Here is the problem with this system. If you can hit the (A) bets, then you can make some money although you will wager a low amount on these plays. When you lose the (A) bet and make it to the (B) you now have to make sure you have enough money in your account to overcome the (A) loss and the (B) wager..If you lose that one, then its on to the (C) bet which now you need to make sur eyou have almost triple of what you had initially in your account. Just hard to sustain if you are also wagering on your own.
I was "lured" into buying JM's NBA and MLB system mid September of 2008. Only had 5 MLB games before the season was declaired over by JM. Of the 5 games, all 5 won. The NBA would have made money IF you stuck with it. But as was stated in an earlier post above, just pick ANY team, regardless of their record, and keep betting them until the law of probability catches up. Then you can say you have a great system
JM's latest venture for MLB this year, v2.0 adds a few new wickets but is essentially the same chase. He boasts of being 4-0 so far this season, what is NOT told is that 2 of the games went to C bets. His new wrinkle has you buying the run line (+1.5) if your team is the dog. In the games mentioned above, in both cases they were. The first, the Rangers reduced the payoff to -180. The second reduced the odds to -230. Now it does not take a statistician to figure out that when trippling up on the C bet and getting nothing, you do not win. His team and W/L stats might indicate this, but the customer ends up (thus far) losing. JM needs to track and post a Units wagered, Units won column. W/L stats mean nothing in sports betting. Its how much money a system brings in to the customer that tells its worth. Just one mans opinion.
Peace and BOL on all your bets.
JM's latest venture for MLB this year, v2.0 adds a few new wickets but is essentially the same chase. He boasts of being 4-0 so far this season, what is NOT told is that 2 of the games went to C bets. His new wrinkle has you buying the run line (+1.5) if your team is the dog. In the games mentioned above, in both cases they were. The first, the Rangers reduced the payoff to -180. The second reduced the odds to -230. Now it does not take a statistician to figure out that when trippling up on the C bet and getting nothing, you do not win. His team and W/L stats might indicate this, but the customer ends up (thus far) losing. JM needs to track and post a Units wagered, Units won column. W/L stats mean nothing in sports betting. Its how much money a system brings in to the customer that tells its worth. Just one mans opinion.
Peace and BOL on all your bets.
He definitely lies about his record. He doesn't count losses if he can find some type of system after the season that would have eliminated the losses. So as a man, I do NOT respect him.
However, I will continue to use his systems because if you follow them properly and play every series you will make considerable profit. His NBA last season was incredible. Not to put my money out there but for those who really are considering the system; I was able to make over $10,000 last year from his NBA system alone. Still not completely sold on the MLB though.
However, I will continue to use his systems because if you follow them properly and play every series you will make considerable profit. His NBA last season was incredible. Not to put my money out there but for those who really are considering the system; I was able to make over $10,000 last year from his NBA system alone. Still not completely sold on the MLB though.
Sort-of like Martingale
The system is dangerous simply because it often involves risking disproportionate amounts in relation to what you're trying to win while you attempt in those cases to recoup your losses and also collect the original to-win amount. In this way, it is like a Martingale system.
Now, with RPI, I don't see how Morrison could have even known the RPI for each team at the time each series was actually played, because it appears that old RPI info only represents teams as they stood after the final day of each respective regular season (but Morrison re-made the win-loss records, going five years back, only late last summer after the baseball had been losing money).
In basketball, buying points makes things more expensive than in a traditional Martingale system. And the points aren't even normally needed. But how do you know when they will or won't be?
The safest way to play his system is if you can make sure that a lost C Bet won't devastate your bankroll. Basically, a lost series will cost you roughly eighteen times, more or less, what you're initially trying to win on Bet A. Therefore, it's probably best to just stick with a to-win amount of around one percent for bet A. You may get by with risking much more for a long time, and this can profit you well, but one loss could then possibly destroy you. It's a matter of how high you want to raise the stakes. The systems have lately performed well, but new losses are always within the realm of possibilities.
By the way, does anyone know what it is behind Morrison's claim that the new v2 MLB system has an ingenious catch that will allow a person to determine when one team will totally annihilate another before the game even starts? It can't be just that he's taking the run line when he bets the underdogs, because the old system already does that.
Also, in his marketing e-mails, he has called the old system "flawed and outdated." Since I haven't been lucky enough to profit with him yet, I'm not anxious to give him the extra money right now in order to find out what's going on with these claims about the old and new v2 MLB systems. Does anyone know?
The system is dangerous simply because it often involves risking disproportionate amounts in relation to what you're trying to win while you attempt in those cases to recoup your losses and also collect the original to-win amount. In this way, it is like a Martingale system.
Now, with RPI, I don't see how Morrison could have even known the RPI for each team at the time each series was actually played, because it appears that old RPI info only represents teams as they stood after the final day of each respective regular season (but Morrison re-made the win-loss records, going five years back, only late last summer after the baseball had been losing money).
In basketball, buying points makes things more expensive than in a traditional Martingale system. And the points aren't even normally needed. But how do you know when they will or won't be?
The safest way to play his system is if you can make sure that a lost C Bet won't devastate your bankroll. Basically, a lost series will cost you roughly eighteen times, more or less, what you're initially trying to win on Bet A. Therefore, it's probably best to just stick with a to-win amount of around one percent for bet A. You may get by with risking much more for a long time, and this can profit you well, but one loss could then possibly destroy you. It's a matter of how high you want to raise the stakes. The systems have lately performed well, but new losses are always within the realm of possibilities.
By the way, does anyone know what it is behind Morrison's claim that the new v2 MLB system has an ingenious catch that will allow a person to determine when one team will totally annihilate another before the game even starts? It can't be just that he's taking the run line when he bets the underdogs, because the old system already does that.
Also, in his marketing e-mails, he has called the old system "flawed and outdated." Since I haven't been lucky enough to profit with him yet, I'm not anxious to give him the extra money right now in order to find out what's going on with these claims about the old and new v2 MLB systems. Does anyone know?
how the hell did you lose money? he didn't lose a baseball series, and his basketball didn't lose a 3 game series either.he has lost only one 3 game baseball series in 5 years. i bought in to his basketball system 28 games in and was very leary. i watched the next 5 series all win. i then started betting his series and won 50 in a row. i know it is hard to double and triple up after each single loss but you have to trust it and it is a proven system. i had a hard time double and tripleing up and that is why i didn't make as much money as i should have if i had believed in it. the other reason i didn't win a lot of money was i was playing all the other loser listed on this site and playing my own picks.
It takes me a while to go back and look at how the systems performed during each of the last several years, but I intend to accomplish this eventually. So far, I've only gotten through last year's baseball.
I counted twelve series losses in '08. I also know that this person or company that calls itself Morrison and Sportsbetting Champ put this terrible baseball system out while advertising it to everyone as a 97% winner. After several of the twelve series losses already occurred (and the subscribers lost big-time) he came up with new rules, seemingly to be able to say that no losses ever occurred. He claimed that the losses wouldn't have happened under the new rules and that they therefore didn't happen.
Even with the new rules, however, I've still found two very questionable situations: The Reds loss to the Dodgers on 6/19/08, and the Rays loss to Boston on 6/5/08. The Red Sox may have been a top 3 RPI team at the time, but I think it's impossible to confirm. And I don't think Morrison or whoever he is can confirm. Three teams, however, had higher winning percentages than the Red Sox when the series began. One of them was the Rays. As for the Dodgers beating the Reds, the Reds had a better record when that series began, and no newly added rule can eliminate that loss unless you want to try and say that the Reds may have been .01 lower after the loss, but not before. Even that wouldn't be possible to confirm. The whole thing is shady, just like Sportsbetting Champ.
If I can find these problems in just the '08 season, I'm sure I'll probably find alot more when I try to apply the new baseball "filters" to additional prior seasons. It'll take me a while to look through those other seasons, however, because I'm fairly busy with other things in my life. Still, I plan to do it and post updates.
In conclusion, I think it's wrong for any person to sign up with Sportsbetting Champ without first checking out the true past records for themselves. Too many people take them at their word. I was one of those people.
I counted twelve series losses in '08. I also know that this person or company that calls itself Morrison and Sportsbetting Champ put this terrible baseball system out while advertising it to everyone as a 97% winner. After several of the twelve series losses already occurred (and the subscribers lost big-time) he came up with new rules, seemingly to be able to say that no losses ever occurred. He claimed that the losses wouldn't have happened under the new rules and that they therefore didn't happen.
Even with the new rules, however, I've still found two very questionable situations: The Reds loss to the Dodgers on 6/19/08, and the Rays loss to Boston on 6/5/08. The Red Sox may have been a top 3 RPI team at the time, but I think it's impossible to confirm. And I don't think Morrison or whoever he is can confirm. Three teams, however, had higher winning percentages than the Red Sox when the series began. One of them was the Rays. As for the Dodgers beating the Reds, the Reds had a better record when that series began, and no newly added rule can eliminate that loss unless you want to try and say that the Reds may have been .01 lower after the loss, but not before. Even that wouldn't be possible to confirm. The whole thing is shady, just like Sportsbetting Champ.
If I can find these problems in just the '08 season, I'm sure I'll probably find alot more when I try to apply the new baseball "filters" to additional prior seasons. It'll take me a while to look through those other seasons, however, because I'm fairly busy with other things in my life. Still, I plan to do it and post updates.
In conclusion, I think it's wrong for any person to sign up with Sportsbetting Champ without first checking out the true past records for themselves. Too many people take them at their word. I was one of those people.
Last edited:
