[fitguy67]

now fleshed out to show pending plays and the balances they are targeting (the atb="attempting to become" last col.)

note on the sheet the new play i just placed
#1e @1.444/-225 (b365): Siegemund>Beck
23.94 atb 34.57

	40.00	46.21	6.21	6	1	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	23.94	13.94	4	0	e	1.444	sig>hercog	34.58
2	10.00	10.00	0.00	0	0	a	2.95	erako>beck	29.50
3	10.00	12.27	2.27	1	0	b
4	10.00	0.00	-10.00	1	1	~

next play will be #3b, and i'll open new trays as necessary
principle is to use "as few trays as possible but as many as necessary" given i want to hit new plays as soon as they are vetted, without ever being influenced by waiting for a pending play to finish...just take the first-available tray (with the lowest tray# if more than one available)...if none available, create one in the next available row...rinse repeat

[Jayvegas420]

I made a thread a while back and explained how I did show parlays at the racetrack. Now, with Off Track Betting, you are able to bet a show bet and let it ride virtually every 5 minutes. For the record, I've never made it more than eight races, (and that is getting the favorite to show.) Which should happen 79% of the time
. -333 in sports betting, is not expected to hit 80% of the time. But anything can happen. GL

[fitguy67]

oops...already had a play in tray#1, so new play on siggy drops to #3b (already placed at the larger amount...but will continue the record-keeping as if done properly)...

burned a few brain cells on this sheet, but it'll simplify things greatly going forward...allowing me to have a "stable" of these horses, each aspiring to the $-greatness that comes only infrequently...more $10-stabs=more chances to get one into the latter half of the alphabet...where the increasingly-agonizing (in a wonderful way) choices kick in

	40.00	46.21	6.21	6	1	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	23.94	13.94	4	0	e	1.6173	goerjs>cepa	38.72
2	10.00	10.00	0.00	0	0	a	2.9500	erako>beck	29.50
3	10.00	12.27	2.27	1	0	b	1.4444	sig>hercog	17.72
4	10.00	0.00	-10.00	1	1	~

[fitguy67]

got my money's worth for the $10 stab at +195 dog Erakovic, but fell short...

but the gorgeous one came thru...

2 stabs are dead, but 2 are alive...and the profits on the latter outweigh the former a bit so this is all free entertainment

	40.00	50.99	10.99	7	2	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	38.72	28.72	5	0	f
2	10.00	0.00	-10.00	0	1	~
3	10.00	12.27	2.27	1	0	b	1.4444	sig>hercog	17.72
4	10.00	0.00	-10.00	1	1	~

[fitguy67]

new stab with a dog to kick-start the process, which will save a few legs in getting down that dollar-road to at least the outskirts of a nice neighborhood

Arruabarrena at a great +139 at SportsInteraction (also +138 at Willy Hill)...
match starts in just a few minutes

#5 below

	50.00	60.99	10.99	7	2	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	38.72	28.72	5	0	f
2	10.00	0.00	-10.00	0	1	~
3	10.00	12.27	2.27	1	0	b	1.4444	sig>hercog	17.72
4	10.00	0.00	-10.00	1	1	~
5	10.00	10.00	0.00	0	0	a	2.3900	aruab>with	23.90

[captrobey]

Yes - partly. You go all in, but the odds do not have to be $1.20-$1.30. They can be anything you want. The guy above has primarily just picked selections with those odds.

It's a little hard to follow when they use the american system, but if you start with $10:

$10 on your first bet of $1.5. Assuming that wins, you now have $15.

You then put $15 (original $10 + your $5 winnings) on your next bet of $2. If that wins, you have $30.

You then put your $30 (original $10 + $5 first bet winnings + $15 second bet winnings) on your next bet and so on and so forth.

So it really just depends what the juice is because if you do basic -110 starting with $10 in 10 games is around $10000 but of course a -1000 odd will barely get you anything . So it really depends on the juice.

[fitguy67]

ok, rolling #1 again hopefully from 38.72 to 60.84
kovalik -175 (b365) over fuknsonofabitch...
scheduled to start in 20mins

	50.00	60.99	10.99	7	2	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	38.72	28.72	5	0	f	1.5714	kovalik>fuksvc	60.84
2	10.00	0.00	-10.00	0	1	~
3	10.00	12.27	2.27	1	0	b	1.4444	sig>hercog	17.72
4	10.00	0.00	-10.00	1	1	~
5	10.00	10.00	0.00	0	0	a	2.3900	aruab>with	23.90

[fitguy67]

So it really just depends what the juice is because if you do basic -110 starting with $10 in 10 games is around $10000 but of course a -1000 odd will barely get you anything . So it really depends on the juice.

you're just rolling $-snowballs, right...

wanna add more snow on the next push, you gotta accept the greater risk of it all melting...

in other words, as probability of cashing goes up, payout goes down...so slower the snowball will grow...and vice versa

it's an iterative (ie. one-step-at-a-time) process...and each step comes at differing payout/chance of winning...so you keep track of your snowball's size (and the number of pushes you exerted to get it there) as you go...

not rocket science, but it is a fun project..

[fitguy67]

siggy win brings #3 bank up to 17.72

so one open spot (#3c) for next play that comes up

	50.00	66.44	16.44	8	2	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	38.72	28.72	5	0	f	1.5714	kovalik>fuksvc	60.84
2	10.00	0.00	-10.00	0	1	~
3	10.00	17.72	7.72	2	0	c
4	10.00	0.00	-10.00	1	1	~
5	10.00	10.00	0.00	0	0	a	2.3900	aruab>with	23.90

[fitguy67]

nice! #1 logs its 6th win, bringing its bank to 60.84 (thanks kovalik, would've hated saying the opo's name in anger)

and initial dog-flier attempt in tray#5 fails...

overall, the multi-tray version of this bet-sizing protocol is going smoothly

	50.00	78.56	28.56	9	3	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	60.84	50.84	6	0	g
2	10.00	0.00	-10.00	0	1	~
3	10.00	17.72	7.72	2	0	c
4	10.00	0.00	-10.00	1	1	~
5	10.00	0.00	-10.00	0	1	~

[biggie12]

this thread is pretty funny.

[fitguy67]

tidied up the presentation a lot by consolidating all the LWF ("lest we forget"=unsuccessful) campaigns as a row at the top

of the 5 horses originally "invested" in (at $10 a pop), three (originally wearing the 2,3, & 5 numbers) have fallen by the wayside...but to minimize costs, we simply shuffle their numbers-kit around to keep the minimum number of trays active in our attention...but the totals (here -$30, 1-3) from dashed dreams are fully accounted for in the second-from-top row

overall (currently covering 3 failed/2 active projects): +28.56, 9-3

3	30.00	0.00	-30.00	1	3
all	50.00	78.56	+28.56	9	3	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg
1	10.00	60.84	50.84	6	0	g
2	10.00	17.72	7.72	2	0	c

[fitguy67]

this thread is pretty funny.

wait a minute...what are you incinerating?...oh yeah, i resemble that remark!

[Jayvegas420]

[fitguy67]

ah, a fellow afficionado of stepwise "learn as you go/go as you learn" protocol-development...

jay--and anyone else still visiting this thread--do you think i should emigrate this to a new thread of my own?...i seem to have monopolized this recently-resurrected thread to the point that Stammertime--who'd been hot out of the gate & on a good run has stopped posting...

TBH, most of my recent seemingly-meandering posts tend to be of a journaling/blogging sort..."thinking out loud" as i try out (and try to evaluate) new ways of keeping track of the effort...

i'm much more than just slingin' plays here--which are in fact purely-secondary to what has really fascinated me: the attempt to fine-tune/specify sensible ways the underlying bet-sizing discipline under consideration here can be operationalized (if "going all-in till you say 'uncle'" can be called a discipline, lol...i think that running many such micro-sized projects is a solid step in that direction, though )

[fitguy67]

another run-starting stab at a very-live dog
on S.jul23 UFC: schevchenko+300>holm(@b365/+295@sia/+290's@5d/dsi)
10 atb (attempting to become) 40

with regard to balancing the "aggressiveness (hi-pay) vs. carefulness (low-pay) choice that underlies all play-selection

i've decided to "shade toward the former at early stages (when low $ at stake)...& shade toward the latter at later stages (when bigger $ are at stake)"
____________

TL/DR painful-elaboration alert! starts here!
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
stated in terms of how tight-assed one should be when selecting plays:
diarrheatic ("fukkit, numbers say it's worth a shot!"...as i've just done with Schevchenko) suitable for a very early (ie. low-lettered) legs

and as legs get deeper into the alphabet and as $-mount, you gotta get increasingly constipated (ie. more insistent on ever-higer levels of surety that your perceived probability of losing is both absolutely low enough AND in your mind considerably lower than that implied by the price)...

till now, almost all my plays have been considerably higher-pay than the -333 originally raised as a benchmark...but you'll start notice that changing...and the higer-lettered plays will come with appropriately less frequency (allowing more time for research/deliberation) and be on much lower-pay/more-likely-to-cash tickets in line with the gravity of the balances involved (so hello to "Djokovic vs. Scrubsky" at 1.08, analyzed as an "investment grade" asset...after carefully digging into injury-reports and nuances of the surface, etc.)
_____________
apologies, people...
i'm an econ-prof by trade and although this is a simple application of the google-friendly economic principle called "opportunity cost"...its simplicity isn't gonna stop me from expounding on it to death...but you were warned above, lol

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TL/DR painful-elaboration zone ends here!
_____________

so the at-a-glance picture now becomes

3	30.00	0.00	-30.00	1	3
	60.00	88.56	28.56	9	3	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	60.84	50.84	6	0	g
2	10.00	17.72	7.72	2	0	c
3	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	4.0000	schvchnko>holm	40.00

[fitguy67]

as the kid told Bruce Willis "I see live dogs everywhere!"

'nother one def. only viable as a campaign-kickoff "A" play, risking just the ten-spot...
this way get minimum $-risk for the maximum time (aka. the#legs required before quitting the day-job & starting to date super-models) benefit

The Young Duck +176 (web/+175@b365) over Muller
10 abt 27.60

3	30.00	0.00	-30.00	1	3
	70.00	98.56	28.56	9	3	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	60.84	50.84	6	0	g
2	10.00	17.72	7.72	2	0	c
3	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	4.0000	schvchnko>holm	40.00
4	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	2.7600	donald>muller	27.60

[fitguy67]

bank #1 awaits a "G" bet
David Ferrer -225 (5dimes) over Ramos-Vinolas
60.84 @1.4444 atb 87.88

3	30.00	0.00	-30.00	1	3
	70.00	98.56	28.56	9	3	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	60.84	50.84	6	0	g	1.4444	ferrer>ramos	87.88
2	10.00	17.72	7.72	2	0	c
3	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	4.0000	schvchnko>holm	40.00
4	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	2.7500	donald>muller	27.50

[fitguy67]

one last play that's at the "just right" aggressiveness/carefullness (reward/risk) price level

Fognini in a spot where he just MIGHT give a shit against a guy he's beat last time they played ...3-0 in a five-set DavisCup match exactly 2 years ago...DavisCup time again and Italy NEEDS his win to level the competition
against Monaco's Argentina

Monaco is actually up 3-1 lifetime over the ultimate Mr. "YouNeverKnowWhichVersionWillShowUp"...but those early matches were ancient history (2007,'10, &'11) which might also be softening up Fognini's line somewhat...Fognini's clearly at the higher level skill-wise and if he weren't so prone to playing with an ambiguous (aka. a "fukkit") attitude--that is, if you knew that both guyz would bring their A-game--Fognin'd be a much bigger favorite than this...

the -160 is a play on the "motivated Fognini" theory...and is just perfect for a low-lettered (hence a more aggressive, thus less-"sure" selection than we'd usually look to settle on later in a campaign with more $ on the line to lose)

Fognini -160 (web)
17.72 @1.625 atb 28.80

3	30.00	0.00	-30.00	1	3
	70.00	98.56	28.56	9	3	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	60.84	50.84	6	0	g	1.4444	ferrer>ramos	87.88
2	10.00	17.72	7.72	2	0	c	1.6250	fognini>monaco	28.80
3	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	4.0000	schvchnko>holm	40.00
4	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	2.7500	donald>muller	27.50

[fitguy67]

2 more stabs at getting something started

parlayed (withoeft-125) with (bacsinszky -450)>>+120 at willhill

played Stephane Robert +200 > Klizan at 5dimes

3	30.00	0.00	-30.00	1	3
	90.00	118.56	28.56	9	3	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	60.84	50.84	6	0	g	1.4444	ferrer>ramos	87.88
2	10.00	17.72	7.72	2	0	c	1.6250	fognini>monaco	28.80
3	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	4.0000	schvchnko>holm	40.00
4	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	2.7500	donald>muller	27.50
5	10.00	10.00	0.00			ab	2.2000	withy*baczy	22.00
6	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	3.0000	robt>klizan	30.00

[Honeybadger44]

On Robert as well. One of my largest bets this year.

[fitguy67]

great to see a legit tennis-guy like yourself on at least one of the plays i've settled on, HB

i'm muddling along in the play-selection department, primarily focused on ones that "feel" right for where i slot them in...based on a combination of tennis-explorer stats, probability/price comparisons and whatever "spidey sense" i've picked up over the years from reading posts from guys like yourself...

Allons-nous'en, Stephane!

[fitguy67]

parlay on da'broads drops 10, but foggy's win adds 11...so square so far...delay on the key ferrer match

[fitguy67]

the reckoning thus far today (with the tray#4 D.Young play pending)

3	30.00	0.00	-30.00	1	3
	90.00	48.80	-41.20	10	6	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	0.00	-10.00	6	1	gX		ferrer=L
2	10.00	28.80	18.80	3	0	d		fogni=W
3	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	4.0000	schvchnko>holm	40.00
4	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	2.7500	donald>muller	27.50
5	10.00	0.00	-10.00	0	1	aX		wta(2)=L
6	10.00	0.00	-10.00	0	1	aX	3.0000	robt=L

which tidies up (by accounting for all the failed attempts in the top row and re-assigning the numbers attached to the pending ones) to

6	60.00	0.00	-60.00	7	6
	90.00	48.80	-41.20	10	6	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	28.80	18.80	3	0	d
2	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	4.0000	schvchnko>holm	40.00
3	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	2.7500	donald>muller	27.50

[fitguy67]

...which further simplifies to

7	70.00	0.00	-70.00	7	7
	90.00	38.80	-51.20	10	7	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	28.80	18.80	3	0	d
2	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	4.0000	schvchnko>holm	40.00

"character" is what's left after the initial enthusiasm evaporates...

[fitguy67]

2 new plays

*another jump-start attempt on a live dog: sevasotova +450 (dsi) over halep

*d-leg on bertens -315 (5d) over golubic

7	70.00	0.00	-70.00	7	7
	100.00	48.80	-51.20	10	7	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	28.80	18.80	3	0	d	1.3175	bertens>golubic	37.94
2	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	4.0000	schvchnko>holm	40.00
3	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	5.6000	sevastova>halep	56.00

[Honeybadger44]

great to see a legit tennis-guy like yourself on at least one of the plays i've settled on, HB

i'm muddling along in the play-selection department, primarily focused on ones that "feel" right for where i slot them in...based on a combination of tennis-explorer stats, probability/price comparisons and whatever "spidey sense" i've picked up over the years from reading posts from guys like yourself...

Allons-nous'en, Stephane!

Ugly loss. I watched the first set, where he was nowhere near the level from some of the earlier matches (vs GGL and Cervantes). I saw on flashscore later that he was 4-1 up in second set, but then lost 5 games in a row.

I like what you have going on in this thread, evenhough I have to read your posts couple of times to completely understand what are you saying.

Good luck!

[Jayvegas420]

Thats the shits. Still fun to follow!

[fitguy67]

and bertens shit the bed in the standard WTA fashion...consistently threw away key points with UE's, esp. on her own second serve...kept letting golubic off the hook

[fitguy67]

after 9 failed ten-buck campaigns (none yet even hitting the C-threshold) here's how it stands

9	90.00	0.00	-90.00	10	9
	100.00	10.00	-90.00	10	9	nxt	nxt
#	initial	latest	change	W	L	leg	@prc	play	atb
1	10.00	10.00	0.00			a	4.0000	schvchnko>holm	40.00

a good place to either stop, or--in keeping with my "hope springs eternal" nature--keep developing this angle further in a spankin' new blog-style thread (where blog-style means the TLDR-alert will permanently be on)...wherever this project ends up, the 9-tray hole i've dug here will carry over...

[Jayvegas420]

Parlay two games each time that are in the -600 range.

[stackz125]

I'll try this

[fitguy67]

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/foru...l#post26016684