John Morrison 2010 NBA

[Aroostika]

Washington [b bet] win
Next v1 plays:
denver [b bet] vs. Boston
detroit [b bet] vs. NOH
miami [a bet] vs. Utah

The Miami game is not a V1 [A] bet tomorrow: it would only count as such had they lost their in-conference away game, against Milwaukee on the 6th, by three points against the spread.

[Kev the Brit]

Aroostika, apart from getting a couple of sbr points, you're wasting your time writing a warning about this game at 0410 ET. A lot of the people who need your/our advice are incapable of reading more than the last one or two posts when they come here. Your message is going to be sooo history later today. But your message is spot on.

regards

[Wilba]

you should only bet on "B" and "C" because "A" bets are doing so well this year. You will be in the negative so far this year if you followed V1, v2, and v3 because v2 had a B and C loss. Most of the series so far this year with all 3 verisions have won on the "A" level. I believe "A" wagers this year are winning around 75%. Maybe last year or the year before you should of only followed B and C but this is a new year and the teams are much different, so follow A B and C.

BOL To all.

Sorry to be so blunt but this is an incredibly stupid thing to say. You post definitive 'advice' of "but this is a new year and the teams are much different, so follow A B and C. " How ridiculous for you to post this crap based on the system record over ONLY the first 34 series' of the season, when less than a quarter of the season is over! I have already provided factual, backtested evidence that over a DECADE you make a more profit by only playing the B and C bets at a higher stake (as compared to risking the same amount per series and playing a lower stake from A). And you think a decade's evidence is overridden by a 34 series sample!? To illustrate my point please read below:

Since JM sys begins (all with buying 3 points) total record 1130 series wins, and 33 series losses. The breakdown is as follows:
A bets win 715/1163 games (61.48%)
(note that winning 61.5% of games at -170 odds you lose money, need 63% win rate just to break even)
B bets hit 297/448 games (66.29%)
C bets hit 118/151 games (78.15%)
33 series losses
this is the true record over 1163 games, somehow I think that is a more reliable sample size than 34 games in one season!

so, if over this time you just play the system as prescribed, from the A bet, then total win/loss is 1130 wins for 33 losses. (surprisingly this is just over 97% as JM says it is! 97.16% to be exact) Now when playing from A with -170 odds, which is the best odds anyone will ever get for buying 3 points, a loss costs you 18.51 units. Hence playing from A you get total profit

(+1 unit x 1130 series wins) + (-18.51 units x 33 series losses) = (1130 - 611) units = +519 units total.

Now if you only play from B, and you play to win 1 unit, a series loss only costs you 6.29 units. So carrying on from the above example and being consistent with risking 18.51 units a series, you now play to win 2.94 units when playing from B, while still risking the same 18.51 units for a series loss. So now a B/C series win = +2.94 units, and a B/C series loss is the same as the A/B/C series loss of -18.51 units.

the stats when playing only from B are 415 series wins for 33 series losses (from above record). Hence playing from B you get total profit

(+2.94 units * 415 series wins) + (-18.51 units x 33 series losses) = (1220-611) units = +609 units total.

So, with the above statistics we get +609 units playing from B, or +519 units playing from A. Can't argue with hard facts. The thing is as well that, the vast majority of people can't get -170 odds for buying 3 points (I get -188 at pinnacle). When you get worse than -170 odds the benefit of playing only B/C is magnified further.

for the above example done again with -188 odds we get a risk of 22.89 units for an A/B/C series, or a risk of 7.29 units for a B/C series. So in a B/C series you to be consistent you play to win 3.14 units while risking the same 22.89 units that you risk when you play to win 1 unit from A.

So with this more realistic example, playing from A, we get

(+1 unit x 1130 series wins) + (-22.89 units x 33 series losses) = (1130 - 755) units = +375 units total.

and playing from B, while still risking 22.89 units a series, we get

(+3.14 units * 415 series wins) + (-22.89 units x 33 series losses) = (1303-755) units = +548 units total.

As you can see, with more realistic pricing of -188 like at pinnacle, playing from B hugely outperforms playing from A.

Im not preaching that everyone has to play it the same way that I do - each to their own, but here I have provided statistical proof about what doing it each way will get you, as opposed to an unfounded opinion based on an incredibly small sample size. If you base performance of a 34 series sample, I guarantee that I can find a 34 game stretch where the A bets LOSE 75% of the time.

If you are still not convinced come back to me at seasons end and we will compare the season profit of the two methods. I bet you my left nut that this year B/C more profitable (using it the way I explained) than doing A/B/C. Same as every other year. I think what you are not taking into account is that every single one of my B/C wins is equal to 3 or more of you’re A/B/C wins. Only 1/3 series has to make it to B for more profit. No way A bets ever hit >67% over a whole season.

Sorry to clog the thread as I realise that this is a very long post, but I think it is very important that the people who follow this thread, many of whom do not know better, do not make decisions based on gung ho posts from people that make unfounded claims about how you should play the system, based on personal opinion or a ridiculously small sample size that has no chance of carrying out throughout the season. And by the way 3 of the last 4 A bets lost so your "75%" is no longer even close to 75%.

[Wilba]

The Miami game is not a V1 [A] bet tomorrow: it would only count as such had they lost their in-conference away game, against Milwaukee on the 6th, by three points against the spread.

good on you for trying to warn people, coz you are absolutely right. Miami series was already a win at the A bet 2 days ago

[Wilba]

I'll try to do some research about buing points. I've checked season 04/05 so far.
With buying 3 points we have:
V1: 59-2
(A): 41-20
(B): 11-9
(C): 7-2

V2: 30-2
(A): 20-12
(B): 8-4
(C):2-2

V3: 64-1
(A): 45-20
(B): 13-7
(C): 6-1

And the same season WITHOUT buying points:
V1: 52-8
(A): 30-30
(B): 13-17
(C): 9-8

V2: 27-6
(A): 15-18
(B): 6-12
(C): 6-6

V3: 59-5
(A): 38-26
(B): 14-12
(C): 7-5

.

FOR THOSE WHO WERE ASKING FOR INFO ON NOT BUYING THE POINTS - ALWAYS BUY POINTS OR YOU WILL GET BURNT BADLY!

I already posted earlier in this thread that it is definitely more profitable buying the 3 points. I backtested 5 years and buying points gave a considerably better profit margin over 5 years (some years you made a considerable loss if you did not buy points, every year is profit when buying points). I didnt keep the records as they were not relevant to anything once I knew that buying the points was more profitable. But I just rechecked the V1/2 2008/2009 season (I picked this one as it was a good example coz in this season there were NO series losses when buying the points). Those results are as follows:

with points: 72 series wins, 0 series losses
without points: 65 series wins, 7 series losses

when you buy the points, you risk ~20 units a series. For consistency, if you still risk 20 units a series when not buying points, you would play each series to win 2.42 units (as at odds of -110 a 3 game series only costs you 8.26 units, and 8.26 units multiplied by a 2.42 weighting on each unit gives a total series risk of 20 units.) So...

with points: 72 win - 0 loss = (1 unit x 72 series wins) - (20 units x 0 series loss) = 72 - 0 = +72 units
w/out points: 65 win - 7 loss = (2.42 units x 65 series wins) - (20 units x 7 series loss) = (+157.3 - 140) = +17.3 units

adding in the results provided by krzychu78 (thanks for that!) we get a total series record for 2005 combined with 2008/2009 of:

buying 3 points: 225 series wins, 5 series losses
w/out buying points: 203 series wins, 26 series losses. so...

with points: 225 win, 5 loss = (1 unit x 225 series wins) - (20 units x 5 series loss) = 225 - 100) = +125 units
w/out points: 203 win - 26 loss = (2.42 units x 203 series wins) - (20 units x 26 series loss) = (+491.3 - 520) = -29 units

I can guarantee that the results for these 2 seasons are pretty close to what my 5 year backtest turned up. I repeat again - ALWAYS BUY THE POINTS, YOU WILL GET BURNT IF YOU DONT!

[ghislaine]

JM Disciple hon, any parlay tips for tonight. Also, the Detroit game is not showing at betus yet, wonder why...
hugs

[BettingTime]

Hey Wilba. I'm interested in the numbers of it all just like you are.

I was wondering how you did your research aka how did you find the pointspreads offered by online betting sites for the last 5 years?

Also, do you any documents to backup your research? I would love the excel file, or whatever type of file it is.

Thanks Wilba - You're making this a better forum. And I want to help.

[imotiv8]

Thx

[luzviminda]

As far as I see it , work in a casino bet.
But its much better if the additional 3 points is available,
could use it probably if we are nearing the playoff.
I have to follow my B bet for tomorrow.
Detroit (+9) vs New Orlearns
Denver (+6) vs Boston
Miami (+1) VS uTAH

[cmdyrds]

guys,

filter rules out miami as a ver 1 a bet. just an fyi. personally i think they cover at least one of the next three. gl.

[krzychu78]

JM's NBA V3 system:

12/07/2010 Cleveland @ Philadelphia - V3, C bet - LOSS

V3 record so far (finished series): 14-1
(A): 10-5
(B): 4-1
(C): 0-1

V3 play for today:
12/08/2010 Oklahoma City @ Minnesota - V3, B bet

[luzviminda]

JM's NBA V3 system:

12/07/2010 Cleveland @ Philadelphia - V3, C bet - LOSS

V3 record so far (finished series): 14-1
(A): 10-5
(B): 4-1
(C): 0-1

V3 play for today:
12/08/2010 Oklahoma City @ Minnesota - V3, B bet

Can you direct me or post the or list of V2 or V3
so I could download it. And how do you post your
excel file.

[ijenpo]

thanks

[Niskel]

I am thinking about to play Cleveland D -bet tonight without to buy points.. Cleveland + 7.5.. I think they are going to win...

[jmjj]

V3 had a very bad year in 2004/2005 which was an aberration, that aside it has actually performed JUST AS WELL as V1 over the last decade. V1 over last 5 years is 219-6, V3 over last 5 years is 252-7. So V3 over last 5 years actually MORE PROFITABLE than V1. 5 years is a quite adequate sample to give an indication of performance. As for your comments about V2 you know why!? V2 has outperformed EVERYTHING over last 5 years, it went 105-0. Thats right, not a single loss! Including the 4-1 or whatever from this year that makes it 109-1 over last 5 years. And you say that V2 is NOT worth playing. Even though V1 is 219-6 over same timespan. Hmm whats better 219-6 or 109-1???

Please don't post unfounded and ill researched comments based purely on how you are feeling after losing a bet - what you posted is completely untrue and it is misleading to (the many) people in this thread who dont know better. If you gonna post crap like that at least research it first

JMJJ please note that I agree with much of what you say and appreciate your contributions to the thread. I just think it is dangerous when people post untrue stuff about the systems which is misleading to people that don't know better. It sucks losing a series but 1 series doesnt mean that version is crap

no bro wrong I cant go back and look at unreasonable timeframes I go back to when I bought it and first started playing it so my research as you say is not ill found or anything you supposedly say and especially dont know anything about so if you bought the v1 system back in 2008 like I did and started to follow it from there and u bought the others as he released them last yr v1.0 (there champion of info that you think you are) is the only one that HAS NOT lost PERIOD you understand?

geez I dont care about what happened in 2004 or 2005 most people on this thread didnt have the system then or know who the hell John was so that data or supposed backtracking is pointless true last yr v2 didnt lose but I dont know how many times v3 lost last season but I know when I bought it within a mos it lost at the end of the season and thats enough for me if you wanna keep on losing and throwing out pointless propaganda thats up to you but dont think many will bite especially those who just recently bought and only concerned about the now not 6 yrs ago

remember kids John is only trying to squeeze as much milk out of the tit as possible to sell you on things that may or may not work yr after yr so if it looks cool then maybe not so much just like all of his v2 and beyond stuff on all sports such as nhl v2.0?

for those of you who bought that know what Im talking about so I dont need to say anything on that system just to make sure wilbo that u understand what I am talking about and saying before you try to criticize an older post of mine that u had to go backtrack and read to do so b/c that is simply unfair to me especially right after I just complimented and agreed with you on a previous post where u pointed out another morons comments on here and then u try to bash me? like really? and then some clown gives you pts for it not happening bro not on my watch it wont

[SolidDala]

Wilba,

Weren't OKC a V2 loss in 05-06 season. Yes it has been solid last 5y, but in 02/03 season it suffered 4 losses. I think the best one is hands down V1, my reasoning:

It suffers 1-2 losses each season and you pretty much know what to except. You also have way more plays then the rest given you time to recoup a loss. Furthermore V2 maybe sounds like the best one, but one can not ignore that 02/03 season, and you then have the fact that its just around 25 plays a season.

[jmjj]

Wilba,

Weren't OKC a V2 loss in 05-06 season. Yes it has been solid last 5y, but in 02/03 season it suffered 4 losses. I think the best one is hands down V1, my reasoning:

It suffers 1-2 losses each season and you pretty much know what to except. You also have way more plays then the rest given you time to recoup a loss. Furthermore V2 maybe sounds like the best one, but one can not ignore that 02/03 season, and you then have the fact that its just around 25 plays a season.

there it is someone already stepped up and agreed before my previous response back was officially posted good job sir

theres someone who gets it

[dlunc3]

Sorry to be so blunt but this is an incredibly stupid thing to say. You post definitive 'advice' of "but this is a new year and the teams are much different, so follow A B and C. " How ridiculous for you to post this crap based on the system record over ONLY the first 34 series' of the season, when less than a quarter of the season is over! I have already provided factual, backtested evidence that over a DECADE you make a more profit by only playing the B and C bets at a higher stake (as compared to risking the same amount per series and playing a lower stake from A). And you think a decade's evidence is overridden by a 34 series sample!? To illustrate my point please read below:

Since JM sys begins (all with buying 3 points) total record 1130 series wins, and 33 series losses. The breakdown is as follows:
A bets win 715/1163 games (61.48%)
(note that winning 61.5% of games at -170 odds you lose money, need 63% win rate just to break even)
B bets hit 297/448 games (66.29%)
C bets hit 118/151 games (78.15%)
33 series losses
this is the true record over 1163 games, somehow I think that is a more reliable sample size than 34 games in one season!

so, if over this time you just play the system as prescribed, from the A bet, then total win/loss is 1130 wins for 33 losses. (surprisingly this is just over 97% as JM says it is! 97.16% to be exact) Now when playing from A with -170 odds, which is the best odds anyone will ever get for buying 3 points, a loss costs you 18.51 units. Hence playing from A you get total profit

(+1 unit x 1130 series wins) + (-18.51 units x 33 series losses) = (1130 - 611) units = +519 units total.

Now if you only play from B, and you play to win 1 unit, a series loss only costs you 6.29 units. So carrying on from the above example and being consistent with risking 18.51 units a series, you now play to win 2.94 units when playing from B, while still risking the same 18.51 units for a series loss. So now a B/C series win = +2.94 units, and a B/C series loss is the same as the A/B/C series loss of -18.51 units.

the stats when playing only from B are 415 series wins for 33 series losses (from above record). Hence playing from B you get total profit

(+2.94 units * 415 series wins) + (-18.51 units x 33 series losses) = (1220-611) units = +609 units total.

So, with the above statistics we get +609 units playing from B, or +519 units playing from A. Can't argue with hard facts. The thing is as well that, the vast majority of people can't get -170 odds for buying 3 points (I get -188 at pinnacle). When you get worse than -170 odds the benefit of playing only B/C is magnified further.

for the above example done again with -188 odds we get a risk of 22.89 units for an A/B/C series, or a risk of 7.29 units for a B/C series. So in a B/C series you to be consistent you play to win 3.14 units while risking the same 22.89 units that you risk when you play to win 1 unit from A.

So with this more realistic example, playing from A, we get

(+1 unit x 1130 series wins) + (-22.89 units x 33 series losses) = (1130 - 755) units = +375 units total.

and playing from B, while still risking 22.89 units a series, we get

(+3.14 units * 415 series wins) + (-22.89 units x 33 series losses) = (1303-755) units = +548 units total.

As you can see, with more realistic pricing of -188 like at pinnacle, playing from B hugely outperforms playing from A.

Im not preaching that everyone has to play it the same way that I do - each to their own, but here I have provided statistical proof about what doing it each way will get you, as opposed to an unfounded opinion based on an incredibly small sample size. If you base performance of a 34 series sample, I guarantee that I can find a 34 game stretch where the A bets LOSE 75% of the time.

If you are still not convinced come back to me at seasons end and we will compare the season profit of the two methods. I bet you my left nut that this year B/C more profitable (using it the way I explained) than doing A/B/C. Same as every other year. I think what you are not taking into account is that every single one of my B/C wins is equal to 3 or more of you’re A/B/C wins. Only 1/3 series has to make it to B for more profit. No way A bets ever hit >67% over a whole season.

Sorry to clog the thread as I realise that this is a very long post, but I think it is very important that the people who follow this thread, many of whom do not know better, do not make decisions based on gung ho posts from people that make unfounded claims about how you should play the system, based on personal opinion or a ridiculously small sample size that has no chance of carrying out throughout the season. And by the way 3 of the last 4 A bets lost so your "75%" is no longer even close to 75%.

Thanks this is great info!
Is this research based on V1, V2, and V3? Or just V1?

[Kev the Brit]

luzviminda:

Can you direct me or post the or list of V2 or V3
so I could download it. And how do you post your
excel file.

seek and yee shall find.

And while you're seeking, look at post #2007 and see if you spot something that might have changed your post #2012 (only 5, I say again, 5 posts, before you wrote it). PEASE PLEASE PLEASE, whenever you come back to this forum YOU MUST READ ALL POSTS SINCE YOUR LAST POST....THAT WAY YOU KEEP UP WITH THE DISCUSSION and don't make silly mistakes and ask to be spoon fed information.

Every time I come back here, I spend up to 20 minutes reading this forum before I write anything. If there is some info I want, I go back and look for it. And its there, almost certainly. You might want to know why Miami is not a play tonight. The answer is not far back.....go find.

kind regards, but do keep up..

Kev

[Kev the Brit]

Wilba:

Sorry to be so blunt but this is an incredibly stupid thing to say. You post definitive 'advice' of "but this is a new year and the teams are much different, so follow A B and C. " How ridiculous for you to post this crap based on the system record over ONLY the first 34 series' of the season, when less than a quarter of the season is over! I have already provided factual, backtested evidence that over a DECADE you make a more profit by only playing the B and C bets at a higher stake (as compared to risking the same amount per series and playing a lower stake from A). And you think a decade's evidence is overridden by a 34 series sample!? To illustrate my point please read below:

Since JM sys begins (all with buying 3 points) total record 1130 series wins, and 33 series losses. The breakdown is as follows:
A bets win 715/1163 games (61.48%)
(note that winning 61.5% of games at -170 odds you lose money, need 63% win rate just to break even)
B bets hit 297/448 games (66.29%)
C bets hit 118/151 games (78.15%)
33 series losses
this is the true record over 1163 games, somehow I think that is a more reliable sample size than 34 games in one season!

so, if over this time you just play the system as prescribed, from the A bet, then total win/loss is 1130 wins for 33 losses. (surprisingly this is just over 97% as JM says it is! 97.16% to be exact) Now when playing from A with -170 odds, which is the best odds anyone will ever get for buying 3 points, a loss costs you 18.51 units. Hence playing from A you get total profit

(+1 unit x 1130 series wins) + (-18.51 units x 33 series losses) = (1130 - 611) units = +519 units total.

Now if you only play from B, and you play to win 1 unit, a series loss only costs you 6.29 units. So carrying on from the above example and being consistent with risking 18.51 units a series, you now play to win 2.94 units when playing from B, while still risking the same 18.51 units for a series loss. So now a B/C series win = +2.94 units, and a B/C series loss is the same as the A/B/C series loss of -18.51 units.

the stats when playing only from B are 415 series wins for 33 series losses (from above record). Hence playing from B you get total profit

(+2.94 units * 415 series wins) + (-18.51 units x 33 series losses) = (1220-611) units = +609 units total.

So, with the above statistics we get +609 units playing from B, or +519 units playing from A. Can't argue with hard facts. The thing is as well that, the vast majority of people can't get -170 odds for buying 3 points (I get -188 at pinnacle). When you get worse than -170 odds the benefit of playing only B/C is magnified further.

On the face of it, you've presented a solid case for playing from the B bet. With results from over a decade, I couldn't help but wonder why Morrison and others had not picked up on it before now. So, I thought I would check your calculations.

Yep, using odds of -170 we risk losing 18.68 units (you stated 18.51, but its only 0.17, which is not a discrepancy worth discussing, so I'll go with your 18.51 for commonality in our calculations.

HOWEVER, you have stated that we would bet at the B bet to win

(2.94 units )

Sorry, but we don't; not with odds of -170. We bet to win only 2.70 Units (to recover the lost 1.70 unit and win the 1 unit target; I know you know this, but others are reading). Now, this is a discrepancy that is worth discussing, because 2.70 units x 415 winning series is 1120 units, which is 100 units less than you have calculated. 1120 winning units minus 611 lost units is 509 units, which is 10 units less than 519 units overall win when starting from the A Bet. I have checked and re-checked and if I'm wrong please tell me and I'll go to back of the class and take up your system forthwith.

Obviously, if anyone starts betting at the B Bet to win more units than they would have been betting to win if they had lost at the A bet, they will be better off, but thats not a proper comparison.

I think you should look at your figures.

regards
Kev

[J.M. Disciple]

Ok so lets get this right, i am not on my own computer right now, so i do not have my spread sheet in front of me.

I am not sure what verisions the bets are for tonight but this is what i got so far.
Denver +9.5
Detroit +12.5
and OKC ML
All three of these are B bets correct?

Also for Ghislane who asked about any parlays for me today. I will probably do a small one which includes the lakers because LAC almost never beats them. I am not sure what it is going to be, but im trying to devlope some kind of 2 team parlay system which involves money line. I am going to back test this season in order to figure out if it is profitable or not. For now though, i am not going to get carried away with doing parlays which i have not back tested. I follow the NBA pretty closely, so most of my bets are not back tested. Its mostly based on how the team is playing this year and how i feel the team is playing. So i wouldnt follow everything i post blindly. If i do develope a system ill be sure to post it for everyone here.

Thank you for correcting me on the ABC betting to win 1unit being beter than betting on just B and C and betting to win 2.7 - 2.94 units. You are right i can not argue with your back testing of it. Stats say it all and ill be sure to start following it unless i have a really good feeling about the A bet.

Constructive criticism is always welcome. Just try not to use profanity or name calling. I read a lot of the post over the last few pages that i felt got out of hand. It is very unnecessary.

[Stanley77]

You guys forgot about the LA Lakers. It doesn't matter what version you're playing. There's a reason why the scam artist is selling you "version systems" just so he can get rich off of everyone. If a team plays at least 4 consecutive road games, then you're good to go to bet on that series.

[J.M. Disciple]

My own bets for today just using my free play money, very small bets are:
Den +6.5
pacers +2.5 (i think they will win straight up)
OKC -5
GSW +10
Mia ML
Mem +3.5
wiz +4.5
LAL -8
Parlay ML: LAL, spurs, OKC, NOH, Bulls, Boston (3:1 on my money)
GL to all.

[J.M. Disciple]

i hope your right wilba that "A" doesn't win over 67%... i wouldn't want you to lose your left nut

[jmjj]

did anybody just see that? Denver was at +7 all damn day and now it just went to +8.5 what the hell happened? that desnt make me feel good is someone out ofr Denver or something or is the lines that heavy on Celtics? hmmmm anyone?

[J.M. Disciple]

I went and looked back at all the spreads this year for 30 teams of the nba. Based on the spread when the teams are the favorite the record is 199-115. That is to win striaght up, not even covering the spread. Most favorites do not cover the spreads. I think there are enough upsets in the nba where you can ML the underdog just about for every team and show a profit. Well i guess I shouldn't say every team. I think if you are getting 2:1 on your money it is profitable to ML the underdog or to say the least just bet on the spread for the underdogs.

Sports books know the public loves to bet on the favorites so they make it where they only cover the spread say 40-50% of the time which nets them a healthy profit. I think we shall all start betting on the underdogs more often and net a healthy profit.

If anyone else has any back testing on this I would love to see the results of it. I truely believe though betting underdogs is extremely profitable. I will start keeping track starting today to see how often the underdogs cover the spread based on -110 odds and by the end of the week I will see how $100 bettors will do.

[J.M. Disciple]

Boston has a lot of injuries right now, i do not understand why the line will move like that. Maybe Rondo is going to end up playing. Maybe because denver is on the road for 2nd striaght game. Maybe because denver is playing back to back night. I like Denver though. I have them at +9.5 for the "B Bet." hopefully that is enough to cover. I would love to have them at +11.5, but I do not feel like remaking my bet. If i lose the bet because they lose by 10 so be it. I will cancel the C bet.

[GGPLAYER]

did anybody just see that? Denver was at +7 all damn day and now it just went to +8.5 what the hell happened? that desnt make me feel good is someone out ofr Denver or something or is the lines that heavy on Celtics? hmmmm anyone?

C. Anthony is out. Great I already made my bet.

[jmjj]

Boston has a lot of injuries right now, i do not understand why the line will move like that. Maybe Rondo is going to end up playing. Maybe because denver is on the road for 2nd striaght game. Maybe because denver is playing back to back night. I like Denver though. I have them at +9.5 for the "B Bet." hopefully that is enough to cover. I would love to have them at +11.5, but I do not feel like remaking my bet. If i lose the bet because they lose by 10 so be it. I will cancel the C bet.

yeah it was weird JM that huge of a move that quickly at the last min I havent bet it yet but something is up usually that means someone for Denver is out not for Boston which isnt cool at all we shall see

[jmjj]

C. Anthony is out. Great I already made my bet.

wonderful where did u see that at ggplayer?

[EXpertcapper]

nice job

[J.M. Disciple]

Can someone link me to the system that follow the huge underdogs in the nba and does a chase system? Does anyone know the record of it from last year and this year? I read it was undefeated, but i cant seem to find it. Please link me ill give a couple sbr points.

[J.M. Disciple]

if Anthony is out we are screwed cause 95% of us have alread made our bets. Im sure Anthony filters into the rules as the most efficient player for the Nuggets. There for the series under the system rules is canceled and we get screwed over cause we already made our bets/

[qwerty123]

Carmelo Anthony F Prob Wed - Illness - 12/8/10 Anthony is expected to play Wednesday against the Celtics as he continues to feel the effects of a cold.

on the other hand, Rondo is confirmed to be playing

[jmjj]

if Anthony is out we are screwed cause 95% of us have alread made our bets. Im sure Anthony filters into the rules as the most efficient player for the Nuggets. There for the series under the system rules is canceled and we get screwed over cause we already made our bets/

where did he find that info at? I cant find it on the net so anyone know where it was told? that he would be out for tonights game?