Ok...Betjam didn't have a line for this game. I'll use it's sister book the Greek.
Florida ML -110 Game 2 for 2 units. Game postponed last night.
Of course this was the first game played today...like we always play it.
Doesn't take much to get confusion around here. :lol:
Knock on wood...it looks like it might be a winner so far in the 8th inning. We avoided a -6 unit disaster anyway.
Time to tighten this thing up a little for the rest of the late season, and then see what happens.
Florida ML -110 Game 2 for 2 units. Game postponed last night.
Of course this was the first game played today...like we always play it.
Doesn't take much to get confusion around here. :lol:
Knock on wood...it looks like it might be a winner so far in the 8th inning. We avoided a -6 unit disaster anyway.
Time to tighten this thing up a little for the rest of the late season, and then see what happens.
Ok...Betjam didn't have a line for this game. I'll use it's sister book the Greek.
Florida ML -110 Game 2 for 2 units. Game postponed last night.
Of course this was the first game played today...like we always play it.
Doesn't take much to get confusion around here. :lol:
Knock on wood...it looks like it might be a winner so far in the 8th inning. We avoided a -6 unit disaster anyway.
Time to tighten this thing up a little for the rest of the late season, and then see what happens.
This play was on the early game.
I played 1 Unit ML and 1 Unit RL...
Thanks for the WINNER MJ!
This last set goes 1-1 (-2 units overall).
We have lost some units lately...but overall it's still pretty good for slightly less than 2 months. I'd like to see a few more winners again though.
Overall series 39-9 +22.46 Units
I'm looking at a couple of common sense changes. I still like the basic system...I don't want to change it anymore than what we have to...and I don't want to complicate it too much.
I'm thinking of August rules...to be implemented on August 1.
It seems sensible to filter out teams with nothing to play for. A combination of being under .500 and more than 8 games behind?
Something like that. It needs to be simple...filters are never perfect. Rather than a hard rule I could just make it my judgment call by eyeballing the standings using the above guidelines.
Also, I'm looking at eliminating playing any ML dog as a permanent change, not just for August rules. I don't want them...we want large faves at home on the Run Line...thats what I filter for...thats what we should play...and thats what gives us the most leverage. If we are going to go down...lets go down swinging at large Run lines when possible.
If a ML dog comes up, we can play the next game instead for that series, or cancel the rest of the series. Nothing wrong with the occasional 1 game set without a progression, if both games get canceled.
I think the above rules are fairly simple and straight forward...and are a good attempt at tightening this thing up just a little more with what we have observed so far.
Thoughts? Am I missing something?
We have lost some units lately...but overall it's still pretty good for slightly less than 2 months. I'd like to see a few more winners again though.
Overall series 39-9 +22.46 Units
I'm looking at a couple of common sense changes. I still like the basic system...I don't want to change it anymore than what we have to...and I don't want to complicate it too much.
I'm thinking of August rules...to be implemented on August 1.
It seems sensible to filter out teams with nothing to play for. A combination of being under .500 and more than 8 games behind?
Something like that. It needs to be simple...filters are never perfect. Rather than a hard rule I could just make it my judgment call by eyeballing the standings using the above guidelines.
Also, I'm looking at eliminating playing any ML dog as a permanent change, not just for August rules. I don't want them...we want large faves at home on the Run Line...thats what I filter for...thats what we should play...and thats what gives us the most leverage. If we are going to go down...lets go down swinging at large Run lines when possible.
If a ML dog comes up, we can play the next game instead for that series, or cancel the rest of the series. Nothing wrong with the occasional 1 game set without a progression, if both games get canceled.
I think the above rules are fairly simple and straight forward...and are a good attempt at tightening this thing up just a little more with what we have observed so far.
Thoughts? Am I missing something?
One of the problems with that, is not every book offers them.
That is a pretty big negative.
I'm not qualified to state what types of bets various books offer. I know my book does and the atlRl is usually like -1.5 +220. I was surprised because I always expected a much larger come-back.
That was just a thought that poped into my head, you know better than me on how to adjust your systems to get the most from them, I've watch you do it many times. :toast:
i think we'll be good eliminating the dogs from the system, playing only favs on the rl. the most losses on the chases were from this kind of teams, dogs at home that lost, if i remember correctly.
about tightening it up, maybe its better to look at the matchup and decide per set, instead of a 'hard' filter? right from the get-go you can see if a team is battling for something, although the 2 stats you mentioned def. should be used.
about tightening it up, maybe its better to look at the matchup and decide per set, instead of a 'hard' filter? right from the get-go you can see if a team is battling for something, although the 2 stats you mentioned def. should be used.
That would be a pretty big change for this system.
It might be fun for somebody to pick up that ball and run with it. !~~~!
Do you have a list of all the games that qualified for this system? I know I can get them if I go back thru all of this. Just much easier if an excel file exists already. Thought it would be interesting to filter them myself.
If you need someone to do number crunching pretty good at that and have a pretty good data base.
If you need someone to do number crunching pretty good at that and have a pretty good data base.
since i brought it up i felt obligated to look into it. national league teams that lose the first 2 games of a 4 game series are 20-4 this season (meaning there have been just 4 4 game sweeps in the NL). i excluded series that were shortened to 3 games due to postponements. the AL was more of a 50/50 proposition so i stopped scrolling through the espn game by game schedule to avoid a headache.
by 20-4 i mean they went on to win at least one of the two remaining games in the series 20 out of 24 times. wanted to make sure i cleared that up.
by 20-4 i mean they went on to win at least one of the two remaining games in the series 20 out of 24 times. wanted to make sure i cleared that up.
No it isn't a play...Texas looks good but Minnesota set off a filter that disqualifies it.
It "could" be a statistical fluke...and may very well be a good match up to play...but sticking to the system it's not a play.
I have to draw the line somewhere or we are back to square one... handicapping every set.
I don't want to do that.
