thing about the system is that the only 2 inputs it uses is the winning percentages of the teams playing and it adds and subtracts points for being home or on the road. These are 2 things that are obviously already built into every line. Then it sets some filters. Thats it. I just don't see how it can sustain anything better than coin flip. Its not using anything the bookmakers aren't using for their lines.

Even the guy who originally gave the system to everyone at another forum doesn't know for sure what the real record is for this year, and admits that when he received the system from someone else in 2001, he wasn't 100% sure what the person was telling him to do in certain situations. Therefore you have many different people using a few different variations of this system around the forums and vastly different records as a result.

[Welt446+]

Mavs -3, Bucks +7.5, and Houston +6 are all plays if I am not mistaken.

Two game don't have lines out yet.

[Welt446+]

This system is simple but it is effective. Empirical evidence shows that. That is, so long as you follow the filters.

- Don't play if selected team played the night before (No back to back games)
- Dont play of one or more starters are out. Allow one week for return starters
- Don't play 1st 20 games of the season or 1st 3 games after all star break

It is the same information that the bookmakers are using but it doesn't change the fact that it works. Test results do not lie.

I am, however, weary of the idea of playing teams if their starter is still out regardless of the amount of time they have been out. The team without the starter would not be a true reflection of their record (unless the record is still as high in their absence). Allowing this filter would lower the probability of this system far below 70% in my estimation.

[SwisherSweet420]

I like Mavs -3. Are you using the system by adding their records and dividing by 20?

[Cheetahponti]

Hi guys, I do professional spreadsheet analysis within the corporate world, which includes trend and statistical analysis and would be interested in playing around with some simple additional filters to build on this system. I'd lke to back-test it though, so my question is: does anyone know where I could get the raw data on NBA odds and results for the last few years?

[HoulihansTX]

"

[Cheetahponti]

"

[JohnAnthony]

One of the most solid systems I've ever used.

[HoulihansTX]

Thanks. Could you directly me to exactly where I can get the data? Is it available in a .csv, .xls or other easily readable file?

Ummm I dont know of where you can get downloadable files of raw data.

You should post this questions in the handicappers think tank forum. Many people in there who will be most happy to help out.

[aoz1122]

Mavs -3, Bucks +7.5, and Houston +6 are all plays if I am not mistaken.

Two game don't have lines out yet.

You may want to check your math on Houston, my math does not show that as a play. Also, Dallas may be without Josh Howard, and he was out on Wednesday, so I believe the injury filter negates this as a play.

I see Mil +7.5 as the only legit play today.

[Welt446+]

You may want to check your math on Houston, my math does not show that as a play. Also, Dallas may be without Josh Howard, and he was out on Wednesday, so I believe the injury filter negates this as a play.

I see Mil +7.5 as the only legit play today.

I am not sure that Josh Howard would be counted as a starter since their most frequent lineup has been:

-Dampier
-Nowitzki
-Marion
-Barea
-Kidd

This was been the lineup for 12 games. The lineup with Howard starting in Barea's place has been used 4 times. The record for the Mavs when Howard has not played at all is 14-7 which is not a contrast to their regular record. He's also been out for 21 of their 42 games.

For the Rockets
Spurs W/L percentage: 610
Rockets W/L percentage: 561
610-561 = 49
49/20 = 2.45
2+3 for being at home = 5
5 -6 for the spread = -1

-1 or less = play the other team

[aoz1122]

I am not sure that Josh Howard would be counted as a starter since their most frequent lineup has been:

-Dampier
-Nowitzki
-Marion
-Barea
-Kidd

This was been the lineup for 12 games. The lineup with Howard starting in Barea's place has been used 4 times. The record for the Mavs when Howard has not played at all is 14-7 which is not a contrast to their regular record. He's also been out for 21 of their 42 games.

For the Rockets
Spurs W/L percentage: 610
Rockets W/L percentage: 561
610-561 = 49
49/20 = 2.45
2+3 for being at home = 5
5 -6 for the spread = -1

-1 or less = play the other team

I will buy your info on Dallas. I had not followed them that closely. I appreciate that info, thank you.

As for houston, your math is correct, and actually so is mine. I am glad you found this. I have created a spreadsheet which computes these automatically. In your math, you have rounded the winning %'s to three digits where my spreadsheet uses many more decimal places. (You: Houston 56.1%, SAS 61.0% , Me: Houston 56.09756098%, SAS 60.97560976%). So in the end, where your math comes to a -1, mine is actually at -.561.

I am not saying either of us is right or wrong really, just that this raises an interesting question. Do we round off the winning % or not?? My spreadsheet is more accurate in the nitty gritty of the math, but really is that the best for this system or not??

[Cheetahponti]

Ummm I dont know of where you can get downloadable files of raw data.

You should post this questions in the handicappers think tank forum. Many people in there who will be most happy to help out.

Thanks Houlihan, will do.