Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

91-19 How Is That For A System

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 91-19 How Is That For A System

    That is what you and I could have done if we had played this since opening day. I got this idea yesterday and played it for the first time yesterday and won both plays. This is so simple, I don't know why I didn't think of this before. All you do is BET AGAINST the four teams with the worst road records when they are away from home. That would be Tampa Bay (4-24), Colorado (4-23), Houston (5-23) and Cincinnati (6-21). Add them up and you get 91 winning plays and just 19 losing plays. Of course playing against these teams means you will be laying quite a bit of juice, but even at an average of say -170 a play, the real juice looks to be less, you would win 91 units and lose 33 units for A PROFIT OF 58 UNITS.

    Now if you are like me and don't like laying juice, you could parley all these teams that are on the road and while risking less each night the profit is also less, only 37 UNITS.

    That's based on the average 2 team parley paying 100:152 and
    the average 3 team parley paying 100:300. You would only have a play when 2 or more of the 4 teams are away. Since the start of the season two team parleys went 24-12 at an average of plus 152 and three team parleys went 5-2 at an average of plus 300. Hitting 29 out of 43 parleys, ain't too shabby. There were 17 days when only one of these teams was away, so if you parley, you would not have a play on those days.

    Last night, the first time I Tried playing this after getting this idea, I had a two team parley of the Mets to Cinc at 100 paying 166. Tonight, playing the same two team parley again, 100 would pay 179. These are plays AGANIST Houston and Tampa Bay.

    When I went back to see how this would have done, I used the same four teams because it was easier to figure out how this would have done. It shouldn't make too much of a difference, since the next worse team KCity has won just 7 road games, but each Monday, I'm going to check to see which 4 teams have the worst record and use those 4 teams for that week. It should stay pretty much the same.

    Now, since this sounds too good to be true, am I missing something. Non of these teams have a losing record at home, but all we care about are their road games.

  • #2
    I Was Looking At Something Like That Yesterday Un Real
    2007 BCS and 2009 BCS CHAMPS
    2006 & 2007 NCAA MENS BASKETBALL CHAMPS
    2008 & 2010 RAYS BASEBALL AMERICAN LEAGUE CHAMPS

    Comment


    • #3
      This sounds pretty good, any stats on how many times these terrible road teams have lost by 2 or more??? I like to get greedy!

      Comment


      • #4
        I've been fading KC, Houston, Colorado and Oakland on the road for weeks. I should add a few more teams to my fade list. Thanks.

        Comment


        • #5
          Greedy is good. I wasen't looking for that but if you want to figure it out and then let us know go to www.c o v e r s.com. Leave the spaces out. Then click on MLB, then teams, pick a team, then Past Records. It's all right there.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MarkLemke
            This sounds pretty good, any stats on how many times these terrible road teams have lost by 2 or more??? I like to get greedy!
            Combined these teams are 19-91 on the road. Fading them yielded over 6k

            63 of the 110 games they've lost by 2 or more runs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Mets and Reds are the play tonight

              Comment


              • #8
                Frank said
                Combined these teams are 19-91 on the road. 63 of the 110 games they've lost by 2 or more runs.
                I would guess laying a run and a half would bring the line down to around pick em. Going 63-47 at around pickem, is profitable, but nowhere near what you would make playing them straight.

                Frank. Do you have any info showing the exact lines for all these games. I just guessed at -170 but I think that is conservative.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hate to rain on the parade but there's a flaw here.

                  You couldn't have gone 91-19 because you wouldn't have known who the four teams would be until about 20 games into the season. Even then, the four worst road teams after 20 games might not be the same four after 40.

                  There is no guarantee the four worst road teams will be the four worst road teams over the next month. The problem with all backdated systems is that you don't know it's a system until after it already is a system! I would guess that a flat unit bet going against the four teams you mention going forward the next month will not be profitable as the books have caught up to how bad these teams are and will be making their opponents prohibitive favorites.

                  Still, it'd be great if you track this over the long haul and see how it does.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [I]griswold rained on my parade saying[I]
                    Hate to rain on the parade but there's a flaw here.

                    You couldn't have gone 91-19 because you wouldn't have known who the four teams would be until about 20 games into the season. Even then, the four worst road teams after 20 games might not be the same four after 40.

                    You couldn't have gone 91-19 because you wouldn't have known who the four teams would be until about 20 games into the season. Even then, the four worst road teams after 20 games might not be the same four after 40.
                    That's true about the first 20 games or so, but my point is to show that this does work and will work in the future. If the 4 worse teams I used were not the worst after say, 40 games, then we would have done better because one or more of the teams used would have been replaced by a team doing worse. Acually, for the month of April, three of these teams only won one road game each.

                    Not only will I try to track this, I will also be playing it. As I mentioned before, each Monday I will use the four worst road teams for the comming week.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      good luck

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by griswold
                        Hate to rain on the parade but there's a flaw here.

                        You couldn't have gone 91-19 because you wouldn't have known who the four teams would be until about 20 games into the season. Even then, the four worst road teams after 20 games might not be the same four after 40.

                        There is no guarantee the four worst road teams will be the four worst road teams over the next month. The problem with all backdated systems is that you don't know it's a system until after it already is a system! I would guess that a flat unit bet going against the four teams you mention going forward the next month will not be profitable as the books have caught up to how bad these teams are and will be making their opponents prohibitive favorites.

                        Still, it'd be great if you track this over the long haul and see how it does.
                        I agree 100%. That being said I'd continue to fade these teams on the road. I'd add any new teams and/or drop any of these teams if they turn their system around. Baseball unlike the other sports there's no line involved. The team has to win for the system to be success. It's a bit harder for Vegas to adjust. In basketall as an example Vegas would make the favorite lay more and more points.

                        As I stated in an earlier post I've been fading 4 teams. Those fades are stonger under certain conditions such as off a win.

                        GL
                        Last edited by frankb03; 06-08-2005, 08:48 PM.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X