2nd Half MLB TonyTotals picks

[ChugsMcGee]

Just use the K.I.S.S. model, please. You listed your plays, then listed the faded, then listed the plays again, now your going to list faded again. I think I like what you got, but just stick with one, because when you keep changing I'm not sure what you got.

I know you'd much rather represent your software as 17-3 than 3-17, but both have value. Stick with one direction...at least for a week. Good luck.

 

[TonyTotals]

I can see how someone could get lost. When we started I was reading a certain type of logic into the numbers and percentages I am seeing, I am selecting the team that represents the positive outcome from that logic. What I saw or what we saw was that these numbers and percentages actually pointed to the opposite logic with the opposite team winning to a clip now of 17 - 3. So now I know I am going to fade the picks/switch logic but do I write down the team I am fading or do I write down the team that the money is going on? Originally I thought it would be easier to write down the teams that the money is going on and telling people you are fading/switching logic but that seemed to be where people got lost so then I went back to posting plays of old logic and letting and letting people know I am fading.

What is easiest for everyone? Do you want me to post the teams that were formed using the original logic which is 3 - 17 now or do you want me to post who my money is going on?

 

[ChugsMcGee]

I would start by simply listing the teams using the original logic. Then have your paragraph about based on recent results you are/we should fade (or play, depending how things proceed) the plays above and play teams x, y and z.

Whatever you do today, just continue to do the same thing for consistency. In a week or two results may change, but in theory, your software will be producing teams based on like criteria. So listing directly what your software produces, I think, is the most important thing, then you can go into detail with interpretation following that, if need be.

 

[TonyTotals]

Ok, I will list picks from original logic then list the games I am wagering on so you can see if I am betting on the old logic or against it. I think everyone can see as of now it would be stupid to not bet against the old logic at this point. The system highlighted 20 teams that were riding away from the theoretical probabilities of various money line ranges. 17 of that 20 continued riding away from the theoretical and only three moved closer to it. Obviously the highlighted games have to be looked at as teams that will continue momentum in the same direction it has been going, not as a team correcting back to the theoretical. Which it will do mind you eventually. A team that has won 70% of its games as a H/F -120 or less will eventually settle at 55% or so in that range.

Not to mention this is the first time working with these tools in money line games which are not 50:50 probabilities like spread sports. A team that is -150 will win 60% of the time in theory so if they are winning 67% of the time in that range then they are close to the theoretical.

Im learning as we go like everyone else, and your right as long as the system performs on an outlier situation whether it be 3 - 17 or 17 - 3 it can be exploited to make money which is the end result for all of us.

And the public tracker can use as many voices as we can get.

 

[Bourn]

I'd like to see the plays that went 1-11. Any system that produces 90% losers is a great system. Then of course we fade them.

So after it went 1-11. What happened the next day on the plays the system produced?

 

[ChugsMcGee]

I'd like to see the plays that went 1-11. Any system that produces 90% losers is a great system. Then of course we fade them.

So after it went 1-11. What happened the next day on the plays the system produced?

Post 18...and that's where the initial confusion started, but he attempted to clarify in post 20ish. 3-2, I think?

 

[TonyTotals]

The logic I was reading into the numbers started 1 - 10, the plays are all in this thread. The next night the logic went 3 - 2, I went 2 - 3 cause I faded. The night after that the old logic went 0 - 4. I went 4 - 0 cause I faded. So the overall record of the original logic is 4 - 16 (20%). Tonight I will fade the old logic again. In fact the old logic said to bet against CLV today, so I would have been on them but I didn't realize they were a day game. Lots of day games today. Of course CLV is up 11 - 0.

 

[TonyTotals]

Ok. To clear things up. I started on Friday and had an original thought on how the logic to the numbers would work. I bet on that logic on these days:


Friday: 0 - 4 (-5 units)
Saturday: 0 - 3 (-3.85 units
Sunday: 1 - 3 (-2.85 units)


Starting on Monday, I started fading/switching the logic I read in the numbers because of the 1 - 10 outcome Ive seen so far. Youd have to really hate money to continue to lay money down on a logic that has shown to be 9% winner in 11 plays.


Last two days of fading/switching logic


Monday: 2 - 3 (-1.3) /fading old
Tuesday: 4 - 0 (+4.4)/fading old


That's a total of 7 - 13 for -8.6 units and -$430. That's my betting results. The Old Logic itself is 4 - 16 in 20 plays now Tonight I am still on the new logic/fading the old until it turns.


For tonight, the original logic tells me to bet against MIA -135, bet on PIT -155, and Bet against LAA -135 so I will be on:


MIA -135
MIL +145
LAA -135


Hopefully this clears things up.

 

[ChugsMcGee]

Gl TT

 

[TonyTotals]

Thx. I feel like this is an episode of Monty Python.

 

[TonyTotals]

I'll take the 2 - 1. My original hypothesis with the numbers is now 5 - 18 (21.7%). Since I've been looking at the percentages differently I am 8 - 3. Be nice if this stays the course for the next two months.

 

[TonyTotals]

9 - 14 (8 - 4 since going with the trend I am seeing) now on the season betting/fading the numbers and percentages. -7.5 units. -$375. Picking teams to continue on their slide away from the theoretical mean the system is now 18 - 5. Tonight, my old logic would tell me that MIA, CHW, MIL, and OAK are supposed to correct back to the mean but we know from following this that these teams are most likely to keep sliding away at a rate of 78.2%. So, I will be on:


PIT -170
PHI -118
DET +115
TB +105

 

[TonyTotals]

I'll take the 3 - 1, something I've noticed is that the teams in the same situation as the Marlins have been losing. I think that situation now the software is picking the correction correctly. That was the third game in a row that corrected as predicted just in that specific situation. The other situations the numbers still seem to be saying that the slide away from the mean will continue.


Teams the software has highlighted have continued on their slide away from the mean at a record of 21 - 6 now in 7 days. That's how I'll be looking at it again tonight unless that one situation pops up.

 

[TonyTotals]

The software looks at games in two ways. Either as games that will continue riding toward an outlier probability or a game that is correcting toward the theoretical probability. One way is 21 - 6 the other is 6 - 21. Obviously I am looking at the games from the 21 - 6 perspective:

SF -108
ARI +107
TOR -160
TB -110

 

[TonyTotals]

For today this is who I am taking. I will figure out the totals and units won/lost when I get back from vacation.


BAL -140
TEX -120
SEA +110

 

[ChugsMcGee]

For today this is who I am taking. I will figure out the totals and units won/lost when I get back from vacation.


BAL -140
TEX -120
SEA +110

Very nice...but you know Seattle was a 1pm est game yesterday...

 

[TonyTotals]

I think it was a 4pm eastern start, but nonetheless I didn't realize when posting. I was not home and doing everything by my phone.

Here we go for today:


ARI +107
NYM -130
CLV -135
TEX +105
LAD -145

 

[sunshine11]

It was 10:05 AM PT

So are you playing these? Or fading them. Always confusing.

 

[TonyTotals]

The plays I list are the sides I am playing.

 

[sunshine11]

Ok nice winners so far.