 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
oh and the idea is not to double your money, thats where a gambler mentality comes from. I only want to make a 30% to 50% return on my investment on a continual basis. The idea is to make money and not be greedy. Set up a chase and execute do not deviate.
I predict 1 of 3 things will happen sooner than later:
1. This sytem is whore shit, and you will be gone in a week
2. The vultures here will have you for lunch
3. You will be a regular at EOG
If nothing else (and I don't know where this is headed), but at the very LEAST!!!....You have one of the greatest names SBR has ever seen.
Ted Astonishing.
Almost as great as FISHHEAD.
Almost.
I like my chances and how I do things. and you arent risking 5K to win 25, a loss on average with 25 per ABC would leave a bank leftover of 3425, which could still win you money due to the fact that the odds of 2 losses even in the same 6 month period are remote. But yeah lets root for me to be wrong!!
If you are being sincere, then Thank you.Originally Posted by Bread
We are head-to-head
I am on Guccione +280
I love it lets do it!
lolI am
It wasn't a challenge. LOL
I meant I am already on Guccione +280, which I posted in Tennis Forum this morning.
this system won't last more than 100 plays
i'll keep track for you
#1 (A pick) M Fish -333
99 picks to go
^^^if you ever lose a C pick, you're done.
Well I am on pick #2 and if you read how I have set up my MM a C wont take my whole bankroll. So no I am not done if a C loses.
I wish bookmaking were legal - I'd take all your action, Ted.
You sure are full of it, Ted.
You'll *** in your pants once you get an account at a sportsbook.
If your bets can't show a profit individually through straight betting, they'll eventually fail in a Martingale series as well. You're basically taking a series of -Ev bets and trying to create a +Ev system. It can't be done with a limited bankroll. Stated another way, you're trying to put lipstick on a pig.
It would be doomed to fail with unlimited resources also.
ok well I have betting accounts. Betcris is my preferred sportsbook, 5dimes and betus after that but those are about it and they are doing well. This system has done things such as trun 150 into 10000. That is going all in on every B, adding C to this system makes it full proof. The odds of the events within my constraints happening are just too remote. Something like 0.002% chance of simply losing based on my picks winning 70% of the time. My constraints bring the winning % on A around 75% to 78%.
So I think I will fair okay, I have done 3 years of research and fixing this thing to work. I am here to document it in motion thats all. If you like it run with it, if not see you later. Oh and you know you could just put money in and then just STOP once you hit a goal and leave. To a person with 10000 to invest just picked up a nice 3300 (if he wanted a C to cost alittle over half your bank) with this thing. That is a good chunk to live on for 13 days work...
Regression
Tacomax is this you?
Realistically I agree. Any finite bankroll would eventually bust. I'll let Ganch explain the ramifications of an infinite bankroll combined with Martingale wagering.
regression to zero
Martingale is seen as being a regressive form of wagering where bettors play conservatively when they are on a roll and go for the sky when they are in a tailspin. It’s based on the belief that a string of loses on even odds wagers means that eventually there will be a win to correct the deviation. But this idea that wins and loses even out, which is known as the Gambler’s Fallacy, is illogical for one primary reason—it supposes that our four bets are interrelated, and they are not. Whether one wins or loses the first wager will have no influence on the second and the outcome of the second in no way has any influence on the third outcome. If there is no correlation in the bets the order of wins and losses is controlled by variance, something that no gambler has control over.
This is why I am not your Martingale ... my picks are interrelated through a systematic set of rules and the fact that I look at betting as a market that needs to be efficient, which it is.
why are you posting this "system" on a public forum?
this is a serious question, what are your motives
pure fun and documentation that I did it. Thats really it.
Guccione wins first set!
7/31/2009
Rugby NRL
A = Gold Coast Titans -213 (2.13 x 50 = 106.5)
+5025
and thats about all he will win. congrats if you had a bet on the 1st set!
bullsit
Congrats on the Fish win, I gave it a great go at +280.
7/30/31/2009:
ATP
A = M Fish -333 (3.33 x 25 = 83.25 at risk) W (2-0)
+5050
I dont give a rats ass abt the go. I care about the W
That statement right there makes you a long-term loser! Betting VALUE is the only way to win long term, and you have to realize that losing one play does not change that. If I make this same play at +280 1000 times, I will come out ahead in the long run. Heck, there was only one break the entire match, whch made the difference in the end, and I lost count of how many match points Guccione had in second tiebreak, although they unfortunately never came on his serve. Also, he ended up with 24 aces vs. 11 for Fish.
Oh well. NEXT!
Reply With Quote
