-
Comment -
[quote=thelimit0310;13393593]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.
That is exactly what I was going to suggest, but you beat me to it.Comment -
That may be a better question for stevex, I play the 1/3/5 for JM. So if a series wins on (A) with 3 points bought, but doesn't cover ATS, I am still playing (B). My extra money gained on (B) and (C) bets makes up for the extra losses. However, playing a labby to win 1 unit on all bets, I really don't know, I believe this is what steve does, so he would know best.Last edited by Wallco99; 01-23-12, 06:17 AM.Comment -
First off...I'm new to the forum. I have read thru all the posts and everyone's input and ideas are terrific. I've tried JM system last season for the first time, and did not do so well. Looking back it was poor money management and looking to change things.
I have a 2 part question.
1) why are Raptors vs. Clippers a WIN. But will continue to be an unofficial B Bet versus the Suns ? Is this because not everyone bought 3 points or not everyone got 12.5 pts from their books ?
2) The Raptors next play Suns, Jazz, Nuggets, Nets. Obviously, Clippers, Suns, Jazz was a JM V1 play. What about Suns, Jazz, Nuggets would this too be considered a new JM V1 play ? Also...would Jazz, Nuggets, Nets be a JM V2 Play ?
Forgive the newbie questions...but just trying to figure out how everyone is playing all 3 JM versions.
Appreciate any hep and I thank you in advance.Comment -
Question 1: It is only unofficial for those of us who didn't buy three points, as JM suggested. For all people who bought points, the series is over.
Question 2: NO to all. We only use the first three games of the road trip as our series plays. The only exception is if a road trip starts in conference, and three consecutive road games during the latter part of the trip are out of conference, then that part of the trip will become a v1 play as well, provided the team lost all the in conference games leading up to those games by more than 3 points to the spread. If not, then the additional v1 play will not be bet.Comment -
One more question...I see thelimit is posting the official version results as JM intended them to be played. I gather you are applying the 1,3,5 bet strategy and not buying points. How are these results so far for you...any breakdown you can share ?Comment -
Hey thelimit, firstly thanks for your comment. The 5/7 is certainly your idea alone but I do appreciate the reference to where the fundamental idea originated from.
As for the people that are saying that playing 5/7 is the same as playing 1/1.4 - it is clearly very different. The reason they are different is that when progression series methods are being compared, they should be compared on total series risk. The reason that thelimit has proposed this method is that playing -110 for 5/7 on a two game progression is that this involves (approx) the same risk as playing to win 1 unit at -190 on a 3 game progression. So it is completely wrong to say that thelimit is just falsely inflating the unit value to make the method look more attractive - you are not understanding what is going on if you are saying this, because in comparing any two methods you should always compare the relative +/- output of the two methods while risking the same % of your bankroll either way. Both ways involve the same series risk so a 3 game progression @ -190 and a 5/7 two game progression @ -110 is indeed a valid comparison.
Understand that 5/7 are not just two random values that he has plucked out of the air, they are two calculated values to give an accurate comparison of output while using the same series risk.
Also thelimit I believe I saw you mention a few posts back that you were going to try 7/5 or something on the A and B bet instead of the B and C. I can almost guarantee you that this will not be effective over the long run - by doing this you are cutting out the most powerful bet in the JM NBA systems - the C bet, and loading up on the LEAST effective bet in the JM NBA systems - the A bet! Although you are increasing the amount of betting opportunities, by replacing the C bet with the A bet you are drastically reducing your overall winning %.
To help you understand this the JM NBA [A] bet win rate is 61.8% when buying 3 points. (this is for a sample size of well over a thousand A bets, so it is accurate). At 61.8%, even if you get to buy 3 points at -180 which is the best that anyone can get these days, you have lost money by playing every A bet over the last 10 years:
on average for every 100 bets there are 61.8 units won, and (-38.2 * 1.8) = -68.76 units lost, so for every 100 A bets (playing to win 1 unit) on average you lose 7 units when buying 3 points. It does not matter how you play the A bets while buying 3 points, if over time you play a bet over and over again with a negative expected return, you will lose money over the long run.
Now I am fully aware that you are suggesting playing 5/7 or 7/5 NOT buying 3 points, and I don't have exact stats for this, but I can tell you that when you buy 3 points the average game is swung from a 50% chance of cover (w/ no points) to more than a 58% chance of cover (with 3 points), ie more than an 8% swing in winning %. So I think it is fair to assume that for A bets a similar swing will be apparent - making this assumption we have a 53.8 winning % for playing A bets w/out buying 3 points. Now this is enough to make a small profit playing them at -110 but at an average return on +2.71 units per every 100 units bet it is certainly not a big money maker. I am quite sure that the increased number of A bet opportunities you get as compared to C bets (there are 7.7 A bets for every C bet that comes up) will be vastly outweighed by the winning % that you are sacrificing by making this switch. Still, if you do end up back testing this I would be very interested to see the results posted and I commend yours and Wallco's efforts in thinking about these ideas. Just trying to give you some useful info which will hopefully help the cause.
whew, the marathon post is back!Comment -
I strongly feel that in sports betting, quality is much more important than quantity. Personally I would much rather play fewer bets for higher stakes and have a higher winning percentage than playing a large number of bets for a lower stake and lower winning percentage. But hey, as long as you are coming out on top, any way that makes you $ has to be a good thing no matter how you do itComment -
Last season the A bets were on a 15-3 run or something when I started telling people that over the long run they would lose if they played them with buying 3 points. Of course people laughed and doubted but then the A bets lost like 30 of the next 40 series when buying 3 points and of course as I'm sure you know - by the end of season if you played every A bet to win 1 unit while buying 3 points you ended up down tens of units from the A bets alone.
You are absolutely right that most of the people that post in here are incredibly short sighted, posting stuff like "maybe we should start playing the A bets, they are doing well this year, they are 11-4 so far". What !? You think that 15 series has more statistical relevance than thousands of series over the past ten years!
You are right that every season is a little different, but the key word there is "little". Really, every season ends up being very close to every other in terms of the winning %s of the A B and C bets - the negative expected value bets lose you money year in year out, and the positive expected value bets make you money year in and year out
Comment -
Some brilliant posts over the last couple of weeks, guys. Love the 5/7 idea. My way of playing JM has been labbying the B and C bets @ -110 (with high risk unit size), but the 5/7 might even be more profitable in the long run.
It's such a great strategy and quite stunning in its simplicity, I cannot believe I didn't think about anything like this before myself. Wilba, thelimit and Wallco - your discussion on the subject is very much appreciated, thank you.
I agree with Wilba on applying this strategy to the JM (B) and (C) bets. I too prefer quality over quantity. If a team has lost the (A) bet with the three points added to the spread (per JM rules), the (B) and (C) become a powerful combo, even @ -110.Comment -
ManU,
They are exactly the same as as V1 except, in V2 it only has to be 2 out of the 3 games in the opposite conference and in V3 it's any 3 road games.
V1 - all 3 consecutive road games are against the opposite conference.
V2 - 2 out of 3 consecutive road games are against the opposite conference.
V3 - Any 3 consecutive road games.
Hope this helps,
-DLast edited by dratk00l; 01-23-12, 08:55 AM.Comment -
I always enjoy your flow any time any day.....Last season the A bets were on a 15-3 run or something when I started telling people that over the long run they would lose if they played them with buying 3 points. Of course people laughed and doubted but then the A bets lost like 30 of the next 40 series when buying 3 points and of course as I'm sure you know - by the end of season if you played every A bet to win 1 unit while buying 3 points you ended up down tens of units from the A bets alone.
You are absolutely right that most of the people that post in here are incredibly short sighted, posting stuff like "maybe we should start playing the A bets, they are doing well this year, they are 11-4 so far". What !? You think that 15 series has more statistical relevance than thousands of series over the past ten years!
You are right that every season is a little different, but the key word there is "little". Really, every season ends up being very close to every other in terms of the winning %s of the A B and C bets - the negative expected value bets lose you money year in year out, and the positive expected value bets make you money year in and year out
Comment -
This post confuses me. I thought you advocated buying the 3 points. You appear to be critical of buying the points. Or is the above message critical of playing the A bets?Last season the A bets were on a 15-3 run or something when I started telling people that over the long run they would lose if they played them with buying 3 points. Of course people laughed and doubted but then the A bets lost like 30 of the next 40 series when buying 3 points and of course as I'm sure you know - by the end of season if you played every A bet to win 1 unit while buying 3 points you ended up down tens of units from the A bets alone. You are absolutely right that most of the people that post in here are incredibly short sighted, posting stuff like "maybe we should start playing the A bets, they are doing well this year, they are 11-4 so far". What !? You think that 15 series has more statistical relevance than thousands of series over the past ten years! You are right that every season is a little different, but the key word there is "little". Really, every season ends up being very close to every other in terms of the winning %s of the A B and C bets - the negative expected value bets lose you money year in year out, and the positive expected value bets make you money year in and year out
KevLast edited by Kev the Brit; 01-23-12, 11:08 AM.Comment -
It's looking like playing 7/5 on the official B/C bets (no points bought) is winning out. Would I be right in that assumption?Comment -
For the purposes of this discussion, a unit is the lowest common denominator for a theoretical reference value when comparing different systems. Its an arithmetical symbol. You could call it "x" if you wish. Once a conclusion is drawn, the unit can then be given a practical value by each bettor.
JM, buying points to a C Bet at -182 risks 21.5 "x" per series
Chase 110 (no ML) to a D Bet risks 18.44 "x" per series
To achieve proper comparisons, all chase systems must keep the risks below the above figures.
Once the bettor chooses a system, say 5/7, he plays 5"x" and 7"x". To him the 5"x" bet is his lowest denominator and it therefore becomes his betting unit and he gives it a real value.
Don't place real values on the unit during research.
Fascinating discussion, guys. I've not yet contributed to the core discussion, due to time constraints, but I'm very interested.
KevComment -
At the moment, I am 1/2 unit behind the traditional way, this includes my two losses. If Toronto wins their (B) or (C) bet, I will again be ahead of traditional method. But I am going to research limit's method of 5/7 for past seasons. Until I do, 1-3-5 is how I will play it.
The JM traditional method is currently at +30 units. My 1-3-5 method is at +29.50 units. Playing all -110 games to win 1 unit on all bets 1-1-1 is at +13.48 units. I am not sure of the 4/6 results, but I will research previous seasons when I get a chance. It may be doing better now, but I need to see a larger sample.Last edited by Wallco99; 01-23-12, 10:49 AM.Comment -
Wilba thanks for your post, I tried to give you points but it wouldn't let me! I guess you'll have to settle for a "thank you"!
You are correct on all fronts and I hope anyone who was still confused over the whole unit deal regarding 5/7 understands now that it is not just an "inflated" unit. If it stands with other management systems it must be taken as 5 and 7 units for relation purposes. Thanks again for helping me make that clear!
Last season the victor was playing the 7/5 method on the A/B bets. It was sloppy but it profited the most. Long term I would say you are correct however. Especially with the possibility of having extra unofficial losses, the A bets are too sloppy to play at -110. Even for the years that the A/B way comes out on top - playing the B/C way will still be more efficient in that there will be less losses to sit through and less series to risk money on. Playing 7/5 instead of 5/7 looks to be the better way so far as well for JM, but I am still tinkering around with it!
Thanks again!Comment -
Sandwich / Pagodo Yes, for JM the best way thus far is 7/5 on official B/C bets playing at -110. That's as of this moment, I recommend you don't risk your money until the dust settles.
Wallco the 4/6 is up +60 units since the season began and +20 units since I started dabbling with it on the 11th. It has been slow going the past week or so due to the upswing in A bet wins. Also, I agree we will discuss through PMs from now on. The next time you have anything to share or results/findings please let me know and I will do the same!
Kev thanks for the post your input is always welcome! I thank you and Wilba for helping clear the dust on the 5/7 really being 1/1.4. To reiterate what you and Wilba and others have stated - in it's most simple terms, if the system stood alone, it is 1/1.4. But when you compare it everywhere else it is equivalent to 5/7 and needs to be related as such - both to stay honest to the method and people playing it and so the results can be compared. As I (and Wilba) have stated it is the "equilibrium" point, the loss amount is in the same ball park of unit cost, so it is relatable. Thanks again for the post!
I will be posting the official play post for JM today around 12:30. See you all then!Last edited by thelimit0310; 01-23-12, 10:38 AM.Comment -
Am actually enjoying this. Thanks to thelimit, wallco, wilba, kev for making the thread lively and coming up with new ideas.
How much(profit in unit) do you guys settle for annually from sport betting?Comment -
Good to hear from you again, as always. I agree with you on many points, I just suggested something that I planned to test to see if it was good or not and several people took it as play it that way now. Even as far as my 1-3-5, and my thoughts on 7/5 instaed of 5/7, I specifically said that even though I may be playing some of the systems this way, I wouldn't suggest anyone else doing so until I have had proper time to backtest. I, like you, am a 100% believer in thorough extensive backtesting, and don't believe in throwing out ideas based on current season, small sample size, results. I believe there is a way I can make 7/5 work with some of these systems, either A/B, B/C, or C/D, but even like limit's 5/7, it is just a theory until I can find a way to make it work and prove it will be successful. I completely agree that 7/5 and 5/7 is not just an inflation of units. It is the same principle I used for 1-3-5, the total risk of series is 17.28 units, which is actually less than a JM loss. Actually I can do 1-3-6, and still be 1/2 unit less than JM, which actually, is what I may do. Granted, I will have more losses, but it will take a hell of a lot fewer wins to make up for those losses than a Jm series would require.Comment -
No, unless since last night you have found the time to backtest the past 7 JM seasons, and proved this to be a winning strategy. By no means base it on a season that is only 15 games deep. This is one of the 1742 things I am working on, do not risk money on a strategy that has yet to be proven.Comment -
Pick a system and help me test it, that would be the greatest contribution imaginable at the moment. Or, devise a sentence, that when posted on SBR, everyone who reads it will understand that we have not tested this yet and we do not yet recommend betting this way. I know my 10 different attempts to state these facts have been unsuccessful, and people continue to ask if this is the way to play it, even though we have repeatedly said, not yet. And you were spot on with your interpretation of a "unit". This is the theory I have used in developing each system I have created, and the total risk of a series is actually the backbone of the system itself.Last edited by Wallco99; 01-23-12, 11:02 AM.Comment -
If you are going to focus on backtesting JM, then I will concentrate on bet strategy for Chase 110, and find a way to eliminate the M/L bets. It will take a while, but do it both ways, as I plan to do. On A/B, and on B/C, see which ends up better, and I guess for your B/C, only play the games that also lost the (A) bet with buying the 3 points, as you suggested earlier. It would be very interesting to know how many times buying and not buying actually made a difference in the (A) bet position vs. when it happened in (B) and (C). Keep me informed as you complete each season, and I will do the same.Wilba thanks for your post, I tried to give you points but it wouldn't let me! I guess you'll have to settle for a "thank you"!
You are correct on all fronts and I hope anyone who was still confused over the whole unit deal regarding 5/7 understands now that it is not just an "inflated" unit. If it stands with other management systems it must be taken as 5 and 7 units for relation purposes. Thanks again for helping me make that clear!
Last season the victor was playing the 7/5 method on the A/B bets. It was sloppy but it profited the most. Long term I would say you are correct however. Especially with the possibility of having extra unofficial losses, the A bets are too sloppy to play at -110. Even for the years that the A/B way comes out on top - playing the B/C way will still be more efficient in that there will be less losses to sit through and less series to risk money on. Playing 7/5 instead of 5/7 looks to be the better way so far as well for JM, but I am still tinkering around with it!
Thanks again!Comment -
I'm not convinced that the A Bet won. Sure, Toronto opened at +9.5 but the line quickly reduced and never went back above +9. I think it was a push at best. Each to his own (JM will count it as a win, cos he has his own self-promoting rules), but I'm playing the B Bet. Did anyone here win the A bet yesterday, and what time did you bet?
KevComment -
Sports betting is totally separate from all other gambling. They have their own set of rules. I'm getting ready to head to the book now and I'll find out.
P.S. Really enjoying all the input from everyone on improving betting strategies. I've been totally consumed with health and personal issues. Keep it going and GL
Comment -
You really have to base the official results on one source, I am pretty sure JM is VegasInsider, since he refes to that in every .pdf. If you don't like that one, then pick another, since everyone gets different lines for every game, some source has to be "official". Pick one limit and just stick to that as far as your grading goes, but let everyone know which one we are using.Comment -
