John Morrison 2011-12 NBA Thread

[thelimit0310]

JM January 7

No plays

[Kev the Brit]

Ok, I have decided to follow along with this strategy. I have tried to follow along in the thread as much as possible but I need help with my bankroll so please help. My bank is 1250... so I skip the A-bet and wait for the B-bet. My B-bet should then be (125*0,27 equal 33,75) right? If it comes to a C-bet, I wager 125*0,73 equal 91.25) right? 10 % of my bankroll is 33,75 plus 91,25 equal 125. So what do you do if C-bet looses? If You win a serie, do you calculate a new unit size or does it remain the same? If so when do you change the unite size? Thanks a lot for the thread Petter Comments?

Hi Petters, as a rule for personal security and confidentiality, we don't normally publish our actual bankroll on this site. However, your 1250 could be dollars, scrotes, euros or bananas, it doesn't matter. Anyway, here is how I would use a 1250 currency bankroll:

Please note that the system bankroll must be available to the system at all times. Be wary of using the same bankroll to fund other bets.

1. I usually decide that a betting unit in a 3 game chase (with occasional series failures) would be 1% of the system bankroll (BR). However, the JM B&C money management technique provides additional profit for the same risk, so in the case of JM B&C betting I will risk another 1%, making a betting unit = 2%. So, with 1250 currency units as my JM BR, I would make a betting unit worth 25 currency units (1250*0.02=25) .

2. I pass on all JM A Bets.

3. When an A Bet loses, I bet on the B Bet to win 3 betting units (75 currency units). If it wins, the series is over, with 3 betting units in the pot to add to the BR.

4. If/when the B Bet loses, I bet on the C Bet to win back the lost B bet stake plus the 3 units.

5. If/when the C Bet loses, I would have lost approx 20 units (bookmaker dependant), with approx 80 units remaining to enable me to bet big in the next few series and recover my lost money. The 80 betting units remaining in the BR are capable of allowing me to bet to win 15 units on the B and C bets over the next few series (12 additional units over the normal target) until the lost units have been recovered. This will usually require no more than 2 B/C bets. Once the lost stakes have been recovered, I would reduce down to betting to win 3 units on the B&C and move on from there. Last year, at the end of the NBA and NHL seasons I had won at least one unit per series on average, using the above techniques. 250 series of JM NBA V1, V2 & V3 and JM NHL V1 which incorporated a total of 7 series losses between them, but the losses were spread out to allow immediate recovery.

6. The betting unit is a percentage of BR, so both the BR and betting unit should grow in currency value as time passes. A good spreadsheet will look after the calculations for you.

Good luck

[Kev the Brit]

Kev you can say all you want about just betting the B and C bet, but just because it started out like that this year doesn't mean it won't even out in a week or so. That's just common sense buddy, c'mon now... The A bet can go on a run just as easily, then what? So I wouldn't come in here and tell people to NOT bet the A bet when it will all even out in the end, and that my friend is a fact.

Hi Steve, yes, the A Bets could easily go on a winning streak, but please read Wilba's post 552, last line. 10 years of back testing is also a fact. But, most importantly, we are not in a competition, so I sincerely wish you good luck in your endeavours.

[DustyDiamond]

Wallco NBA Chase 110
2011-12 System to date: 5-0 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +5.00 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 0

(1/6/12):
#5 New Jersey (+6) (A) - Win

v1 Plays
(A) 4-1
(B) 1-0
(C) -
(D) -

V2 Plays
In production


Games for (1/7/12):
#6 Milwaukee (+10½) @ L.A. Clippers (A) (10:35 pm EST)
#7 Oklahoma City @ Houston (**) (A) (8:05 pm EST)

** Denotes line not available at time of post


We will ALWAYS play the M/L on favorites and the point spread (-110) on dogs. There is no point buying in this system, with one exception, if your team is the favorite, and buying down to a zero 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 change, but it is the individual bettor’s responsibility to get the appropriate line if it differs from my post. On occasion, we will have plays that go head-head. The system will grade ALL bets, regardless of opponents, how you wish to play these games is your choice.

Line is up now for Houston. ScoresandOdds.com has them at +4.5

[thelimit0310]

Wilba and Wallco, Please Read!

From what I've seen with Wilba's method, both Milwaukee and Houston would have been no plays as they won on the A bet officially. All other plays this season have been won without buying points. So this raises the question, what if we combined Wilba's and Wallco's methods?

For example, skip A, and play to win 4 units on B and net 6 on C without buying points. 4/6 on B/C instead of 3/5 to compensate for 1 unit on A. If the A bet covers with 3 points, not just base spread, it would also be a no play. Only plays that officially go to B would be a play this way. As I mentioned this would have negated the 2 unofficial losses this year, all other plays so far this season have won as well.

In this method a series loss is equal to 15.4 units. I backtested this year using this method and it is at +42 units without any losses. I also backtested last year's results and it performed beautifully at +168 units. After this backtest I upped the anti, 5 units on B and 7 on C, only playing B and C. The result last year was +205 units. I believe there is a threshold where you can keep moving up in units for B and C and yield a greater return up until the cost for losses is too high. Am I on to something here? What are your thoughts?

[Scorpion87]

Dunleavy (groin) won't play against the Clippers on Saturday, Jim Paschke of Bucks.com reports.

Bogut (personal) won't play against the Clippers on Saturday, Jim Paschke of Bucks.com reports.

@espn

so then what will we play tonight wallco? still +10.5 Milwaukee?

[Wallco99]

Wallco NBA Chase 110
2011-12 System to date: 5-0 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +5.00 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 0

(1/6/12):
#5 New Jersey (+6) (A) - Win

v1 Plays
(A) 4-1
(B) 1-0
(C) -
(D) -

V2 Plays
In production


Games for (1/7/12):
#6 Milwaukee (+10½) @ L.A. Clippers (A) (10:35 pm EST)
#7 Oklahoma City @ Houston (+4 1/2) (A) (8:05 pm EST)


We will ALWAYS play the M/L on favorites and the point spread (-110) on dogs. There is no point buying in this system, with one exception, if your team is the favorite, and buying down to a zero 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 change, but it is the individual bettor’s responsibility to get the appropriate line if it differs from my post. On occasion, we will have plays that go head-head. The system will grade ALL bets, regardless of opponents, how you wish to play these games is your choice.

[Wallco99]

Wilba and Wallco, Please Read!

From what I've seen with Wilba's method, both Milwaukee and Houston would have been no plays as they won on the A bet officially. All other plays this season have been won without buying points. So this raises the question, what if we combined Wilba's and Wallco's methods?

For example, skip A, and play to win 4 units on B and net 6 on C without buying points. 4/6 on B/C instead of 3/5 to compensate for 1 unit on A. If the A bet covers with 3 points, not just base spread, it would also be a no play. Only plays that officially go to B would be a play this way. As I mentioned this would have negated the 2 unofficial losses this year, all other plays so far this season have won as well.

In this method a series loss is equal to 15.4 units. I backtested this year using this method and it is at +42 units without any losses. I also backtested last year's results and it performed beautifully at +168 units. After this backtest I upped the anti, 5 units on B and 7 on C, only playing B and C. The result last year was +205 units. I believe there is a threshold where you can keep moving up in units for B and C and yield a greater return up until the cost for losses is too high. Am I on to something here? What are your thoughts?

I will look

[manutd19]

Key players not playing in the milwaukee game. Hmm, dnt know about this game

[Wilba]

Kev you can say all you want about just betting the B and C bet, but just because it started out like that this year doesn't mean it won't even out in a week or so. That's just common sense buddy, c'mon now...

The A bet can go on a run just as easily, then what? So I wouldn't come in here and tell people to NOT bet the A bet when it will all even out in the end, and that my friend is a fact.

The method is not about two weeks of performance, that's the whole thing - it's about 10 years of backtested proof... That's why over the long run it will always come out on top

[Wilba]

Wilba and Wallco, Please Read!

From what I've seen with Wilba's method, both Milwaukee and Houston would have been no plays as they won on the A bet officially. All other plays this season have been won without buying points. So this raises the question, what if we combined Wilba's and Wallco's methods?

For example, skip A, and play to win 4 units on B and net 6 on C without buying points. 4/6 on B/C instead of 3/5 to compensate for 1 unit on A. If the A bet covers with 3 points, not just base spread, it would also be a no play. Only plays that officially go to B would be a play this way. As I mentioned this would have negated the 2 unofficial losses this year, all other plays so far this season have won as well.

In this method a series loss is equal to 15.4 units. I backtested this year using this method and it is at +42 units without any losses. I also backtested last year's results and it performed beautifully at +168 units. After this backtest I upped the anti, 5 units on B and 7 on C, only playing B and C. The result last year was +205 units. I believe there is a threshold where you can keep moving up in units for B and C and yield a greater return up until the cost for losses is too high. Am I on to something here? What are your thoughts?

For me I think just under 75% of series risk on the C bet is just right, which is what you do when playing to net 3 units each on B and C (the other > 25 % goes into the B bet).
Raising stakes even higher on the C bets could show more profit long term, but would also increase the short term risk - having more than 75% of a total series risk on one play seems a little extravagant to me.

[thelimit0310]

For me I think just under 75% of series risk on the C bet is just right, which is what you do when playing to net 3 units each on B and C (the other > 25 % goes into the B bet).
Raising stakes even higher on the C bets could show more profit long term, but would also increase the short term risk - having more than 75% of a total series risk on one play seems a little extravagant to me.

Just to be clear, your saying that what I proposed can be achieved, though you advise against betting too high?

[thelimit0310]

Wallco, looking forward to whatever you come up with. I can't find any immediate errors with the method I proposed, I will probably start this method with tomorrows bets using 5/7 units for B and C.

[1gamer]

Rockets/Bucks CASH IT!

[Bugs Bunny]

Another 2 units in my account! Thanks Wallco!!!

[Kev the Brit]

Just to be clear, your saying that what I proposed can be achieved, though you advise against betting too high?

The apparent success of Wallco's Chase 135 is due to simply betting bigger within the total risk boundary set by the Morrison system (approx 18 units dependent on bookmaker). 10 years of back testing has shown that the C Bet is the most reliable, so there is an extreme case of simply risking the total JM risk on the C Bet, which in theory must then provide the greatest profit (approx 10 units) per series. I don't know the history but if the number of C bets has been more than 1 in 10 of the number of series, it must be the theoretical way ahead.

Last year there was 155 series:
C bets totalled 23, which could have been set to win 10 units each to win 230 units
B bets totalled 68, which were set to win 3 units each (Wilba's system) and therefore set to win a total of 204 units.
A bets totalled 155 which were set to win 1 unit each would have produced 155 units.

All bets would have lost the same number of times, so the net gain from the B bets would have been 49 units better than the A bets and the C bets would have been 75 units better than the A bets.

This year so far there has been only 16 series, so the stats cannot be key to any stategy, but with 3 (or 4 if you count the Boston series) the C bet only to win 10 units will have amassed either 30 (or 40) units.

The bottom line is that 10 years of backtesting has proved that the theoretical greatest success is to load up the C Bets to the total risk boundary.

Food for thought....

[Wallco99]

Wallco NBA Chase 110
2011-12 System to date: 7-0 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +7.00 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 0

(1/7/12):
#6 Milwaukee (+10) (A) - Win
#7 Houston (+5½) (A) - Win

v1 Plays
(A) 6-1
(B) 1-0
(C) -
(D) -

V2 Plays
In production


There are no system playsfor (1/8/12):

[Kev the Brit]

For me I think just under 75% of series risk on the C bet is just right, which is what you do when playing to net 3 units each on B and C (the other > 25 % goes into the B bet). Raising stakes even higher on the C bets could show more profit long term, but would also increase the short term risk - having more than 75% of a total series risk on one play seems a little extravagant to me.

But one could argue that you are being emotive. Arithmetic is arithmetic. If you see my previous post, you could bet very big only on the C bets and win the most units. This then naturally leads to a "new" system: monitor all road teams and when a team has lost the first 2 games on the road, you then flat bet to win a (high value) unit on their third game. 80% success rate I believe.

Kev

[Wilba]

But one could argue that you are being emotive. Arithmetic is arithmetic. If you see my previous post, you could bet very big only on the C bets and win the most units. This then naturally leads to a "new" system: monitor all road teams and when a team has lost the first 2 games on the road, you then flat bet to win a (high value) unit on their third game. 80% success rate I believe.

Kev

Yep, you are absolutely right. Over the long run, putting 100% of series risk all on the C's when they come will come out on top. But you then also restrict yourself to very few plays, and in the instance of a run of 3 C bet losses in a row (which will happen at some point in your life, believe me) you could be in a pretty deep hole. I don't at all disagree with your reasoning, but for me the 25/75 split works well

[Wilba]

Just to be clear, your saying that what I proposed can be achieved, though you advise against betting too high?

For sure, nothing wrong with it at all, as long as you set your unit size to an appropriate amount. Like I said, for me, anything above 10% of roll on any series, ever, is too much for sure

[Wilba]

The 3/3 net win on B/C only came out to units of 3 and 3 because betting to win 3 from B (or 3.14 or something to be meticulous) equates to the same series risk, when buying points, as playing to win 1 unit from A.

As Stevex mentioned earlier, the most important part no matter how you play is getting the right money management. However I do disagree with him in his thinking that all ways come out even in the end, I think some ways are superior to others, obviously..

[Kev the Brit]

Yep, you are absolutely right. Over the long run, putting 100% of series risk all on the C's when they come will come out on top. But you then also restrict yourself to very few plays, and in the instance of a run of 3 C bet losses in a row (which will happen at some point in your life, believe me) you could be in a pretty deep hole. I don't at all disagree with your reasoning, but for me the 25/75 split works well

Agreed, but to counter the 3 successive losses, the risking unit should be no more than 25% BR. 75% is lost and this leaves 25% BR to stay alive. We are talking about 80% success rate, so flat betting the 25% on the next 5 events will recover the lost 75% plus a little growth.

I appreciate that it is not an exact science. 80% success is an average derived over a long time, but I believe that 3 failures in sequence will almost certainly be followed by at least 4 wins from 5 events. This would allow for 4 sequential losses at the outset, but then the unit needs to be 20% BR maximum.

For the moment, I'm sticking with the 3 unit B/C with my bookie, but I'm definitely going to backtest the concept of C Bet only at the total JM risk with sequential losses to be accomodated by an appropriate BR:unit ratio.

[Swan4brownlow]

Guys can I just say that the discussion in this thread for people like myself without much knowledge about this system has been really useful. It's great to see you guys continually coming up with more ideas about how to improve the system of your betting. Keep up the good work and hopefully there won't be any losses for a while now for both the official and unofficial bettors.

@thelimit, from your above post where you questioned maybe combining Wilba and Wallco's method, am I right in saying that if an A bet wins with buying the 3 points, then you wont play that series, however if it loses, you will play that series for 4 then 6 net units, but on the B and C bets you will NOT buy the 3 points? It seems to me like there are a heap of different ideas and variations that people are coming up with as they attempt to find the best method that minimises any losses. I have been following Wallco's 1-3-5 strategy for the past 5 or so days since I've only just started and unfortunately have already copped 2 losses with Houston and Milwaukee, but, having seen that history of success this system has brought, I'm in for the long run. Just looking for a nice safe strategy that will net me a good profit come the end of the season.

[petters72]

Thanks a lot kev the brit for your guidelines, really appreciate it. I really like the different approaches of betting. I think I need to find one for me and stick to it.

[analyzer]

Any JM plays for today?

[DollarBill10]

Any JM plays for today?

Orlando Magic

[knugen]

JM sent out his first email with bets today(!!!) ..!

[DollarBill10]

JM sent out his first email with bets today(!!!) ..!

Well...what did it say?

[mitchp]

Orlando Magic (A)

[thelimit0310]

Swan4brownlow, My method involved skipping the A bets entirely. Only play B and C bets and bet to win 4/6 units respectively. No point buying. I've found that you can up the ante with unit amounts and rack up even more units. Of course, this comes at a higher risk.

Wilba, Kev, I even backtested last year with a unit amount similar to what you guys just discussed, 9 on B and 11 on C. No buying points and losses equate to 31.9 units. The result was +353 units last year, and quickly looking through this year shows +87 units so far with 0 losses. I'm glad both Wilba and Kev have come to agree that there are no faults in this method outside of being cautious with risking too high, because it looks incredible. I feel like this is a goldmine just waiting to be utilized.

As far as only betting C bets at 10 units a bet, I'm not sure this proves more effective than the method I proposed. I set the unit gain to 20 instead of 10, with losses it came out to a net of +206 units. Of course upping the units to gain per series could blow up this number, but then again we just proved the same can be done with the method I proposed.

Anyway, if no one can find any errors in this method, I can't wait for the next B bet so I can try it out!

[thelimit0310]

JM January 8

V1 ORLANDO -4 @ Sacramento (A)

All official plays are posted with 3 points bought. ML will not be taken on favorites greater than -3.

[knugen]

Swan4brownlow, My method involved skipping the A bets entirely. Only play B and C bets and bet to win 4/6 units respectively. No point buying. I've found that you can up the ante with unit amounts and rack up even more units. Of course, this comes at a higher risk.

Wilba, Kev, I even backtested last year with a unit amount similar to what you guys just discussed, 9 on B and 11 on C. No buying points and losses equate to 31.9 units. The result was +353 units last year, and quickly looking through this year shows +87 units so far with 0 losses. I'm glad both Wilba and Kev have come to agree that there are no faults in this method outside of being cautious with risking too high, because it looks incredible. I feel like this is a goldmine just waiting to be utilized.

As far as only betting C bets at 10 units a bet, I'm not sure this proves more effective than the method I proposed. I set the unit gain to 20 instead of 10, with losses it came out to a net of +206 units. Of course upping the units to gain per series could blow up this number, but then again we just proved the same can be done with the method I proposed.

Anyway, if no one can find any errors in this method, I can't wait for the next B bet so I can try it out!

I think i gonnastart follow this method and only bet B and C bets and raise My amounts.. But u Will bet B and C bets on all versions?

[manutd19]

Will start too

[thelimit0310]

Yes I will play all versions, and again, if anyone can find any error in my reasoning please speak out. I stress this point because I feel as if this method is way too profitable to have not been stumbled upon before now.

Just a few more tidbits of info...If playing to win 4/6 units on B/C, a loss is 15.4 units. So keep this in mind when determining your unit amount. If you have 1000 in the bank, playing 5 dollars as a unit, a loss is about 77 dollars. With that, you could lose about 13 series without winning a single bet before going bust on this method. With this method a loss can be recovered in 3-4 series.

[Wallco99]

Swan4brownlow, My method involved skipping the A bets entirely. Only play B and C bets and bet to win 4/6 units respectively. No point buying. I've found that you can up the ante with unit amounts and rack up even more units. Of course, this comes at a higher risk.

Wilba, Kev, I even backtested last year with a unit amount similar to what you guys just discussed, 9 on B and 11 on C. No buying points and losses equate to 31.9 units. The result was +353 units last year, and quickly looking through this year shows +87 units so far with 0 losses. I'm glad both Wilba and Kev have come to agree that there are no faults in this method outside of being cautious with risking too high, because it looks incredible. I feel like this is a goldmine just waiting to be utilized.

As far as only betting C bets at 10 units a bet, I'm not sure this proves more effective than the method I proposed. I set the unit gain to 20 instead of 10, with losses it came out to a net of +206 units. Of course upping the units to gain per series could blow up this number, but then again we just proved the same can be done with the method I proposed.

Anyway, if no one can find any errors in this method, I can't wait for the next B bet so I can try it out!

I know that your method was only for (B) and (C), but what criteria are you using to determine whether or not a play goes to (B), is it losing the (A) bet with buying three points, losing the (A) bet ATS, or are you playing ALL (B) bets, regardless of whether or not the (A) bet won or lost?