330

[MoneyMatters]

Finished the day with 6-2

Just wanna summarize the day.

End up with 6-2

Starting bankroll $330 ($300 deposit + $30 bonus)
Ending Bankroll $638 (93% profit)

Good Night Everyone...

[durito]

There is no money management betting system that will make negative expected value bets profitable in the long run.

If you are making positive expected value bets, then this system is also far from ideal.

[MoneyMatters]

Another day, 3 games on NBA.

Since i closed the day with a lost, i'm starting betting with 1 units according to the "1-3-2-6 System".

My early pick will be New Orleans -3.5 first half against New York.

I was disappointed yesterday taking New Orleans again -4 for the first half, but hopefully they've got their lessons and realized it's hard to bring the game back once you get it out of control. New York is a real bad team and -3.5 for the first half should be easy to cover for NO.

$33.33 NO -3.5 first half.

[Cloak & Dagger]

1-3-2-6

Ive seen this used for blackjack

you WILL risk a total of 2 units though the second bet...the 3rd unit comes from the win on the first bet...

then the 3rd bet you take back 4 units...see below

"1"=player wins $10 from one $10 bet
"3"=player now bets $30....total risk is now $20....2 units...if you are lucky enough to win this bet...using this system your next two bets ARE FREE BETS...minus the % for the juice of course
"2"=your bankroll is now $60...but you are only wagering 2 units here...$20...you just guaranteed yourself the 2 units you initially risked if you stick to this system
"6"=now at this point if you hit the 3rd tier of this system you now only have to add 2 units of the 4 units that you held in the 3rd tier...place the 6 unit wager....and have a free shot at 12 units....if it dosent win....you have lost nothing but the couple of dollars for the juice to get even money on all these bets






this game is a grind ....if you have problems with money management this would be the way to go IMO...I have tried it myself...and I will tell you its boring and as a gambler you just might say **** and and start throwin down bets like you used to and let it ride not giving a damn...lol...but if you could discipline yourself to stick with something like this...your total risk would only be 2 units after you hit the first bet...hit 2 bets...and you dont lose money with this 1-3-2-6- system...if you look at it that way...it seems like something that can keep a bankroll in your pocket...but gamblers take shots...always have...always will

I dont know anyone personally that could stick to this...I wish I could

[donjuan]

There is no money management betting system that will make negative expected value bets profitable in the long run.

If you are making positive expected value bets, then this system is also far from ideal.

Bingo.

[HedgeHog]

Exactly, there is no magic formula for making -Ev bets profitable in the long run.* You'll be approx 50% at all levels--1,3,2 and 6 units.* Luckily for you, most of your action will be at 1-unit wagers.

[pico]

There is no money management betting system that will make negative expected value bets profitable in the long run.

If you are making positive expected value bets, then this system is also far from ideal.

2nd that

[MoneyMatters]

Good Approach Daddyjj

Thank you for your input.

I'm glad to see finally someone in the forum understand how the system (rather strategy) works, instead of bashing it without analyzing.

As you know and as i mentioned before this is not a get-rich-overnight scheme, and i'm not that naive. But earlier in this thread i've mentioned how i was kicked out from the Borgata Atlantic City baccarat table using the strategy with strict discipline , at the 7th day of the consecutive win.

Casinos, and sports books in this case, don't wanna see people with gambling discipline.

For those, who can truly understand the strategy it's a great way to increase your bankroll.

Good Luck to everyone...

[durito]

Actually, no it isn't.

[MoneyMatters]

All right my friend,

If you don't have any better inputs than that (either positive or negative way), i rather you not post anything regarding.

[DaveRabbit]

So you can't have multiple bets at the same time?

[MoneyMatters]

So you can't have multiple bets at the same time?

Even though i'd love to, but no, you can't have multiple bets at the same time sir.

PS: Since your next bet unit size depends on the outcome of the last bet, you can do that in one rare exception. Like yesterday, i have the Charlotte +2 for the second half, and they were up by almost 20 points in last 4-5 minutes of the game. You shouldn't, but you can assume that you've already won, and move on to the next chain. But i would recommend that only on the 3rd bet, since it is the free bet and the least important one in the system.

Good Question though.

[durito]

All right my friend,

If you don't have any better inputs than that (either positive or negative way), i rather you not post anything regarding.

I did above, and was agreed with by several quite intelligent posters. You misinterpreted our responses. If you choose to ignore the facts, that's your own problem. But, don't pretend like you've stumbled onto something when you haven't.

Read this:

http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

[cobra_king]

I'm just amazed that the casino kicked you out for winning in the short term of a game that they have, and will always have the advantage on. Someone needs to check who's making the decisions at the Borgata.

[MoneyMatters]

I did above, and was agreed with by several quite intelligent posters. You misinterpreted our responses. If you choose to ignore the facts, that's your own problem. But, don't pretend like you've stumbled onto something when you haven't.

Read this:

http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

Ok, that's great, you seem like you know a lot about gambler's fallacies, but what you don't know is, I've read that article on wizardofodds years ago, and get ready what i'm gonna tell you about that particular web site.

Wizard of Odds, offers $20.000 (they've higher the prize) to anybody come up with any kind of system that generates positive outcome in long haul. Why are they doing such a thing? Because they know that there is no such system. Well, $20.000 sounds good to try but there is a catch. They hold your money between $2000 to $5000 (depending the complexity of your system) to investigate through their error-proof computer simulations. If you are right, and you generate profit after millions of bet, you get the $20.000. But if not, for the price of their effort, they keep the $2000 - $5000 of your money.

Luckily for the Wizard of Odds, they didn't have to give anybody the $20.000 prize. With one exception! Now everybody listen here carefully. When "1-3-2-6 System" has submitted through their computer simulation, that was the only one came close to beat it. Therefore, Wizard of Odds, called it a tie, and returned the money.

Hopefully, this true event will make some people less skeptical about me and my thread while reading.

Best Regards,

[MrX]

I once witnessed a Vegas casino make a huge mistake by backing off a gambler I knew personally. He was a huge -EV player with deep pockets. I don't know what they thought he was doing. At times there are some pretty questionable minds making the decisions in the pits.

[cobra_king]

I don't think Durito, or anyone here is saying that you won't make money using this system IF you are an advantaged sports better. (The argument is than if this is optimal strategy or not.) But no betting system can overcome the long term edge that any casino game (card counting excluded) has against the player. Or for that matter a -EV sports better.

[Arnold]

It is an interesting strategy at first, but it doesn't work any better or worse than flat betting. I ran a quick computer simulation and it is exactly the same:

60% chance of winning (actual ~60.3%)
=============================

Total simulated bets: 16.7 million

1-3-2-5 strategy
----------------------------------------
(+100 odds)
Units won per 100 bets: 44.072
Units won per 100 units bet: 20.773

(-105 odds)
Units won per 100 bets: 37.666
Units won per 100 units bet: 17.754


Flat betting
----------------------------------------
(+100 odds)
Units won per 100 bets: 20.781
Units won per 100 units bet: 20.781

(-105 odds)
Units won per 100 bets: 17.762
Units won per 100 units bet: 17.762


Because on average you bet more units, you eventually end up winning more units. But flat betting will match these winnings if you increase its average unit size to the one of 1-3-2-5 system (about 2.12).

[durito]

When "1-3-2-6 System" has submitted through their computer simulation, that was the only one came close to beat it. Therefore, Wizard of Odds, called it a tie, and returned the money.

Hopefully, this true event will make some people less skeptical about me and my thread while reading.

Best Regards,

Coming close to winning is still losing.

A question to better understand where you are coming from:

**Do you believe the bets you are making have positive expected value?

If so, and assuming your goal is in fact to make money, you would be better off kelly staking, or some other percent staking, or even flat betting.

If not, then you should agree that the best you will do is "come close" to winning money. If you enjoy betting and this is what you are trying to accomplish, then fine. But, if your goal is making money and you cannot find +EV bets, then your optimal money management system is to bet $0.

[Ganchrow]

Wizard of Odds, offers $20.000 (they've higher the prize) to anybody come up with any kind of system that generates positive outcome in long haul. Why are they doing such a thing? Because they know that there is no such system. Well, $20.000 sounds good to try but there is a catch. They hold your money between $2000 to $5000 (depending the complexity of your system) to investigate through their error-proof computer simulations. If you are right, and you generate profit after millions of bet, you get the $20.000. But if not, for the price of their effort, they keep the $2000 - $5000 of your money.

Luckily for the Wizard of Odds, they didn't have to give anybody the $20.000 prize. With one exception! Now everybody listen here carefully. When "1-3-2-6 System" has submitted through their computer simulation, that was the only one came close to beat it. Therefore, Wizard of Odds, called it a tie, and returned the money.

Generally speaking, completely fabricated tales should not be taken as evidence of a claim.

[pico]

Ok, that's great, you seem like you know a lot about gambler's fallacies, but what you don't know is, I've read that article on wizardofodds years ago, and get ready what i'm gonna tell you about that particular web site.

Wizard of Odds, offers $20.000 (they've higher the prize) to anybody come up with any kind of system that generates positive outcome in long haul. Why are they doing such a thing? Because they know that there is no such system. Well, $20.000 sounds good to try but there is a catch. They hold your money between $2000 to $5000 (depending the complexity of your system) to investigate through their error-proof computer simulations. If you are right, and you generate profit after millions of bet, you get the $20.000. But if not, for the price of their effort, they keep the $2000 - $5000 of your money.

Luckily for the Wizard of Odds, they didn't have to give anybody the $20.000 prize. With one exception! Now everybody listen here carefully. When "1-3-2-6 System" has submitted through their computer simulation, that was the only one came close to beat it. Therefore, Wizard of Odds, called it a tie, and returned the money.

Hopefully, this true event will make some people less skeptical about me and my thread while reading.

Best Regards,

dude, i read all wizardofodds articles years ago. in there he said there was only one person that came up a serious stratey in blackjack. it involved cutting the deck a certain way. if i remember correctly, it first showed a profit, but once it passed 5 millionth simulation, it start to show a loss, and it end in the red.

unless there is a causation, indepent events with different bet size will not yield you positive returns.

[MoneyMatters]

I didn't calculate Peja Stojakovic scoring 1-8 from the floor. First half tied 49-49.

Well hopefully he won't be that cold in second half, because...

New Orleans -5 second half... Again 1 unit

[BeatTheJerk]

whats your next pick ........... im following this as you asked ........

[MoneyMatters]

Dallas/Utah Under 101 first half ... $99.99

[BeatTheJerk]

GL

[ryanXL977]

what happens if you lose the first bet? then you stop? or what if you lose the 2nd? are you assuming that you have to win eventually?

[MoneyMatters]

what happens if you lose the first bet? then you stop? or what if you lose the 2nd? are you assuming that you have to win eventually?

Ryan,

It's good to see somebody paying attention to the bet units. Well, you're right on your observation. What i did was, i assumed i won the first bet and placed another bet 3 units according to that bet. I do that rarely when there are very few games on NBA.

Fortunately my NO -5 2nd half came through and i got back to 1-1 for the day. But unfortunately my 3 unit second bet Dallas/Utah doesn't look good at all.

[BeatTheJerk]

u never posted 2nd half NO -5 WTF

[BeatTheJerk]

you just through it in there after the fact that it won ............

[BeatTheJerk]

you through that in there on an edit post or something because i been watching this shit like a hawk

[BeatTheJerk]

this is a waste of my time if your gonna cheat

[Cloak & Dagger]

you just through it in there after the fact that it won ............

post # 57

lots of haterz around here....reminds me of the race track....where everyone wishes that you lose....sorta like the casino!

[myr10]

i think its in post #57

[BeatTheJerk]

w/e im not a hater fine maybe i missed it, but i really dont think i did ..........

[BeatTheJerk]

u can always edit your post as you know , i believe he had something else on 57 originally but then made an edit .........