SSI's Totals for wednesday

[SSI]

overall record: 117-96-5 (+14.69 units) (+54.93%)

considering the way my formula is set up, i am still pleased, playing with reduced juice and maintaining a 55% win percentage on all the games is still highly profitable over the long haul...

monthly record breaks down as follows:

mar 1-10: 44-24
mar 11-13: 5-19
mar 14-23: 47-29
mar 24-29: 21-24

this is the first month to play with real money, using this formula.. i will keep plugging the plays in and see what we look like in 2 more days...

Plays for wed:

219. chi/char over 189 (-1.03)

220. tor/orl under 208.5 (-1.07)

221. atl/wash under 201.5 (+1.00)

222. dal/bos under 208 (-1.08)

223. sac/det under 192.5 (-1.09)

224. lac/nj over 184 (-1.04)

225. gst/mil under 202.5 (-1.05)

226. sea/sa over 184 (-1.05)

227. den/utah under 195.5 (-1.01)

228. phil/phx under 224.5 (-1.06)

229. hou/port under 188 (-1.07)

all plays at pinny for $100... flat betting with reduced juice is an integral part to what im attempting to do... would really not recommend that anyone try to follow, unless playing all the plays.. i do not rate games.. huge card tonight, my best to all...

 

[Baker]

SSI-<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

<o></o>

I have been watching your thread since you started. As far as I can tell you are the only one on here that uses the same methodology as I do, although obviously we use different formulas. I also use a bankroll management formula designed to maximize profits while mitigating risk when betting on a large number of simultaneous plays with a high expected winning percentage.<o></o>

<o></o>

We are on the same side on everything tonight except for Atl/Was, Gs/Mil, and Den/Uta.<o></o>

<o></o>

Good luck to you.<o></o>

<o></o>

Baker

 

[Ramble_On]

7 out of 10 of my plays are unders..... 8 out of your 11 are unders as well..... looks like we're on the same page....

My biggest play is the Warriors/Bucks Under 202.5, which is see you agree on!

BOL.

 

[ronaldn]

SSI-<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

<o></o>

I have been watching your thread since you started. As far as I can tell you are the only one on here that uses the same methodology as I do, although obviously we use different formulas. I also use a bankroll management formula designed to maximize profits while mitigating risk when betting on a large number of simultaneous plays with a high expected winning percentage.<o></o>

<o></o>

Baker

Baker, would you be willing to explain how your bankroll management formula works? I'm always looking for any edge I can get and betting systems intrigue me. Thx.

 

[heart222]

Hi. Noticed a slight slippage in percentage the last week. woul think that with some teams starting to send it in that its time to possibly fold it up till the playoffs or just use games where the teams both have some sort of reason for playing.

if one remembers ace-ace the money is in the early part of the season. a couple of guys i follow tend to be around 60% early and then slide back toward 55-57 so i think its a combo of tighter lines and lack of interest by some teams. you might look at the recent losses and see what was the percentage for the teams that had nothing to play for. keep up the good work ssi bob

 

[Baker]

ronaldn-

Email General and ask him to forward your email to me. We can discuss via email.

Baker

 

[Baker]

Heart-


I don't agree with your "late in the season" theory. Your observation my be correct but your cause (I believe) is not valid. I think the decline can be attributed to the law of large numbers where the probability of the number of successes converging to the expected number of successes increases as the number of trials increase. SSI could be experiencing his results converging on what should be his expected winning percentage (55% ??) as his number of trials increases.

I am actually experiencing the exact opposite as SSI. I make picks in the same manner that SSI does and I have seen a 1.5% increase (258 trials) in my overall winning percentage in the last 14 days. I think I started out underperforming my expected winning % and SSI may have started out overperferming his expected winning %.

Baker

 

[heart222]

i understand the rule of large numbers thats especially true with the casinos and whale players in games like blackjack and baccarrat. but my thought is how do you factor in playerrs desire. beginning of the season players are all trying later on some have to play to win and others have to play just look at some of the nfl scores in the last weeks when nobody wants to kill themselves on defense. i guess my point is you have some system that determines the normal scores between two teams and for discussion purposes one of the catagorys that you use to detrmine points is offensive rebounds now if a team is sending it in they will probably be lower in this area than during the earlier part of the season. possibly the unders are a better play in the last month of the season across the board due to lack of player effort?

has anybody looked atthe undersvs overs say month of march each year just curious. regards heart222

 

[ronaldn]

ronaldn-

Email General and ask him to forward your email to me. We can discuss via email.

Baker

I have done so. Hope you will receive it soon.

 

[SSI]

nice discussion guys, lets remember that i did not start this until march and for some teams (the season was over when i started)... i think Baker is on to something about -- the % moving to the expected win % over a large number of plays, i have only 213 results in (not counting pushes), i do not think this is a large enough set of plays to determine much at all... i have made $1469 in real money, so i am pleased with the early numbers,, as long as im profitable there is absolutely no need for me to change things or to quit... time and a larger number of plays will show all....... i do plan on doing this with MLB but not until may, there should be around 2200 plays for the mlb season -- that i will be using.. we should have a lot of data after that... good luck tonight guys..

 

[ronaldn]

i understand the rule of large numbers thats especially true with the casinos and whale players in games like blackjack and baccarrat. but my thought is how do you factor in playerrs desire. beginning of the season players are all trying later on some have to play to win and others have to play just look at some of the nfl scores in the last weeks when nobody wants to kill themselves on defense. i guess my point is you have some system that determines the normal scores between two teams and for discussion purposes one of the catagorys that you use to detrmine points is offensive rebounds now if a team is sending it in they will probably be lower in this area than during the earlier part of the season. possibly the unders are a better play in the last month of the season across the board due to lack of player effort?

has anybody looked atthe undersvs overs say month of march each year just curious. regards heart222

For this year:
Feb 95 over 78 under
March 98 over 115 under (as you theorized)
For Feb and March 193 - 193
hope this helps.

 

[coconutman]

It's funny how its 193-193 its like those linemakers know the damn future. Im telling you someone knows what gonna happen in the future. There is a greater plan for all of this. A lot of things can't be explained and you can't just live your life with your eyes closed. Im not here to preach just voicing my opinion about all of this. You guys might say its notmal and all but damn.

 

[Baker]

The amount of over/unders isn't really representative of the players effort, it is representative if the total score in relation to a line that is meant to even action and not predict score. The number that a case could be made for in regards to effort is the average total score. But then again although most people would probably say a lower average total would indicate a lack of effort, contrarians would contend that lack of effort shows more on defense causing higher scores. If you believe that lack of effort means less defense than the lower average score would mean that the players are playing at a higher level than when the totals are hitting the historical average of ~193.5. My point is that neither more unders nor a lower total average score can be said to definatively predict the players level of effort.

 

[Baker]

6-5

Good job tonight SSI.

 

[TheMDKid]

The amount of over/unders isn't really representative of the players effort, it is representative if the total score in relation to a line that is meant to even action and not predict score. The number that a case could be made for in regards to effort is the average total score. But then again although most people would probably say a lower average total would indicate a lack of effort, contrarians would contend that lack of effort shows more on defense causing higher scores. If you believe that lack of effort means less defense than the lower average score would mean that the players are playing at a higher level than when the totals are hitting the historical average of ~193.5. My point is that neither more unders nor a lower total average score can be said to definatively predict the players level of effort.

Baker,
You're exactly right about lack of effort causing HIGHER scores, not LOWER. All one needs to do is look at the average score in playoff games vs regular season, and it is obvious. I don't agree with you, though, when you say that "the amount of over/unders isn't really representative of the players effort." Games between 2 teams eliminated from the playoffs and from opposite conferences historically go over a very large percentage of the time, especially as the end of the season draws nearer and nearer. It happens every season.