[jjgold]

As opposed to casino gambling
I am here to teach

[Full Time Hobo]

So why are you over 50k in the hole?

[FourLengthsClear]

No it isn't.
No you're not.

[RealSlimShady]

You're nuts, JJ. A losing streak will hit and you will be barreled in for life.

[jjgold]

Really good teams do not lose the money meaning long streaks vs a random game like roulette

[Sam Odom]

Really good teams do not lose the money meaning long streaks vs a random game like roulette

[ChuckyTheGoat]

JJ Rockefeller, at your service!

[TR88]

[Masu485]

you are paying like -400 each time for these 'good' teams.

[Sunde91]

all the mathematicians here will say no but we all know this is true

so if you had to choose red in roulette vs. Packers ATS, and you cannot lose more than 5 in a row, or your head gets chopped off, which do you choose?

same odds on paper yet 99% would take Packers ATS not to lose 5 in a row vs. red

edit: presumption is no zeros and +100

[MoneyLineDawg]

I think it would work taking top NBA teams just at home really well.....

[Dutch]

all the mathematicians here will say no but we all know this is true

so if you had to choose red in roulette vs. Packers ATS, and you cannot lose more than 5 in a row, or your head gets chopped off, which do you choose?

same odds on paper yet 99% would take Packers ATS not to lose 5 in a row vs. red

edit: presumption is no zeros and +100

This doesn't make sense. The Packers are better than 50-50 odds to win most of their games due to differences in talent level. Can't really compare them to betting on red. Game of chance vs. game of skill.

Do the Colts have the same odds as the Pakers of not losing 5 in a row?

[Sunde91]

Packers ATS is greater than theoretical 50-50 aye herp derp

[Leo Bello]

As opposed to casino gambling
I am here to teach

Thanks. I appreciate the advice.

[Leo Bello]

This doesn't make sense. The Packers are better than 50-50 odds to win most of their games due to differences in talent level. Can't really compare them to betting on red. Game of chance vs. game of skill.

Do the Colts have the same odds as the Pakers of not losing 5 in a row?

Yeah, Dutch, but when you include the spread, no matter how good the Packers are, the spread reduces each of their games to 50-50. So although they can win 4-5 games, they could conceivably lose all 4 or 5 by the spread despite their staying undefeated. I would have to say that roulette is worse, because it is not 50-50. Everytime the 0 and 00 come up, both red and black both lose. It's like the guy who flips a coin 10 times and gets 10 heads in a row and says, "Oh, boy, the next one has to be a tails since I had 10 head in a row." Since this is law of independent trials, the chance of heads or tails is exactly the same on the next flip. In fact, there are those who might say to pick heads again since the coin could be skewed. I think Martingale is disastrous in sports betting as well because of the spread, though I understand where JJ is coming from. This is all just my uneducated opinion. I could be wrong.

[Bigmikesm]

Never had the bankroll to attempt this system

[FindTheLock]

Yeah, Dutch, but when you include the spread, no matter how good the Packers are, the spread reduces each of their games to 50-50. So although they can win 4-5 games, they could conceivably lose all 4 or 5 by the spread despite their staying undefeated. I would have to say that roulette is worse, because it is not 50-50. Everytime the 0 and 00 come up, both red and black both lose. It's like the guy who flips a coin 10 times and gets 10 heads in a row and says, "Oh, boy, the next one has to be a tails since I had 10 head in a row." Since this is law of independent trials, the chance of heads or tails is exactly the same on the next flip. In fact, there are those who might say to pick heads again since the coin could be skewed. I think Martingale is disastrous in sports betting as well because of the spread, though I understand where JJ is coming from. This is all just my uneducated opinion. I could be wrong.

you're theoretically correct in that when the 0's are factored into roulette it takes the 50/50 away, but what you're not considering is the juice from the sports wagers you're placing. I am not sure about the math, but on a normal roulette wheel there are 36 numbers not including the 0 and 00. when you factor them in there is a 1 in 19 chance on each spin that betting on red or black will result in a 100 percent loss of your wager by landing on green. On that same token if you were to place 19 sports bets at 10 dollars a piece with -110 vig, then you would lose a minimum of 17.10 dollars automatically even if you won all of them on sports. You could roll the roulette wheel for more than that number of spins without every landing on green, or you could land on green 2-3 times costing you 20 or more at 10 per. So that math equation requires someone better at math than i am lol

[FourLengthsClear]

all the mathematicians here will say no but we all know this is true

so if you had to choose red in roulette vs. Packers ATS, and you cannot lose more than 5 in a row, or your head gets chopped off, which do you choose?

same odds on paper yet 99% would take Packers ATS not to lose 5 in a row vs. red

edit: presumption is no zeros and +100

At what point are you deciding that the Packers are the (or one of them) "good team" that you are going to run this system with? The Packers, of course, did have a run of 0-5 ATS last year.

[jjgold]

Guys I have a clue......4lenghts long knows this and it hurts him a little

I am talking about Point Spreads only

.... 5-7 Reds in a row is simple in Roulette

Even lets say Miami Heat losing 5-7 straight sides is much less of a probability

4 Lengths Long one day I will visit you and actually put on a little gambling show for you

[FourLengthsClear]

Guys I have a clue......4lenghts long knows this and it hurts him a little

I am talking about Point Spreads only

.... 5-7 Reds in a row is simple in Roulette

Even lets say Miami Heat losing 5-7 straight sides is much less of a probability

4 Lengths Long one day I will visit you and actually put on a little gambling show for you

You are more than welcome, I could do with a good laugh.

What is the basis of your argument on the Mimi Heat? Is it that a "good team" will be better than 50% ATS or is that a "good team" is less prone to long streaks of good results and bad results ATS?

[jjgold]

Heat are best team in NBA and plus a good road team, that is my basis

I will take a team that has 2 hall of famers in their prime anyday

[FourLengthsClear]

Heat are best team in NBA and plus a good road team, that is my basis

I will take a team that has 2 hall of famers in their prime anyday

So because of that they will be better than 50% ATS?

[Dutch]

Packers ATS is greater than theoretical 50-50 aye herp derp

I wasn't thinking about ATS.

The only time I've ran a martingale was in baseball chasing the smallest ML dog of the day, +100 - +110. Worked really good until it stopped working really good.

[FourLengthsClear]

I wasn't thinking about ATS.

The only time I've ran a martingale was in baseball chasing the smallest ML dog of the day, +100 - +110. Worked really good until it stopped working really good.

I would imagine most roulette Martingalers would say the same thing.
Small win, small win, small win..................................... ................ catastrophic loss.

Plays are either +EV or they are not. If they are you can and should win in the long run as long as you avoid overbetting. If plays are -EV then a chase system might give the illusion of winning for a while but that run of 5, 6 or 10 straight losses will come along.

For a 'respected' poster like jjgold to suggest Martingale at all is borderline irresponsible, to wrap it up in the "good teams" mumbo-jumbo is .

[ApricotSinner32]

As opposed to casino gambling
I am here to teach

He is correct that you have a better chance to win martingaling a team in sportsbetting as opposed to rigged online casinos. Does that mean martingaling is a smart idea? No I do not believe so.

[jjgold]

Try it in the sbr book
risk free

[Chimneyfish]

I, for one, fully support jjgold's efforts to inflate the value of betpoints by helping people lose them faster.

His strategy sounds very well researched and definitely makes a lot of sense.

[Sunde91]

At what point are you deciding that the Packers are the (or one of them) "good team" that you are going to run this system with? The Packers, of course, did have a run of 0-5 ATS last year.

No they didn't

Gold's theory though doesn't hold up with the Heat in the NBA with a larger sample of 82 regular season games

Last year's Heat: 5 loss ATS streak, 7 loss ATS streak, 7 loss ATS streak
Last year's Lakers: 5 loss ATS streak, 5 loss ATS streak

covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/nba/teams/pastresults/2010-2011/team404171.html

Look at some "good" NFL teams last 10 years regular season (160 games)

Pats are a perennial good team. One 5 loss ATS streak (02 when 9-7 SU, worst season)
Packers were average for a good 5 years of the last 10. One 5 loss ATS streak (in 05 when they were 4-12 SU worst season in decades)

Neither of them had streaks > 5 losses whereas the NBA's best HEAT had 2 in half the sample. Week in between to prepare and bounce back makes it that much more rare to lose more than 5 in football

[FourLengthsClear]

No they didn't

Gold's theory though doesn't hold up with the Heat in the NBA with a larger sample of 82 regular season games

Last year's Heat: 5 loss ATS streak, 7 loss ATS streak, 7 loss ATS streak
Last year's Lakers: 5 loss ATS streak, 5 loss ATS streak

covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/nba/teams/pastresults/2010-2011/team404171.html

Look at some "good" NFL teams last 10 years regular season (160 games)

Pats are a perenial good team. One 5 loss ATS streak (02 when 9-7 SU, worst season)
Packers were average for a good 5 years of the last 10. One 5 loss ATS streak (in 05 when they were 4-12 SU worst season in decades)

My bad on the Packers last year, they beat the Vikings by 4 on the 30th October when the line closed at a juiced -3 having opened -4.5 which would have been their fifth straight ATS loss.

You are nonetheless identifying these "good teams" after the fact.

Ecen if I accept that you can predict who the best teams are going to be going forward, then it comes back to the question, I asked jjgold earlier i.e. In the NFL, do "good teams" cover the spread at a better than 50% (or 52.38%) clip?

If the answer is yes, then bet them straight. No need for Martingale.

If the answer is no, then is there any reason why streaks of wins/losses should be are shorter than a random distribution. If the answer to this is no then again, Martingale is worthless. If the answer is yes, then I would be very interested in the explanation for it.

[jjgold]

Its not about teams covering the spread more than 50%, its more about teams (good ones) not going on long losing streaks vs the number making the martingale somewhat effective

4 Lengths you do not know who I really am and its best you do not know

God Bless you and your girl

[rm18]

Heat just lost ATS 3rd time in a row, and 5 straight halves they failed to cover.

[FourLengthsClear]

Its not about teams covering the spread more than 50%, its more about teams (good ones) not going on long losing streaks vs the number making the martingale somewhat effective

4 Lengths you do not know who I really am and its best you do not know.

God Bless you and your girl

Leaving aside the mysteriousness at the end, let's take this one step at a time.

According to jjgold's Martingale handbook "good teams" don't necessarily cover more than 50% of the time but losing streaks are shorter, on average, than would be seen with a random distribution. By definition, that would mean that winning streaks are also shorter, on average, than a random distribution. Right?

[Leo Bello]

Leaving aside the mysteriousness at the end, let's take this one step at a time.

According to jjgold's Martingale handbook "good teams" don't necessarily cover more than 50% of the time but losing streaks are shorter, on average, than would be seen with a random distribution. By definition, that would mean that winning streaks are also shorter, on average, than a random distribution. Right?

"Four lengths is obviously an accomplished mathematician, and JJ is well respected with his opinions, so I have to think both you guys have your points. No one is going to condone a Martingale system (I don't think so, anyway), because let's say JJ is correct in his saying that doubling up after a losing wager might not be that bad in a certain sportsbetting situation. If JJ is still reading this, could I ask whether it is worth it to risk a lot of money to win what is merely a pittance with a Martingale, or do you suggest starting at a larger beginning than 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc., and where would you start? At $100 or maybe $200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400? I am curious about JJ's theory, because I know there is no math guy who is going to condone Martingale. But there is always something new out there.

[milwaukee mike]

on a side note miami has looked very mediocre against some not-so-great competition this year.

it's always easiest to see a great team in the rear-view mirror

just like what was pointed out here miami went 0-7 twice last year, if you started after the 4th or 5th ats loss you'd be ok but if you started sooner than that you could be buried or over your book's limits

[Sam Odom]

Baseball is a good sport for this...