Regardless, historically, the MAJORITY of the bets are won on (A) and (B). This is what I am trying to capitalize on. If you are happy winning 1 unit at a time and needing 9 or 19 wins to make up for a loss, depending on whether or not you buy points, then great for you. But I would much rather be able to make up a loss with only 3 wins. Not to mention, it's all still a test. I guess we can just go on the rest of our lives playing the same old systems the same old way, or we can constantly try to find new strategies to make us more money, which is what I thought this forum was all about, not just people logging on to get free picks, and No, I don't mean you.
-
Comment -
Chase 110, haven't been playing but it involves a team that loses straight up and ATS 3 in a row. Then you bet on the team ATS or ML (with 7/5 it would be ATS because no way would anyone with proper bankroll management lay to win 700 on -600 odds.) Then ATS I got the results listed above. I am half way through the 2009-2010 back test and the results don't look promising either. Doing it at covers btwComment -
I have been playing the "regular" A, B, C from the beginning of this season and here is where I stand:
+11.48 units = JM (no buying of points, just playing spreads)
+9.74 units = Wallco (no buying of points, just playing spreads)
This is evertyhing up to day (not including today's game).
The regular way is making money but if you are looking to increase you profits, then increase your unit size.
This is the way I look at hings...just my 2 cents.
Comment -
2010-11(85-0)
(A) 47-38
(B) 23-15
(C) 9-6
(D) 6-0<O
</O
Total profit : +85 units
Here are the actual results from Chase 110 for 2010-11, I have no idea where you got your numbers from. As I said before the 7/5 method produced +119 units this way, I still have to go back and compare to M/L bets vs. -110 bets. I did make a slight error, each season is 4-5 units off. I was calculating a loss @ 21.25 units when it should have been 21.65 units. Still, results are great.Last edited by Wallco99; 01-22-12, 04:12 PM.Comment -
No, this way will vastly increase your loss amount. A two unit wager will cost you 36.88 units when it loses. That's a lot of making up to do. So no, it is not as simple as that. Playing the two bets at a much higher unit size, yeilding a loss similar to what we are already used to is much more effective than just "raising your units".I have been playing the "regular" A, B, C from the beginning of this season and here is where I stand:
+11.48 units = JM (no buying of points, just playing spreads)
+9.74 units = Wallco (no buying of points, just playing spreads)
This is evertyhing up to day (not including today's game).
The regular way is making money but if you are looking to increase you profits, then increase your unit size.
This is the way I look at hings...just my 2 cents.Comment -
[quote=Wallco99;13380657] 2010-11(85-0) (A) 47-38 (B) 23-15 (C) 9-6 [FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#333335](D) 6-0
Okay let me get this 7/5 thing straight. We all know the Chase 110. So you bet to win 7 units on the A bet. If it loses you bet 5 units on the B bet. That loses you are done. Correct? My tally is ATS not ML. Did not go on to C or D because you said A and B were most profitable.Comment -
So if breaking this down in a system by itself, as a 2 game betting series, betting to win 1 unit per series.... it would have profited 15 units last year correct?2010-11(85-0)
(A) 47-38
(B) 23-15
(C) 9-6
(D) 6-0<O</O
Total profit : +85 units
Here are the actual results from Chase 110 for 2010-11, I have no idea where you got your numbers from. As I said before the 7/5 method produced +119 units this way, I still have to go back and compare to M/L bets vs. -110 bets. I did make a slight error, each season is 4-5 units off. I was calculating a loss @ 21.25 units when it should have been 21.65 units. Still, results are great.Comment -
I have done the backtest for 2009-2010 season for Chase 110 using 7/5 ATS NOT ML. (given I have all the info correct. No one has said I got it wrong yet.) It does not look profitable betting A and following up with B 7/5 ATS NOT ML. Not the real Chase 101 but to bet 7 units on -500 or even -300 is insane. I will leave it at that.Comment -
Wallco99 yeah but u count it with no money line involved...Comment -
[QUOTE=peeiempee;13380875]I will test it myself and let you know what I find. I am done talking about it, especially since I said I needed to test it before it can implemented. I don't need anyone's help, because regardless of what you come up with, I will still check myself. This is the last post I will be discussing 5/7 or 7/5 with anyone, with the exception of Mr. Limit, until I have deemed it a success or failure. Play the systems the way you always have and if this method, or another one for that matter, seems to be the best bet strategy, I will let everyone know immediately, with backtested results. You seem to be the kind of person who, while doing a backtest, roots for it's failure, so you can rush back and post about why it won't work. While you stop at that point, I take the results I get and if they are bad, try to find a different way to make them good. As I said, I am done discussing this topic until I have ALL the results I need. If it takes a couple days, great, however, if it takes several weeks, then so be it. Everyone just pretend this method doesn't exist until we prove it should be used.Comment -
Thanks for your efforts WallcoComment -
why wouldnt you bet 50 units per pick?
System's are judged off of 1 unit per win.. if this becomes a two game chase system, whether you bet $100, $500, or $5000 per game, the option you chose should be considered one unit. You could theoretically bet 500 units per series and prove that the system has made a few thousand units per season... but you more then anyone, knows that is not how systems work.
I am by no means against your thoughts and new ideas, as they all seem great and and definitely in favor of any 2 game chase over a 3 or 4 game chase. But at the same time, as with any other system, it should be gauged with 1 unit per win, not 5 or 7. If that were the case, why not just leave the system as is, but bet to win 5 or 7 units per series? If so, it would easily outdo the new thoughts correct? I think it all comes down to how much risk you are willing to take per series. If you are trying to risk close to the same amount with a 2 game chase as you would with a 3 or 4 game chase, then sure betting to win 5 or 7 units per series would be correct... but still not sure advertising a system as more then 15 units per year or so is the right thing. It can be 15 units to a 1.4/1 unit bettor, 38 units to a 7/5 bettor, or 190 units to a 35/25 bettor.
Again, love the new ideas... even if they do produce a few less units when betting to win one per series... The risk will be way down, and would be very good for most bettors as their bankroll would rarely be at risk.
BOL and thanks for the work and testing you doComment -
I don't think that's true but I'll ask at the book tomorrow morning. They may have implemented something like that recently as part of homeland security but I know for a fact my friend did not have to give any personal info to collect his winnings. The only thing he did was tip the security guard $400 to walk him to his car.Comment -
dlunc if you wish to think of it that way you are technically correct, however I think it does not do the method justice considering when matched in relation to other money management methods it blows it out of the water because you are not betting nearly as high. The profits you can make with this method are much higher than others, yet the average person would not see that when you simplify it that way. They wouldn't know that "1 unit" actually meant on average 6x more money per unit than all the other systems that person may be running. So to be clear - were not cutting in a way where for example if your a $10 better you would still bet the $10 and call it 5 units instead of 1, you would actually be able to bet $50 and get away with it safely, and losses are not nearly as devastating as they would be if you upped your unit size playing traditionally, buying 3 points and all. So we either use the term 5/7 units, or tag a note with the method saying "increase your average unit size by 5/7 times for each bet level" which is just unnecessary.
Should be also noted that this is founded on Wilba's idea of winning net 3 units on B and C bets. It's about bet weight in relation to bankroll size. That's what it's always been about. If you break it down like you have you really miss that kernal of it.
Hope this helpsLast edited by thelimit0310; 01-22-12, 08:44 PM.Comment -
I think each side has a valid point. Now, I haven't read this "Wilba's idea" but I haven't seen it posted what a unit is technically worth. I always say that 1 unit = 1% of my bankroll. But it could be different to anyone. Example.. If I a 1000$ bankroll, and I usually play 10$ per wager... In order to follow the 5/7 or 4/6 or whatever, I would literally be betting to win 50$ and then 70$. Which would actually be 5 or 7 units.
However, since I will never be betting lower than 50$(+juice) with this system, why continue to say my unit is 10$?? Makes since to say that my unit is worth 50$
Yes?Comment -
Wilba's idea pretty much sparked this whole process of thinking. It was that you can win more units than playing the traditional way if you bet to win net 3 units on both the B or C bet if needed, and you skip the A bet. This is also the foundation of the 5/7 method. So why is it okay to judge Wilba's method by 3 units but the 5/7 method as 1 or 1.4 units? The method has been successful in the past and has surpassed traditional JM every year, but if we count it as only 1 unit instead of 3 ( or 5, or 7), it would have made less units - but it would have won more money! So you see, it screws up the unit relation of this method and other management methods. An accurate way to depict how many true units it has won would be to calculate it at 5/7. So at the end of the day, counting it in a simplified fashion is dishonest to everyone involved.Comment -
JM January 22
V1 TORONTO +12.5 @ LA Clippers (A) WIN
Toronto will continue as an unofficial B bet
RESULTS PER VERSION
Version 1
A: 8-4
B: 2-2
C: 2-0
Version 2
A: 1-2
B: 2-0
C: 0-0
Version 3
A: 9-7
B: 5-2
C: 2-0
Totals
A: 18-13
B: 9-4
C: 4-0Comment -
I agree with what you are saying Limit. I just believe it needs to be worded differently. It does make more money, but it's basically b/c your overall base wager is heavily elevated. I use the 3/5 method, personally. But instead of using a "unit" method, I just use dollar amounts on my spreadsheet. Since it is literally 3 times more than I use on traditional bets. It's basically open to any interpretation. I think you both have valid points. It should be noted that "a unit" is elevated.Comment -
Question for Wallco or anyone that does this... there was some talk at the end of last season about fading any team that won on the 'A' game of Chase 110... is it worth it? anyone backtest it?Comment -
I am open to discuss right and wrong, plays anything relating to sports betting. But please extend me the courtsey and be professional and don't tell me who I am. I don't tell you what type of person you seem like. So please let's keep this professional and don't make negative assumptions about each other. I am just a person trying find ways to beat the books. Ran into a little slump so trying new ideas to play. I like your Chase 101 but don't like chasing so when 7/5 was proposed I wanted to see how it would work. I can't just go by someone's numbers and believe them if that's that case I need to buy every tout's package out there. I do appreciate you bring new ideas to the forums.Comment -
Wallco if you would like to keep the discussion out of the public forum you can message me your findings/inquiries and we can discuss it all over PMs. Or we can keep it here, whatever you decide to do.
peeiempee your work is appreciated and I can't blame you for wanting to test things out for yourself. If you have anything to share you can PM me to discuss it. But really as Wallco said before me, there is still work to be done and things can change. But no one will miss out when the work is completed. Until then I would recommend just going business as usualComment -
Wallco! When using a labby and not buying points..is it a good idea to continue with a B bet if the bet won on the A bet level with 3 points bought???Comment -
Why would you not be able to advertise the system as more than a 15 unit per year system? I mean if the proposed 5/7 or 7/5 becomes a reality, then the system can be advertised as whatever the backtested results produce. According the unofficial backtest it looks like way more than 15 units per season. The new system would then be aimed at winning either 7 or 5 units, depending on whether you win on the A or B bet, per series. The intent of the new strategy is to gain more units while risking roughly the same amounts of units per series. Playing the system as is, you risk 18.45 units to win 1 unit per series. In the proposed method, you risk 21.67 units to win either 7 or 5 units per series. There is no need to change your unit size or amount. If you have the bankroll to play the system as is, there would be no need to change your unit size or unit amount to transition to the proposed method.Comment -
Pls who can tell me the JM Nba version 2&3 rulesComment -
Wallco NBA Chase 110
2011-12 System to date: 18-0 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +18.00 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 1 (-26.99 units)
v1 Plays
(A) 13-6
(B) 2-4
(C) 2-2
(D) 1-0
V2 Plays
In production
There are no system plays for (1/23/12):
#18 Resumes (D) on 1/24/12Comment
