Thread Rating:

es330td
es330td
Joined: Mar 19, 2019
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 137
Thanks for this post from:
Joeman
November 19th, 2019 at 9:15:18 AM permalink
Quote: 7craps

remember the LAST chase system? It had NOT lost in last 9 years (of back-testing) and CRASHED big time in less than 4 months...



This is the reason I am live testing. Any system can be tweaked to fit back data. Only by testing my system on action as it happens can I get actual results. If I had somehow rigged my methodology it will be revealed by actual outcomes.

Since you seem to be obsessing about how I looked at data to determine how I make picks I will share with everyone what I did.

I wanted to find an outcome that occurred at a particular frequency. By lurking on a number of sites (but never posting) and doing a lot of searches I was able to collect back sports line data. I even found a site where you can get entire seasons of games with the moneyline odds at game time. I imported the data into a database and ran queries against the data. (Iím a certified database professional. Queries are what I do.) I didnít go back and test against every game. Once I knew the frequency of an event occurring I can use that as a proxy for actual data. Running that proxy in one million trials in python gave me a Monte Carlo results set of outcomes.

Letís say that my hypothesis is that home teams on Wednesdays that are on an odd number day of the month win at a disproportionate rate. I donít need to look at every game in history to run an aggregate query against the data.

Once I had a simulation that worked I knew my methodology was sound. Next step was real world testing. That is what I did before I started this thread. Once I had some success (and the system worked through multiple multiple consecutive loss sequences) I decided the next step was to test with others watching to ensure it was clean.

That is where we are today.
Last edited by: es330td on Nov 19, 2019
SM777
SM777
Joined: Apr 8, 2016
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 740
November 19th, 2019 at 10:15:33 AM permalink
Quote: es330td


Letís say that my hypothesis is that home teams on Wednesdays that are on an odd number day of the month win at a disproportionate rate. I donít need to look at every game in history to run an aggregate query against the data.



Sounds fool proof long term. An absolute game changer.
es330td
es330td
Joined: Mar 19, 2019
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 137
Thanks for this post from:
AxelWolf
November 19th, 2019 at 7:58:05 PM permalink
Quote: SM777

Sounds fool proof long term. An absolute game changer.



It only works if the visiting pitcher has an ďOĒ in his last name so it is of limited utility. ;-)
vegas
vegas
Joined: Apr 27, 2012
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 372
November 19th, 2019 at 9:45:03 PM permalink
Save all that time and just bet the biggest fav each bet......wait...thatís what you do. It works most of the time. Maybe it will run good for years
50-50-90 Rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there is a 90% probability you'll get it wrong
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 2433
November 19th, 2019 at 10:16:18 PM permalink
Quote: SM777

Sounds fool proof long term. An absolute game changer.



Obviously, he is using a silly example for fun. At least I thought it was obvious.
michael99000
michael99000
Joined: Jul 10, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 1737
November 19th, 2019 at 10:37:59 PM permalink
Quote: es330td

It only works if the visiting pitcher has an ďOĒ in his last name so it is of limited utility. ;-)



Now I get why you took Gerrit cOle a few times.

But Houston is a much better bet at home, where they can get those cameras correctly positioned for sign stealing
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 103
  • Posts: 6006
November 20th, 2019 at 4:42:22 AM permalink
Quote: vegas

Save all that time and just bet the biggest fav each bet......wait...thatís what you do. It works most of the time. Maybe it will run good for years



It does not appear that he takes the biggest favorite. It seems like he takes favorites that he hast to lay between 2 1/2 and 4 to 1. I don't recall him taking a bridge jumper type favorite where are you have to lay eight or nine or 10 to 1.
es330td
es330td
Joined: Mar 19, 2019
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 137
November 20th, 2019 at 5:47:14 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

It does not appear that he takes the biggest favorite. It seems like he takes favorites that he hast to lay between 2 1/2 and 4 to 1. I don't recall him taking a bridge jumper type favorite where are you have to lay eight or nine or 10 to 1.



I never go over -300. Losing a -500 takes too long to win back. Worse, as there is clearly a chase element to the methodology consecutive losses would put me in a huge hole.
7craps
7craps
Joined: Jan 23, 2010
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1933
November 20th, 2019 at 7:45:01 AM permalink
Quote: es330td

I never go over -300. Losing a -500 takes too long to win back.

that statement is totally IDIOTIC (showing complete lack of thought or common sense) and 100% FALSE.

It only takes one win (IF BET CORRECTLY - proper amount wagered) to gain a net win

-300
bet $3 trying to win $1... Bet lost
now down $3. need to win $4 on next wager
another -300 requires $12 wagered to win $4 and show a $1 profit
Bet WINS and $1 profit is achieved - ONLY 1 bet required.

-500
bet $5 trying to win $1... Bet lost
now down 5. need to win $6 on next wager
another -500 requires $30 wagered to win $6 and show a $1 profit
Bet WINS and $1 profit is achieved - ONLY 1 bet required.

the above example did NOT take too long to win back the 1st lost bet - it REQUIRED MORE to be wagered.

"Losing a -500 takes too long to win back."
nice try
I gather this was not what you wanted to get across

Quote: es330td

Worse, as there is clearly a chase element to the methodology consecutive losses would put me in a huge hole.

define HUGE and
when 'something' that is NOT HUGH becomes HUGE.

added: to the casual reader one would think risking $15 to win $1 is WAY better than risking $35 to win $1
they may not know a -500 wager should have a HIGHER probability of winning than a -300 wager.
better and HIGHER here are NOT defined.
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
es330td
es330td
Joined: Mar 19, 2019
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 137
November 20th, 2019 at 9:16:13 AM permalink
I donít try to win back the entire amount of a loss on the next wager. Since Iím not willing to bet more I have to bet more times. Even if a subsequent wager was a sure thing for a fractional gain, if it takes too many wagers to get back to even then it isnít worth the time.

A bet becomes ďhugeď instead of ďnot hugeď if losing the wager would require an unsustainably large follow up bet.

  • Jump to: