John Morrison 2011-12 NBA Thread

[BSUWADDY]

Cash the Knicks!

[Hunner24]

This is a potentially stupid, and probably already answered question. But if someone doesn't mind to explain to me, what makes in the 7/5 system the numbers 7 and 5 units important. Are they arbitrary? Why is it, for example, better than 8/6 (the same as 1.4/1 just with a smaller risk size)? This season, playing 8/6 would put you up 105.84 units. I guess I'm just getting at why exactly is it 7 and 5? Is it just a comfort thing or is it based on estimated losses per year? Just wondering. Thanks for any replys

[bauerranch]

Go back about 3 pages and it is all spelled out-

[xgame]

This is a potentially stupid, and probably already answered question. But if someone doesn't mind to explain to me, what makes in the 7/5 system the numbers 7 and 5 units important. Are they arbitrary? Why is it, for example, better than 8/6 (the same as 1.4/1 just with a smaller risk size)? This season, playing 8/6 would put you up 105.84 units. I guess I'm just getting at why exactly is it 7 and 5? Is it just a comfort thing or is it based on estimated losses per year? Just wondering. Thanks for any replys

how about 10/5 ?

[Hunner24]

This is a potentially stupid, and probably already answered question. But if someone doesn't mind to explain to me, what makes in the 7/5 system the numbers 7 and 5 units important. Are they arbitrary? Why is it, for example, better than 8/6 (the same as 1.4/1 just with a smaller risk size)? This season, playing 8/6 would put you up 105.84 units. I guess I'm just getting at why exactly is it 7 and 5? Is it just a comfort thing or is it based on estimated losses per year? Just wondering. Thanks for any replys

Found something. Page 55 explains that it is to mimic a tradiational JM series loss of about 21u. Also to limit bankroll exposure. I do have another question though. Do those of you playing the system use a consistant unit throughout the season, or do you increase it after each win/lower after losses.

[nitsuj378]

This is a potentially stupid, and probably already answered question. But if someone doesn't mind to explain to me, what makes in the 7/5 system the numbers 7 and 5 units important. Are they arbitrary? Why is it, for example, better than 8/6 (the same as 1.4/1 just with a smaller risk size)? This season, playing 8/6 would put you up 105.84 units. I guess I'm just getting at why exactly is it 7 and 5? Is it just a comfort thing or is it based on estimated losses per year? Just wondering. Thanks for any replys

If you play Jm using the 1-3-5 method a series loss would be -17.28. Playing the B/C bets only to win 3 units per series (buying 3 points) a series loss would be -18.68 units. These methods only result in winning 1,3, or 5 units. The 7-5 method takes advantage of higher percentage plays risking 21.67 units to win either 7 or 5 units. The units you risk is not that much higher but the units you win are significantly more.

[Hunner24]

If you play Jm using the 1-3-5 method a series loss would be -17.28. Playing the B/C bets only to win 3 units per series (buying 3 points) a series loss would be -18.68 units. These methods only result in winning 1,3, or 5 units. The 7-5 method takes advantage of higher percentage plays risking 21.67 units to win either 7 or 5 units. The units you risk is not that much higher but the units you win are significantly more.

Yeah, I definately see how the 7/5 is superior to 1-3-5 and the buying of 3 points of B/C. But there isn't much of a difference in the B/C to win 3u and 7/5 except the % of your roll that you risk. Both methods need a little more than 3 wins per loss for breakeven. Just trying to find where the numbers came from. I guess its just the upper limit of a comfortable risk amount.

Thanks for your reply!

[Wallco99]

[Wallco99]

This is a potentially stupid, and probably already answered question. But if someone doesn't mind to explain to me, what makes in the 7/5 system the numbers 7 and 5 units important. Are they arbitrary? Why is it, for example, better than 8/6 (the same as 1.4/1 just with a smaller risk size)? This season, playing 8/6 would put you up 105.84 units. I guess I'm just getting at why exactly is it 7 and 5? Is it just a comfort thing or is it based on estimated losses per year? Just wondering. Thanks for any replys

It's the largest possible profit, while remaining as close as we can to a standard JM loss amount (which is 18.68 units). You could play 14/10 or 21/15, but a loss would be enormous.

[Wallco99]

how about 10/5 ?

See previous post

[Wallco99]

Found something. Page 55 explains that it is to mimic a tradiational JM series loss of about 21u. Also to limit bankroll exposure. I do have another question though. Do those of you playing the system use a consistant unit throughout the season, or do you increase it after each win/lower after losses.

I stay consistent for all sports all season. I re-evaluate at the start of MLB. That is the beginning of MY bet season.

[Wallco99]

Yeah, I definately see how the 7/5 is superior to 1-3-5 and the buying of 3 points of B/C. But there isn't much of a difference in the B/C to win 3u and 7/5 except the % of your roll that you risk. Both methods need a little more than 3 wins per loss for breakeven. Just trying to find where the numbers came from. I guess its just the upper limit of a comfortable risk amount.

Thanks for your reply!

The premise for B/C for three units, is to buy three points also. A loss this way would require 6 wins to almost be even. Our 7/5 method only requires three.

[1gamer]

Why is Washington a play for Chase tomorrow? They've only lost 2 ATS not 3...

[Wallco99]

Wallco NBA Chase 110
2011-12 System to date: 48-2 (fin. series)
System profit/loss: +10.71 units (fin. series)
Current open series: 0

(3/12/12):
#50 N.Y. Knicks (+8½) (C) - Win

v1 Plays
(A) 28-22
(B) 9-12
(C) 8-5
(D) 3-2

V2 Plays
In production


There are no system plays for (3/13/12):

** Dallas series has been negated **

[cmdyrds]

guys,

can you confirm? looks like today jm should have

miami
toronto
portland (unless you use any filters)

[alexknyc]

Dallas is -1250. You'd have to be nuts.

[Maxi_EV]

Dallas is -1250. You'd have to be nuts.

I'm out!

[dulm1204]

guys,

can you confirm? looks like today jm should have

miami
toronto
portland (unless you use any filters)

errr....miami is in the same state as orlando....

[Wallco99]

I think I will make an executive decision and call the Dallas series off. If they happen to lose, the next game is against Charlotte, and I can see that being another huge M/L. I am going to play it UNOFICIALLY on the point spread, however, this series will NOT count towards system wins or losses. I would rather call it off then officially change the rules and play it on the point spread in the system, even though that is is exactly what I am going to do on the side.

[thelimit0310]

To all the people that over analyzed Charlotte's game and laid off yesterday, I hope you've learned that next time you should just follow the system. Handicapping a proven statistic is a waste of time, just play it. Good win!

[thelimit0310]

Hunner24 as many peple have said already the 7/5 is the best risk to reward ratio. It is not the same as the to win 3 units on B/C, because that method has you buying 3 points. Don't buy points in 7/5.

[thelimit0310]

JM MAR 12

V1 WASHINGTON +16.5 @ San Antonio (A) WIN
V1 DETROIT +10.5 @ Utah (A) LOSS
V3 MINNESOTA +6.5 @ Phoenix (A) WIN
V1 CHARLOTTE +9.5 @ New Orleans (B) : 7/5 @ +6.5 WIN

Results Per Version


Version 1
A: 16-7
B: 3-3
C: 3-0


Version 2
A: 7-4-1
B: 2-3
C: 2-1
NYK 3/4-3/7 (A bet push)


Version 3
A: 34-15
B: 11-4
C: 2-2
DET 1/28-1/31
DAL 3/8-3/10


Totals
A: 57-26-1
B: 16-10
C: 7-3

JM MAR 13

V3 MIAMI -1.5 @ Orlando (A)
V3 TORONTO +7.5 @ Cleveland (A)

[Maxi_EV]

To all the people that over analyzed Charlotte's game and laid off yesterday, I hope you've learned that next time you should just follow the system. Handicapping a proven statistic is a waste of time, just play it. Good win!

You must be joking, right?

Are you really like all others here that justify their point by the outcome?
Further more, by ONE outcome.

That series was EV-, period.

[Maxi_EV]

To all the people that over analyzed Charlotte's game and laid off yesterday, I hope you've learned that next time you should just follow the system. Handicapping a proven statistic is a waste of time, just play it. Good win!

Over analyzed...

[casdio]

You must be joking, right?

Are you really like all others here that justify their point by the outcome?
Further more, by ONE outcome.

That series was EV-, period.

The outcomes are:
On January 31st, we started a system bet on Bobcats. We lost A and B and we won the C bet. We had profit.
On February 15th, we had a winning bet (buying 3 points) on Bobcats. For those who followed the 7/5 filters, that was NOT an official bet.
Yesterday, we won another Bobcats' bet.

So, since January 27th (the day I started recording the bets), we are 3-0 on Bobcats' bets.

Although Bobcats are a very bad team ATS, when we play them in this system, we win more than we lose

[Wilba]

Hunner24 as many peple have said already the 7/5 is the best risk to reward ratio. It is not the same as the to win 3 units on B/C, because that method has you buying 3 points. Don't buy points in 7/5.

I have heard people state this numerous time "7/5 w/out points is more profitable than 3/3 with points"...
However I have never seen anyone provide anything even vaguely resembling a 5 year or more backtest.

Is this statement just a guestimation or is it based on actual tested facts?

I'm not at all saying it is wrong, my gut would feel that it is probably right, but has it even been tested?

[Kev the Brit]

To all the people that over analyzed Charlotte's game and laid off yesterday, I hope you've learned that next time you should just follow the system. Handicapping a proven statistic is a waste of time, just play it. Good win!

I did just that: followed the system and avoided playing the worst road team (and they are also the worst team ATS). The worst team of the moment only has to let us down once in 21 series (when playing the worst team, that is) to justify the filter. Most times, like yesterday, the bet plays off, but IMHO it carries an unacceptable risk.

I have no issues with not winning one unit against a greater than normal risk of losing 21 units. If I really wanted to keep up with the JM profit curve I could now bet double for 1 series on virtually any other team for the usual risk.

[Maxi_EV]

The outcomes are:
On January 31st, we started a system bet on Bobcats. We lost A and B and we won the C bet. We had profit.
On February 15th, we had a winning bet (buying 3 points) on Bobcats. For those who followed the 7/5 filters, that was NOT an official bet.
Yesterday, we won another Bobcats' bet.

So, since January 27th (the day I started recording the bets), we are 3-0 on Bobcats' bets.

Although Bobcats are a very bad team ATS, when we play them in this system, we win more than we lose

[Maxi_EV]

Hey guys!

Let's all remortgage our houses and only play Bobcats BC 7/5!!!
It went 3-0

[Wallco99]

I have heard people state this numerous time "7/5 w/out points is more profitable than 3/3 with points"...
However I have never seen anyone provide anything even vaguely resembling a 5 year or more backtest.

Is this statement just a guestimation or is it based on actual tested facts?I'm not at all saying it is wrong, my gut would feel that it is probably right, but has it even been tested?

Yes, it was part of the backtest. All versions were tested, including 1-3-5, and 7/5 prevailed.

[Wallco99]

Hey guys!

Let's all remortgage our houses and only play Bobcats BC 7/5!!!
It went 3-0

If you run from every bad team, you'll miss half the plays, especially in Chase 110.

[Maxi_EV]

If you run from every bad team, you'll miss half the plays, especially in Chase 110.

First, never said to skip EVERY BAD TEAM. Just proposed it yesterday for CHA...the WORST ATS.

Second, Chase 110 is rreally different because it is a 4 games chase. So, even if CHA loses 70% of their games ATS, chsing them on 4 consecutives gives us a 76% chance of winning the series. We would still risk potentially 18 units to win 1, and need a 97% winrate, but it is less EV- than in BC 7/5.

[J.M. Disciple]

Help out my fellow investors. Look up the stock Lfvn (symbol). Friend of mine bought almost 2,000 shares of it at 1.40 not very long ago and it is growing incredible fast! After a short period of time its up to 3.44 now, just a heads up for those of you who do stock.

[J.M. Disciple]

With 7/5 as Wallco has stated before it only takes 3 series to make up for 1 loss, so will bobcats fail ATS more then 1 and 3 times? Probably not which makes most series profitable using 7/5. Then 1 time every 21 only applies to the traditional JM method of betting A-B-C to win 1 unit.

I wonder if you could apply the 7/5 to a regular capper....

[Wallco99]

With 7/5 as Wallco has stated before it only takes 3 series to make up for 1 loss, so will bobcats fail ATS more then 1 and 3 times? Probably not which makes most series profitable using 7/5. Then 1 time every 21 only applies to the traditional JM method of betting A-B-C to win 1 unit.

I wonder if you could apply the 7/5 to a regular capper....

You are absoluetly correct. I don't know why Kevin keeps using the 1 in 21 reference, when the majority of people don't seem to be playing traditional JM. Even the way he plays, 3/3, it is nowhere near 1 in 21, it can actually lose a lot more often and still be profitable in the end. If it loses 1 in 21, as he says, that would mean the other 20 were wins. If that were the case, and playing 3/3, he would net +60 units on the wins and -18 to -21 units on the loss. How does this justify skipping such bets? These stats are in the stone age, time to update to accomodate the new bet styles being utilized. Enough with all the crap, play them all, or don't play at all. Even the worst teams ATS do have victories ATS, which means, Yes, they do win games.