Pato's system (96-2) 2010-2011 (40-1)2011-2012

[ClevelandNextYr]

^^^^post #160 and #161 explain how to handle the situation. Pato you should put that in your post

[thelimit0310]

Just stumbled into this thread thanks to Wallco's link in JM. I commend you on the system Pato, looks very promising, but holy shit this place is a clusterfuck. There should not be 3+ people running this thread. Get your info right or hand over the reigns man.

On another point, I looked at Wallco's spreadsheet and it does look like 7/5 from the C level is the best performer. Granted IF Pato's backtest was accurate. I could look into a more extensive backtest for the followers here, but it will be slow going as I am also working on the MLB as well. Just to make sure I completely understand this before I get started (because nothing in this thread is clearly laid out):

Plays are only official if the team scores under 80. What if they score exactly 80? No play?
All plays are on the spread, no point buy? No ML?

Thanks for the answers and for fuckk's sake clean this place up.

[casdio]

Yes. Only offficial if the team scores under 79.5. And we don't buy any points, only at spread

[adidas-b 88]

02-16-2012: No bets today for Pato's system..

[ClevelandNextYr]

Just stumbled into this thread thanks to Wallco's link in JM. I commend you on the system Pato, looks very promising, but holy shit this place is a clusterfuck. There should not be 3+ people running this thread. Get your info right or hand over the reigns man.

On another point, I looked at Wallco's spreadsheet and it does look like 7/5 from the C level is the best performer. Granted IF Pato's backtest was accurate. I could look into a more extensive backtest for the followers here, but it will be slow going as I am also working on the MLB as well. Just to make sure I completely understand this before I get started (because nothing in this thread is clearly laid out):

Plays are only official if the team scores under 80. What if they score exactly 80? No play?
All plays are on the spread, no point buy? No ML?

Thanks for the answers and for fuckk's sake clean this place up.

Wallco I believe in the JM thread you stated you are playing this system from the B (B-C) not the C as stated above. I am starting my own backtest of last season but its slow going as Ive never done it before.

[Wallco99]

Wallco I believe in the JM thread you stated you are playing this system from the B (B-C) not the C as stated above. I am starting my own backtest of last season but its slow going as Ive never done it before.

That is correct, I realize the data showed better performance overall from C&D, but you have to look deeper into it. Those results only appear that way because of the one bad season. In my opinion, B&C bets in this system playing the 7/5 strategy is where the money is, especially this season. More often, the B&C outperforms the C&D, not to mention, more opportunities.
He stated it that way because apparently that is what I typed in one of my earlier posts in this thread, when I thought it was better. But as I said, I looked deeper into it and feel B&C is more reliable overall, even though it made slightly less units than C&D. But this year, it is making up some of the ground.

[Wallco99]

Wallco I believe in the JM thread you stated you are playing this system from the B (B-C) not the C as stated above. I am starting my own backtest of last season but its slow going as Ive never done it before.

Don't bother with last season, I already did that one. Start with an earlier year, I can give you last year's data and you can give me that one.

[thelimit0310]

CevelandNextYr, if you want to start at 2009-10 and go back from there we could finish the testing together. Wallco has 2010-11. You can work backwards from 2009-10 and I will work forwards from 2004-5. If we do that, and I can trust that your data will be accurate (please skim over the season more than once to make sure you have no mistakes) then our tests can be done in a matter of a couple days.

[Wallco99]

Wallco I believe in the JM thread you stated you are playing this system from the B (B-C) not the C as stated above. I am starting my own backtest of last season but its slow going as Ive never done it before.

CevelandNextYr, if you want to start at 2009-10 and go back from there we could finish the testing together. Wallco has 2010-11. You can work backwards from 2009-10 and I will work forwards from 2004-5. If we do that, and I can trust that your data will be accurate (please skim over the season more than once to make sure you have no mistakes) then our tests can be done in a matter of a couple days.

Listen to both of you, the way I tested it, as well as the way I believe PATO did, ANY TIME a team scores under 80, start a chase. Wheteher the team wins or the team loses. If a team wins a chase series (meaning they lost the game ATS since this is a fade) if the game that ends the chase, the team doesn't score 80 points, start another chase for that team. Also, if a team loses a game of the chase, and doesn't score 80, start a second chase on that team.

E.g.: Boston (-9) vs Charlotte (A)
Say the bet is for us to fade Charlotte, so we would be betting Boston -9 as our (A) bet. The final score ends up being: Boston 82 - Charlotte 78. We lose our (A) bet, so our next bet would obviously be our (B) bet. But since Charlotte didn't score 80 again, also open up a new fade chase against Charlotte, meaning the next time Charlotte plays, there will be the (B) bet fade as well as an (A) bet fade.
Also, if both teams fail to score 80 points in the same game, there will be a chase against both teams in their next game. So ANY TIME a team doesn't score 80, it counts, regardless of when it is, unless the team we are fading has less than 4 games remaining on their schedule, then we would NEVER start a chase we possibly couldn't finish.

Don't forget, all games are ATS, this is a four game chase, skip game that are pushes, and treat them as if the game was never played, unless it is the game that qualifies the team for a play, then use it. Use the same website for all results. Covers.com

This is how I ran my 2010-11 test, in order for consistency, I suggest you do the same.

[Wallco99]

If you guys don't mind, PM me the results of each season as you get them. I will compile a large list of bet strategies for each season on one list.

[thelimit0310]

Wallco speak of the devil. I had just come back to the thread to ask the question you answered. Thanks bud! Starting testing tonight.

[thelimit0310]

If you guys don't mind, PM me the results of each season as you get them. I will compile a large list of bet strategies for each season on one list.

You got it!

[Wallco99]

I'll help you guys out, I will start on 2007-08 season. Three of us can blow this out. Also, try and keep track seperately how teams do when they score exactly 80 points, I want to see if that can be incorporated.

[thelimit0310]

Another thing Wallco and ClevelandNextYr, I will be disqualifying plays if there are less than 4 games left in the season ie a full chase can't be accomplished. Should seem like a no brainer but wanted to make it known anyway.

[Wallco99]

Another thing Wallco and ClevelandNextYr, I will be disqualifying plays if there are less than 4 games left in the season ie a full chase can't be accomplished. Should seem like a no brainer but wanted to make it known anyway.

Yes, I have that listed in post #184. That is the only way to do it.

[ClevelandNextYr]

OK will start at 2009-10

[COBRA31]

OK will start at 2009-10

I can grab the 2006-07 season....if you want the help?

[thelimit0310]

I can grab the 2006-07 season....if you want the help?

I've got 2004-5, 2005-6, and 2006-7. Wallco has 2007-8 and 2010-11, and Cleveland is doing 2009-10 and possibly 2008-9. If you want to do 2008-9 instead of Cleveland get his permission and go for it, but if Cleveland wants to do 2008-9 then no other work is necessary. If you do get the OK, please double, even triple check your work. This needs to be treated with the utmost accuracy! You would also need to mark separately wins (and what bet level) and losses when playing series that start from exactly an 80 point loss.

Clear it with ClevelandNextYr first!

[Wallco99]

I've got 2004-5, 2005-6, and 2006-7. Wallco has 2007-8 and 2010-11, and Cleveland is doing 2009-10 and possibly 2008-9. If you want to do 2008-9 instead of Cleveland get his permission and go for it, but if Cleveland wants to do 2008-9 then no other work is necessary. If you do get the OK, please double, even triple check your work. This needs to be treated with the utmost accuracy! You would also need to mark separately wins (and what bet level) and losses when playing series that start from exactly an 80 point loss.

Clear it with ClevelandNextYr first!

Thanks, I'm pretty sure I know how to do a backtest. I will probably be checking every season at some point anyway, just the way I am. But if you have little faith, I will be more than happy to step away. I was just trying to save you time, and pretty confident that my results are always 100% accurate.

[thelimit0310]

Thanks, I'm pretty sure I know how to do a backtest. I will probably be checking every season at some point anyway, just the way I am. But if you have little faith, I will be more than happy to step away. I was just trying to save you time, and pretty confident that my results are always 100% accurate.

What? I think you misunderstood. Check the source of my quote, I was talking to Cobra, not you. Wallco you should know by now I already trust your results

[COBRA31]

I've got 2004-5, 2005-6, and 2006-7. Wallco has 2007-8 and 2010-11, and Cleveland is doing 2009-10 and possibly 2008-9. If you want to do 2008-9 instead of Cleveland get his permission and go for it, but if Cleveland wants to do 2008-9 then no other work is necessary. If you do get the OK, please double, even triple check your work. This needs to be treated with the utmost accuracy! You would also need to mark separately wins (and what bet level) and losses when playing series that start from exactly an 80 point loss.

Clear it with ClevelandNextYr first!

No worries here...I'm just offering to help. I'm backtesting myself anyway and willing to share my results. I've already started on the 2006-07 Season. I've tested up to Jan. 1st, 2007 so far and the system is 48-2 with 2 open series. I'm not worried about my work I think it's very sound. However, I've attached my excel sheet so you can see my process so far. I'm assuming yours looks similar to this one ? If you have any suggestions on how it could be better, let me know. It's not cleaned up, but the data is accurate per Covers.com.


ClevelandNextYr - first off...great name. I'm from Cleveland Area originally so good or bad..CAVS, BROWNS, INDIANS, and OSU Buckeyes are my teams. Let me know if you want any help on the 08-09 season. If not..I understand you have to trust in people's work. I'm anal...so i will probably backtest myself anyway all seasons.

This looks promising so far...the 2 loses I've seen were at the beginning of the season in the first month...so maybe that's something to look at when backtesting if there is a trend of loses early on. Perhaps there is a way to filter them out.

Best of Luck Fellas...

[ClevelandNextYr]

Cobra if you have the time go ahead and do 08-09. If I still do it we will just have two sources to verify accuracy. Yea its rough being a fan of these Cleveland teams especially the Browns there a joke. Kyrie looking good though.

[Wallco99]

What? I think you misunderstood. Check the source of my quote, I was talking to Cobra, not you. Wallco you should know by now I already trust your results

Sorry, I must have been a little tired when I read that. I thought it said me.

[gtboy]

can any1 tell me how to access some data base system to find out the score of all nba games within a cetain period and score specified. eg if I want to find out any team that scores less than 67 points.. I came across this stat but i want to investigate more.

Play on any NBA team that scored less than 67 points in their last game. This system is 93-59 ATS for 61.2% winners! It breaks down like this:

If team is:

Home favorite : 29-13
Home dog : 20-13
Away dog : 41-28
Away favorite : 4-5

thanks

[adidas-b 88]

In tomm's game 2-18 Atlanta vs Portland, both teams in their last games scored less than 80 pts. SO do we take on both of the teams than??

[COBRA31]

Cobra if you have the time go ahead and do 08-09. If I still do it we will just have two sources to verify accuracy. Yea its rough being a fan of these Cleveland teams especially the Browns there a joke. Kyrie looking good though.

No problem....I'll work on 08-09. Yes..Irving looks promising.

[EasyPicks]

new to this system, but the next plays are:

Fading LAC and fading POR

right?

[thelimit0310]

Cobra I am still working on 06'07 but I already have 6 losses shown that season. I'm pretty sure I'm following the criteria exactly too. If a team scores under 80 points, fade them (they must lose ATS) in a 4 game chase. I'm sure that's the correct info yet I feel like I will end up with much more losses than speculated and leads me to believe something is not right.

[thelimit0310]

Well, here are my results for the seasons I backtested. Results are accurate according to Covers but Cobra I hope you complete your 2006-7 season anyway so you can compare it with my results. From the results I have the system looks no where near as good as originally thought. I followed the criteria Wallco gave out earlier to the "T". I also noted games that won/lost after scoring exactly 80 as per Wallco's request. These wins/losses are not in the posted records.


Pato Fade a team for 4 games after they score less than 80 points

2004-5
W-L-P

A: 70-73-3
B: 33-42-1
C: 17-26
D: 18-7-1

From 80
NJ 11/6 C win, 1/11 LOSS
PHI 11/18 C win
MIN 1/12 B win
POR 12/30 B win, 2/9 C win, 2/13 A win, 2/14 A win, 3/12 A win
UTAH 12/6 A win
CHI 12/28 B win, 1/3 LOSS
CLE 3/24 A win, 4/5 A win
DET 4/10 A win
MIL 1/11 B win
OKC 11/5 A win
PHX 1/17 A win
SAC 1/27 C win
ATL 1/31 A win
DAL 11/24 C win, 4/3 A win
HOUS 11/15 A win, 11/26 A win, 1/17 A win
SAS 12/3 C win, 12/9 B win, 1/19 C win

2005-6
W-L-P

A: 91-74-3
B: 33-42-2
C: 18-25-1
D: 9-15-2

From 80
DEN 11/5 LOSS from 80
MIN 11/23 C win
POR 1/6 A win
CHI 12/9 D win, 12/28 A win, 2/9 B win
IND 12/10 A win, 12/26 A win
MIL 11/21 B win, 12/17 C win, 1/23 LOSS
SAC 3/22 B win
ORL 11/26 B win
DAL 3/12 A win
HOUS 11/17 A win, 1/11 A win, 1/14 A win
MEM 11/19 A win, 2/1 A win, 2/14 A win
NOH 3/27 LOSS
SAS 1/14 B win

2006-7
W-L-P

A: 67-60-3
B: 36-27
C: 13-14
D: 6-8

From 80
BOS 3/7 B win
NY 12/31 A win
DEN 2/20 A win
IND 11/11 A win
MIL 1/30 A win
LAC 11/28 B win, 3/11 D win
MIA 1/5 LOSS
ORL 12/6 A win
WASH 11/21 B win, 11/24 A win, 1/13 B win (A push)
DAL 2/15 A win
MEM 11/7 B win
NOH 12/9 B win, 12/30 A win

[Wallco99]

Cobra I am still working on 06'07 but I already have 6 losses shown that season. I'm pretty sure I'm following the criteria exactly too. If a team scores under 80 points, fade them (they must lose ATS) in a 4 game chase. I'm sure that's the correct info yet I feel like I will end up with much more losses than speculated and leads me to believe something is not right.

I'm almost done mine, had an emergency last night, had to stop half way through.

[Wallco99]

I think you meant the Clippers and Portland, they both scored less than 80 last night, but yes, you will fade both. Atlanta was already a play, tomorrow is their B bet.
Next game for Atlanta is a (B) bet vs. Portland which is an (A) bet. To play this right, you will wager 1.1 units on Atlanta and 0 units on Portland. Whichever fade loses, pick up that fade on the next bet for the normal amount that bet would cost, the money will work itself out.

If you are playing 7/5, just play 7 units on Atlanta as usual, since we don't give a crap about (A) bets.

You guys really need to start reading. This same question is asked, and has been answered EVERY DAY that there is a head-head match. I will start referring to this post when this question is asked in the future.

[Wallco99]

new to this system, but the next plays are:

Fading LAC and fading POR

right?

Yeah, you would think the guy who is supposedly running the thread would post that pertinent info., but he is hit and miss with consistency. Actually, there is a C bet tonight on Sacramento (fading Detroit)

[Wallco99]

Cobra I am still working on 06'07 but I already have 6 losses shown that season. I'm pretty sure I'm following the criteria exactly too. If a team scores under 80 points, fade them (they must lose ATS) in a 4 game chase. I'm sure that's the correct info yet I feel like I will end up with much more losses than speculated and leads me to believe something is not right.

It may explain why he stopped his backtest where he did, I have a feeling that info was known, but not published. Sounds like you are doing it right. This system couldn't be any easier to backtest, so I doubt you made an error.

[thelimit0310]

It may explain why he stopped his backtest where he did, I have a feeling that info was known, but not published. Sounds like you are doing it right. This system couldn't be any easier to backtest, so I doubt you made an error.

I doubt I made an error as well, I double checked to make sure both my results and the criteria. If my results are right which they should be, then only 1 of my backtested seasons is profitable. Seems like the system isn't nearly as effective as first thought.

I look forward to your guys' results so we can compare. Getting that results spreadsheet will be nice as well. Maybe we can find a way to turn it around! Just a theory, but maybe starting at a lower number than 80 would work. Someone here posted 67 as the magic number, I hope that person looks into that.

[COBRA31]

Cobra I am still working on 06'07 but I already have 6 losses shown that season. I'm pretty sure I'm following the criteria exactly too. If a team scores under 80 points, fade them (they must lose ATS) in a 4 game chase. I'm sure that's the correct info yet I feel like I will end up with much more losses than speculated and leads me to believe something is not right.

I have a good amount left so I'll follow up with it and 2008-09 this weekend.

I'm fading the same way as you've described.