THE MIGHTY RIGGS said:WEDNESDAY 2/ 23/ 05
MIAMI / INDIANA OV-186.5
CHICAGO / CLEVELAND OV-196
MEMPHIS / WASH. OV-198
SEATTLE / NEW ORL. UN-193
NEW JERSEY / MILW. UN-194.5
BOSTON / DENVER UN-201
HOUSTON / SAN ANTONIO OV-179.5
CLIPPERS / PHOENIX UN-215
LAKERS / PORTLAND UN-193.5
ATLANTA / WARRIORS UN-200
SEEING IS BELIEVING!
Unless my eyes deceive me that is 10 plays buddy, you didn't post the other game.
riggs,
it looks like there's a little confusion out there over what you mean by "positive" and "negative". I, like atlantic10 in the post above, inferred from your earlier post that you should be playing last night's games as "negative" games.
Take, for example, Hou/SA last night. Their average (based on statfox stats) should be 194.1. The line was 179.5. If you were "negative", that is, fighting the trend,would you not take the under?
Instead, your post clearly indicated that you took the over. So, which way is it? Makes more sense to me to say that the trend is positive if the average is over and the over ends up the winning bet.
There's no question that you were 7-4 last night. But are you calling that positive (with the trend) or negative (against the trend)? Just need to know so that the wires aren't crossed!
Tonight, it appears that there are three very clearly cut games, all with differences of more than 7 points. Betting the same way you did last night, would that mean that you take the following tonight?
Avg. Teams Bodog Line OU
194 Minn/LAC 184 over
193.9 Phi/NYK 200 under
203.7 Sac/Dal 213 under
This looks interesting. Thanks for clarifying things if you can.
Also, what day does this mean we are currently in?
Thanks in advance,
Kwo
it looks like there's a little confusion out there over what you mean by "positive" and "negative". I, like atlantic10 in the post above, inferred from your earlier post that you should be playing last night's games as "negative" games.
Take, for example, Hou/SA last night. Their average (based on statfox stats) should be 194.1. The line was 179.5. If you were "negative", that is, fighting the trend,would you not take the under?
Instead, your post clearly indicated that you took the over. So, which way is it? Makes more sense to me to say that the trend is positive if the average is over and the over ends up the winning bet.
There's no question that you were 7-4 last night. But are you calling that positive (with the trend) or negative (against the trend)? Just need to know so that the wires aren't crossed!
Tonight, it appears that there are three very clearly cut games, all with differences of more than 7 points. Betting the same way you did last night, would that mean that you take the following tonight?
Avg. Teams Bodog Line OU
194 Minn/LAC 184 over
193.9 Phi/NYK 200 under
203.7 Sac/Dal 213 under
This looks interesting. Thanks for clarifying things if you can.
Also, what day does this mean we are currently in?
Thanks in advance,
Kwo
(Riggs / anyone else, please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it)
Kwo, I think "positive" just means what to do with the movement away from the "true" line.
If positive, and the line is lower than the true line, then go with the UNDER. (go with)
If positive, and the line is higher than the true line, go with the OVER.
If negative, and the line is lower than the true line, then go with the OVER. (go against)
If negative, and the line is higher than the true line, go with the UNDER.
For today, I think we are in the second negative day so, your picks are correct as above
Avg. Teams Bodog Line OU
194 Minn/LAC 184 over (line is set BELOW the avg, and since we are going against the line move, it's OVER)
193.9 Phi/NYK 200 under
203.7 Sac/Dal 213 under
Kwo, I think "positive" just means what to do with the movement away from the "true" line.
If positive, and the line is lower than the true line, then go with the UNDER. (go with)
If positive, and the line is higher than the true line, go with the OVER.
If negative, and the line is lower than the true line, then go with the OVER. (go against)
If negative, and the line is higher than the true line, go with the UNDER.
For today, I think we are in the second negative day so, your picks are correct as above
Avg. Teams Bodog Line OU
194 Minn/LAC 184 over (line is set BELOW the avg, and since we are going against the line move, it's OVER)
193.9 Phi/NYK 200 under
203.7 Sac/Dal 213 under
Riggs, seems like you have a very interesting and profitable system here. I thank you for sharing it with us. Could you explain the THEORY behind the system. ie what makes it work. Why do the books have positive and negative rotations? Why dont they just set the lines where they should be? I understand your system but dont understand why it works. Why the books would do this in the first place? Is it your belief that they know ahead of time whether it will go over or under and are trying to throw everyone off. Hope you dont mind the question. I'm just trying to make some sense of all this. Thanks again for posting. Looks like you have a great system going.
Ron
Ron
KWO -
Let's see if I can steer you in the right direction here. First off, let's start off from the beginning because I have no Idea what you actually know of my formula okay?
Let's keep it relevant and start with tonights games. The sixers avg. 96 on the road and the Knicks avg. 98 at home, so together they avg. 194, with me? Stardust casino opened the total at 201. If this was a possitive week you would follow the line. In other words, the 201(line) is greater than the avg. of the two so you would take the over but, we are instead in a NEGATIVE week, so we would NOT follow the line, we would instead do the opposite. Conclution? Take the under 201. See how this works?
Let's do another, The Kings avg. 100 on the road and the Mav's avg. 104 at home for a combine avg. of 204 right? The Stardust opened at 212. Since we are currently in a NEGATIVE week we would take the under in this game. Why? Because we go the OPPOSITE of the line when we are in a negative week. In a POSSITIVE week we would FOLLOW the line, understand?
As to you're other question, what day of the week are we in? That's a good question. The answer is, we shall see. Theoretically we are in the second day of the NEGATIVE week but, is Vegas trying to trick me? You see, before the all-star break, we were only on the third day of a POSSITIVE week. In other words, Vegas changes or turns the cycle( poss/neg) every 5 days. So what happened to our other 2 days of possitive? See where I'm going with this? They did a quick turn on us out of the break but, I was ready, when I saw the totals for tuesday the 22nd, I knew the turn was coming. What do you mean you say.....When it's time for a cycle change, you will see the it in your capping. The stats almost never fail you on that 6th day cycle change.
Bottom line is, we are in unfamiliar terratory here. Heres why.....The last day B-4 the break was Thursday the 17th. Vegas could be counting the missing days(Layoff) as if normal. EXAMPLE: Before the break, we were in the midts of the 3rd day of a possitive week right? Well they might have counted the 18th and 19th as the rest of that poo. cycle. Meaning, today would be the last day of the negative cycle. Let me review, if in fact that is the case, the negative cycle began on Sunday the 20th thru the 24th(5 days today).
The alternative? Very simple. We then would be in the 3rd day(today) of a negative week. Let me give you a calender with dates and results of the past 3 weeks or so. It will make easier fo backtesting and future understanding of cycle turns.
NEGATIVE CYCLE (23-11-0 67.6%)
MONDAY 1/31/05 3-3-0 50.0%
TUESDAY 2/01/05 3-6-0 33.3%
WEDSDAY 2/02/05 6-1-0 85.7%
THURSDAY2/03/05 3-0-0 100%
FRIDAY 2/04/05 8-1-0 88.9% (Last 3: 17-2-0 89.5%)
TURNED POSSITIVE (31-7-0 81.6%)
SATURDAY 2/05/05 9-1-0 90.0%
SUNDAY 2/06/05 4-0-0 100% (Last 5: 30-3-0 90.9%)
MONDAY 2/07/05 4-1-0 80.0%
TUESDAY 2/08/05 7-2-0 77.8%
WEDSDAY 2/09/05 7-3-0 70.0% (Last 3: 18-6-0 75.0%
TURNED NEGATIVE (20-12-0 62.5%)
THURSDAY 2/10/05 2-1-0 66.7%
FRIDAY 2/11/05 6-5-0 54.5%
SATURDAY 2/12/05 2-1-0 66.7%
SUNDAY 2/13/05 8-2-0 80.0%
MONDAY 2/14/05 2-3-0 40.0% (Last 3: 12-7-0 63.2%)
TURNED POSSITIVE (13-7-0 65.0%)
TUESDAY 2/15/05 5-2-0 65.0%
WEDSDAY 2/16/05 6-5-0 54.5%
THURSDAY 2/17/05 2-0-0 100% (Last 5: 23-12-0 62.2%)
ALL-STAR WEEK
TURNED NEGATIVE ( 12-7-0 63.2% SO FAR....)
TUESDAY 2/22/05 5-3-0 62.5%
WEDSDAY 2/23/05 7-4-0 63.6%
Now in just that 20 day span, it was 99-44-0 for 69.2%!!!!! And only two (2) losing nights! Also notice, not even one (1) push! I dare anyone to challenge my formula. For all those A-HOLES, I just shared my best kept secret with all of you, so stop with the "Tout" bullsh*t! Now all of you can kill you're books! This should also put to rest the few MORONS saying and accusing me of being a farce.
THE MIGHTY RIGGS!
Let's see if I can steer you in the right direction here. First off, let's start off from the beginning because I have no Idea what you actually know of my formula okay?
Let's keep it relevant and start with tonights games. The sixers avg. 96 on the road and the Knicks avg. 98 at home, so together they avg. 194, with me? Stardust casino opened the total at 201. If this was a possitive week you would follow the line. In other words, the 201(line) is greater than the avg. of the two so you would take the over but, we are instead in a NEGATIVE week, so we would NOT follow the line, we would instead do the opposite. Conclution? Take the under 201. See how this works?
Let's do another, The Kings avg. 100 on the road and the Mav's avg. 104 at home for a combine avg. of 204 right? The Stardust opened at 212. Since we are currently in a NEGATIVE week we would take the under in this game. Why? Because we go the OPPOSITE of the line when we are in a negative week. In a POSSITIVE week we would FOLLOW the line, understand?
As to you're other question, what day of the week are we in? That's a good question. The answer is, we shall see. Theoretically we are in the second day of the NEGATIVE week but, is Vegas trying to trick me? You see, before the all-star break, we were only on the third day of a POSSITIVE week. In other words, Vegas changes or turns the cycle( poss/neg) every 5 days. So what happened to our other 2 days of possitive? See where I'm going with this? They did a quick turn on us out of the break but, I was ready, when I saw the totals for tuesday the 22nd, I knew the turn was coming. What do you mean you say.....When it's time for a cycle change, you will see the it in your capping. The stats almost never fail you on that 6th day cycle change.
Bottom line is, we are in unfamiliar terratory here. Heres why.....The last day B-4 the break was Thursday the 17th. Vegas could be counting the missing days(Layoff) as if normal. EXAMPLE: Before the break, we were in the midts of the 3rd day of a possitive week right? Well they might have counted the 18th and 19th as the rest of that poo. cycle. Meaning, today would be the last day of the negative cycle. Let me review, if in fact that is the case, the negative cycle began on Sunday the 20th thru the 24th(5 days today).
The alternative? Very simple. We then would be in the 3rd day(today) of a negative week. Let me give you a calender with dates and results of the past 3 weeks or so. It will make easier fo backtesting and future understanding of cycle turns.
NEGATIVE CYCLE (23-11-0 67.6%)
MONDAY 1/31/05 3-3-0 50.0%
TUESDAY 2/01/05 3-6-0 33.3%
WEDSDAY 2/02/05 6-1-0 85.7%
THURSDAY2/03/05 3-0-0 100%
FRIDAY 2/04/05 8-1-0 88.9% (Last 3: 17-2-0 89.5%)
TURNED POSSITIVE (31-7-0 81.6%)
SATURDAY 2/05/05 9-1-0 90.0%
SUNDAY 2/06/05 4-0-0 100% (Last 5: 30-3-0 90.9%)
MONDAY 2/07/05 4-1-0 80.0%
TUESDAY 2/08/05 7-2-0 77.8%
WEDSDAY 2/09/05 7-3-0 70.0% (Last 3: 18-6-0 75.0%
TURNED NEGATIVE (20-12-0 62.5%)
THURSDAY 2/10/05 2-1-0 66.7%
FRIDAY 2/11/05 6-5-0 54.5%
SATURDAY 2/12/05 2-1-0 66.7%
SUNDAY 2/13/05 8-2-0 80.0%
MONDAY 2/14/05 2-3-0 40.0% (Last 3: 12-7-0 63.2%)
TURNED POSSITIVE (13-7-0 65.0%)
TUESDAY 2/15/05 5-2-0 65.0%
WEDSDAY 2/16/05 6-5-0 54.5%
THURSDAY 2/17/05 2-0-0 100% (Last 5: 23-12-0 62.2%)
ALL-STAR WEEK
TURNED NEGATIVE ( 12-7-0 63.2% SO FAR....)
TUESDAY 2/22/05 5-3-0 62.5%
WEDSDAY 2/23/05 7-4-0 63.6%
Now in just that 20 day span, it was 99-44-0 for 69.2%!!!!! And only two (2) losing nights! Also notice, not even one (1) push! I dare anyone to challenge my formula. For all those A-HOLES, I just shared my best kept secret with all of you, so stop with the "Tout" bullsh*t! Now all of you can kill you're books! This should also put to rest the few MORONS saying and accusing me of being a farce.
THE MIGHTY RIGGS!
RONALDN -
It's quite elementary, They (Vegas wise guys) spend so much time on the sides, they need something that can keep the guys like you and I off tlit on the totals end. They need a system to count on, and it works for them. When was the last time you saw or heard of anything like this. Flip it around and do the numbers for the book. That's 30% when I'm wrong or on the other side of the trend. Remember, I'm not the only math major on the block. These Vegas guys have the best! So imagine all the trends in the NBA. Look how we count on them for our capping needs. The NBA is nothing more than one big trend! Otherwise, how would this workout 70% of the time. We can just count on NBA athletes for one thing and one thing only, and That's repetitveness and reduntancy! They are just one big cycle that ALWAYS repeat's themselves again and again. That is why I went on my quest. In the math world we are always looking for patterns. Vegas is no different
RIGGS.
It's quite elementary, They (Vegas wise guys) spend so much time on the sides, they need something that can keep the guys like you and I off tlit on the totals end. They need a system to count on, and it works for them. When was the last time you saw or heard of anything like this. Flip it around and do the numbers for the book. That's 30% when I'm wrong or on the other side of the trend. Remember, I'm not the only math major on the block. These Vegas guys have the best! So imagine all the trends in the NBA. Look how we count on them for our capping needs. The NBA is nothing more than one big trend! Otherwise, how would this workout 70% of the time. We can just count on NBA athletes for one thing and one thing only, and That's repetitveness and reduntancy! They are just one big cycle that ALWAYS repeat's themselves again and again. That is why I went on my quest. In the math world we are always looking for patterns. Vegas is no different
RIGGS.
Riggs, I just figured out the Standard Deviation on your results. It came to 4.6. If I remember correctly from my statistics course from years ago (I dont have the table handy) that would mean that those results could be achieved by accident only once in thousands or hundreds of thousands times. In other words, it is extremely unlikely that those results could be achieved through a statistical abnormality. That is very, very VERY impressive. Thanks for sharing.
Ron
Ron
Last edited:
