V2.0 System Update In order to maximize your NBA winnings, we will get a little less strict on the filter for our 3-game series. The v1.0 system calls for one team to be on 3 consecutive road games against 3 teams of the opposite conference in order for a play to be eligible. Now, you may be surprised to know that as long as there are at least 2 teams that are from the opposite conference out of the 3 consecutive road games, then it is enough to make the series to be profitable for play. Here’s an example from the 2008-09 NBA season with the v2.0 system coming into play: On October 31st, the Golden State Warriors started a 3-game series on the road against Toronto, New Jersey, and Memphis, respectively. Toronto and New Jersey are teams from the opposite conference of Golden State; while Memphis is in their same conference. However, since at least two teams out of the three are from the opposite conference, this is enough to make the series eligible for play. You would then make the [A] bet for Golden State on October 31st in their game versus Toronto, and buy 3 points on top of the spread just like you’d normally do. Sure enough, Golden State won on the [A] play. We stop betting on this series at this point. Basically, everything about the v2.0 system remains the same, except for the fact a series is eligible for play as long as at least 2 out of the 3 teams are from the opposite conference, rather than requiring that ALL 3 teams must be from the opposite conference
V2.0 System Update In order to maximize your NBA winnings, we will get a little less strict on the filter for our 3-game series. The v1.0 system calls for one team to be on 3 consecutive road games against 3 teams of the opposite conference in order for a play to be eligible. Now, you may be surprised to know that as long as there are at least 2 teams that are from the opposite conference out of the 3 consecutive road games, then it is enough to make the series to be profitable for play. Here’s an example from the 2008-09 NBA season with the v2.0 system coming into play: On October 31st, the Golden State Warriors started a 3-game series on the road against Toronto, New Jersey, and Memphis, respectively. Toronto and New Jersey are teams from the opposite conference of Golden State; while Memphis is in their same conference. However, since at least two teams out of the three are from the opposite conference, this is enough to make the series eligible for play. You would then make the [A] bet for Golden State on October 31st in their game versus Toronto, and buy 3 points on top of the spread just like you’d normally do. Sure enough, Golden State won on the [A] play. We stop betting on this series at this point. Basically, everything about the v2.0 system remains the same, except for the fact a series is eligible for play as long as at least 2 out of the 3 teams are from the opposite conference, rather than requiring that ALL 3 teams must be from the opposite conference
The one thing we don't know is what the record supposedly was using this new system going back over the last 5 years compared to just using the original system.
The one thing we don't know is what the record supposedly was using this new system going back over the last 5 years compared to just using the original system.
So now it just has to be 2 out of 3 games that are out of conference. I'm sure he has datamined this, so it should check out ok. But again with datamining, the real test is the year coming up.
So now it just has to be 2 out of 3 games that are out of conference. I'm sure he has datamined this, so it should check out ok. But again with datamining, the real test is the year coming up.
So now it just has to be 2 out of 3 games that are out of conference. I'm sure he has datamined this, so it should check out ok. But again with datamining, the real test is the year coming up.
Lipps, what do you mean by datamining? If a backtest (of any trend/system not only JM) shows consistent profit over 3-5 seasons with a couple filters, why would you consider it bad thing? I agree it all comes down how it will do when you are wagering on it, but we cant predict the future. Using histrocial data/stats in our decision making can only improve our chances. I ask because I am personaly doing alot of backtesting myself on other trends/systems. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
So now it just has to be 2 out of 3 games that are out of conference. I'm sure he has datamined this, so it should check out ok. But again with datamining, the real test is the year coming up.
Lipps, what do you mean by datamining? If a backtest (of any trend/system not only JM) shows consistent profit over 3-5 seasons with a couple filters, why would you consider it bad thing? I agree it all comes down how it will do when you are wagering on it, but we cant predict the future. Using histrocial data/stats in our decision making can only improve our chances. I ask because I am personaly doing alot of backtesting myself on other trends/systems. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Because you can make almost any system work if the results are already known. If you can get something 5 years back, that is good. But you will never know how well a backtested system will work untill you get results that have not been datamined. Also 5 years is pie in the sky, you don't hardly ever hear of something backtested that far.
I see systems here all the time that you see do well for the first month or so then like clockwork you see a thread that says tweaked___________fill in the blank.
Things change year to year, rule changes, style of play, how officials are told how to ref the games. That's why datamining is frowned upon so much with long time gamblers.
Because you can make almost any system work if the results are already known. If you can get something 5 years back, that is good. But you will never know how well a backtested system will work untill you get results that have not been datamined. Also 5 years is pie in the sky, you don't hardly ever hear of something backtested that far.
I see systems here all the time that you see do well for the first month or so then like clockwork you see a thread that says tweaked___________fill in the blank.
Things change year to year, rule changes, style of play, how officials are told how to ref the games. That's why datamining is frowned upon so much with long time gamblers.
This is exactly what I was talking about with dataming. Taking good ol' JM or course. He had the original MLB system and in short time he has has it to 3.0.
Something that was killing him was the sweep rematch and one of the teams was just horrible. He was taking a loss in almost every series, so he put the 2.0 filter in. Now he sees that the team that is just horrible ends up getting swept the next series in the rematch. So now another filter has been put in place (3.0) that will take advantage of that.
Now next year there will be another filter and another and another.
That's what I'm talking about with datamining. Why didn't he have all these filters in place to begin with? Well with datamining you get that. You tune your systems with what had already happened. That is great if you can get paid for games that were already played.
Now if you find something that does go back 5 years and you can hit over 60% with, by all means share and see what happens. But start slowly and see how it goes.
This is exactly what I was talking about with dataming. Taking good ol' JM or course. He had the original MLB system and in short time he has has it to 3.0.
Something that was killing him was the sweep rematch and one of the teams was just horrible. He was taking a loss in almost every series, so he put the 2.0 filter in. Now he sees that the team that is just horrible ends up getting swept the next series in the rematch. So now another filter has been put in place (3.0) that will take advantage of that.
Now next year there will be another filter and another and another.
That's what I'm talking about with datamining. Why didn't he have all these filters in place to begin with? Well with datamining you get that. You tune your systems with what had already happened. That is great if you can get paid for games that were already played.
Now if you find something that does go back 5 years and you can hit over 60% with, by all means share and see what happens. But start slowly and see how it goes.
Nolemonasses, thx for sharing that. OK, so less strict on a system. That is real clever. I would be happy to backtest this if you think it would add value with the no buy points option. I don't want to re-invent the wheel if ol'd JM has already done the work. F buying the 3 points. I rather take them without buying points. I will post the results here in this thread if you want - starting with last year and going backward.
Lipps, man get another avatar. That one scares me!! I had a nightmare last night seeing something like that.
Nolemonasses, thx for sharing that. OK, so less strict on a system. That is real clever. I would be happy to backtest this if you think it would add value with the no buy points option. I don't want to re-invent the wheel if ol'd JM has already done the work. F buying the 3 points. I rather take them without buying points. I will post the results here in this thread if you want - starting with last year and going backward.
Lipps, man get another avatar. That one scares me!! I had a nightmare last night seeing something like that.
Lipps, all valid points and I have thought about this during my testing. The results I have come up with during my testing seem to be good, but as you said only future results are what counts. I don't mind posting, but will refrain from doing so untill I am wagering on the plays and have success. I do not want to be responsible for losses that may occur if it does not work out and put people who blindly follow at risk. Not seeking attention or fame... just looking to grow my bankroll.
Thanks for your opinion/advice, it is greatly appreciated.
Lipps, all valid points and I have thought about this during my testing. The results I have come up with during my testing seem to be good, but as you said only future results are what counts. I don't mind posting, but will refrain from doing so untill I am wagering on the plays and have success. I do not want to be responsible for losses that may occur if it does not work out and put people who blindly follow at risk. Not seeking attention or fame... just looking to grow my bankroll.
Thanks for your opinion/advice, it is greatly appreciated.
Kangy, any work is much appreciated. Would love to see what you find posted here. I hate buying points too. Especially if they get the shit straight in Delaware where I might be able to bet NBA straight up, where buying points will not be an option.
Lippsman, don't listen to the others, that is a cool ass avitar.
Kangy, any work is much appreciated. Would love to see what you find posted here. I hate buying points too. Especially if they get the shit straight in Delaware where I might be able to bet NBA straight up, where buying points will not be an option.
Lippsman, don't listen to the others, that is a cool ass avitar.
Some of these were nailbiters and yes the system does not
come without it’s third game controversies.I took into consideration that if a team playing 6 or more road games in
a row and the first three fit the criteria for V2, and second 3 games fit then
I, like Morrison, would count that as two separate series.
Here is the breakdown.
1)In
all series last year, buying no points, the system went 98-7.
2)In
all series buying the three points only in game [A], the system went 101-4.
3)In
all series buying the three points in all games, the system went either 104-0, 105-0
or 104-1.
Some of these were nailbiters and yes the system does not
come without it’s third game controversies.I took into consideration that if a team playing 6 or more road games in
a row and the first three fit the criteria for V2, and second 3 games fit then
I, like Morrison, would count that as two separate series.
Here is the breakdown.
1)In
all series last year, buying no points, the system went 98-7.
2)In
all series buying the three points only in game [A], the system went 101-4.
3)In
all series buying the three points in all games, the system went either 104-0, 105-0
or 104-1.
So, why the uncertainty?Well, here’s the catch.In the LA
Lakers’ three-game road series between Miami, Orlando and Memphis
on 12/19/08-12/22/08, the Lakers lost ATS large in the first two, so the three
points did not come into play.In the Memphis game, the line
was Lakers -11.5.Depending on your
line, you may have gotten Lakers -11.5, -12, or even -12.5.If you bought the three points, you would
have Lakers -8.5, -9 or in some cases -9.5.The Lakers won the game by 9 points.According to Covers, this is a win, for those who had -9, it’s a
push.But since good ol’ JM treats a
push as a win, then it’s a win.For
those who got the -9.5, you are sh*t out of luck.And, as luck would have it, there was a
fourth road game in New Orleans
(an in-conference opponent) on 12/23/08.The Lakers happened to spank them as dogs that night, so there could be
claim that for those of you who pushed game [C] against the T-Wolves, and
played game [D] vs. the Hornets, you would win.JM would still probably chalk that up as a second win like he did with
the Blue Jays in MLB with the +1½, -1½ RL debacle last week. However, to treat this as a valid game would
break the V2 criteria of two out of three road games must be against out-of-conference
teams.
Speaking of debacles… You remember that entire Sacramento mess about losing
the first three road games against out-of-conference opponents at the start of
the season?Well, Sacramento
played Memphis (an
in-conference foe) in its first game of the season, and as dogs won outright
before losing those next three games therefore turning that loss into a
win.So technically, the Kings did NOT
have the worst road record, they actually had the BEST, because they were 1-0
before dropping those next three controversial games big.You may remember that Morrison used the “worst
road team” stipulation to erase his first and only series loss last season!!!What a freaking douchbag!!
So, why the uncertainty?Well, here’s the catch.In the LA
Lakers’ three-game road series between Miami, Orlando and Memphis
on 12/19/08-12/22/08, the Lakers lost ATS large in the first two, so the three
points did not come into play.In the Memphis game, the line
was Lakers -11.5.Depending on your
line, you may have gotten Lakers -11.5, -12, or even -12.5.If you bought the three points, you would
have Lakers -8.5, -9 or in some cases -9.5.The Lakers won the game by 9 points.According to Covers, this is a win, for those who had -9, it’s a
push.But since good ol’ JM treats a
push as a win, then it’s a win.For
those who got the -9.5, you are sh*t out of luck.And, as luck would have it, there was a
fourth road game in New Orleans
(an in-conference opponent) on 12/23/08.The Lakers happened to spank them as dogs that night, so there could be
claim that for those of you who pushed game [C] against the T-Wolves, and
played game [D] vs. the Hornets, you would win.JM would still probably chalk that up as a second win like he did with
the Blue Jays in MLB with the +1½, -1½ RL debacle last week. However, to treat this as a valid game would
break the V2 criteria of two out of three road games must be against out-of-conference
teams.
Speaking of debacles… You remember that entire Sacramento mess about losing
the first three road games against out-of-conference opponents at the start of
the season?Well, Sacramento
played Memphis (an
in-conference foe) in its first game of the season, and as dogs won outright
before losing those next three games therefore turning that loss into a
win.So technically, the Kings did NOT
have the worst road record, they actually had the BEST, because they were 1-0
before dropping those next three controversial games big.You may remember that Morrison used the “worst
road team” stipulation to erase his first and only series loss last season!!!What a freaking douchbag!!
Apologies here, after re-checking the Sacramento games I noticed I had the Memphis score transposed 98-96. Sacramento did lose this first game outright, and were indeed the WORST road team in the league at 0-1 at the time, therefore Morrison's claim is correct. So I take back some of the meanness from the last paragraph above. Nevertheless, the series would still be a win under V2 (since Sacramento did cover the spread), but a loss under V1.
Apologies here, after re-checking the Sacramento games I noticed I had the Memphis score transposed 98-96. Sacramento did lose this first game outright, and were indeed the WORST road team in the league at 0-1 at the time, therefore Morrison's claim is correct. So I take back some of the meanness from the last paragraph above. Nevertheless, the series would still be a win under V2 (since Sacramento did cover the spread), but a loss under V1.
Not buying points is still what I need to figure out. 7 losses seems like a lot, but they are at lower juice. Still, you would be losing at the C level where you have doubled up twice.
Not buying points is still what I need to figure out. 7 losses seems like a lot, but they are at lower juice. Still, you would be losing at the C level where you have doubled up twice.
Could you paste the 7 games that failed ? I would like to see how the games after game 3 or if there was a pattern.
The 7 [C] games are as follows (includes dates of the games
and opponent). I do have another caveat. There is no way for me to find out about injuries on a given day or for a given series, therefore, the assumption here is that everyone plays.
12/05/08 – TOR @ UTA (series won on A bet buying the 3
points @ LAL)
12/05/08 – MIN @ NJ (series won on B bet buying the 3 points
@ ORL)
12/22/08 – LAL @ MEM (mentioned above, this one won or
pushed on this bet depending on your line, buying 3 points)
01/23/09 – PHX @ CHA (this one is shady, game A of this
series could be a win, loss or push depending on the line without the points,
but definitely wins on the A bet with the 3 points; however, if you push the
[A] bet without the points and start a new series with the next game, that [C]
game is Charlotte)
02/02/09 – LAC @ MIA (series won on A bet buying the 3
points @ CLE) 03/03/09 – TOR @ HOU (series won on this bet buying the 3
points @ HOU) 03/15/09 – NJ @ LAC (series won on A bet buying the 3 points
@ GS)
Could you paste the 7 games that failed ? I would like to see how the games after game 3 or if there was a pattern.
The 7 [C] games are as follows (includes dates of the games
and opponent). I do have another caveat. There is no way for me to find out about injuries on a given day or for a given series, therefore, the assumption here is that everyone plays.
12/05/08 – TOR @ UTA (series won on A bet buying the 3
points @ LAL)
12/05/08 – MIN @ NJ (series won on B bet buying the 3 points
@ ORL)
12/22/08 – LAL @ MEM (mentioned above, this one won or
pushed on this bet depending on your line, buying 3 points)
01/23/09 – PHX @ CHA (this one is shady, game A of this
series could be a win, loss or push depending on the line without the points,
but definitely wins on the A bet with the 3 points; however, if you push the
[A] bet without the points and start a new series with the next game, that [C]
game is Charlotte)
02/02/09 – LAC @ MIA (series won on A bet buying the 3
points @ CLE) 03/03/09 – TOR @ HOU (series won on this bet buying the 3
points @ HOU) 03/15/09 – NJ @ LAC (series won on A bet buying the 3 points
@ GS)
Not buying points is still what I need to figure out. 7 losses seems like a lot, but they are at lower juice. Still, you would be losing at the C level where you have doubled up twice.
Thanks, but not so fast nolemonasses.... I think last year was a great year for the v1 system (aside from the chaos at the beginning). The years prior to that are shaping up to be nasty. I wonder if anyone has a JM version 0 NBA system to handle those back-dated losses?
I started backtesting by team, the NBA v2 for the
previous 4 seasons prior to last season and through just 2 of the 30 teams (Boston and NJ Nets), I do not
like what I see so far.
JM’s v2 system (buying the points for all games):
2004-05 season – 8-0
2005-06 season – 6-1 (loss is a v1 system loss)
2006-07 season – 7-0
2007-08 season – 5-2 (both losses are v1 losses)
Without buying the points:
2004-05 season – 6-2
2005-06 season – 5-2
2006-07 season – 4-3
2007-08 season – 4-3
I am getting off work now, so I will have some more time
tonight to continue. This is just a heads up. But you can see already 2 Morrison losses from 07-08 using v2. They also are v1 series losses as well. I only got through Boston and NJ Nets.
Not buying points is still what I need to figure out. 7 losses seems like a lot, but they are at lower juice. Still, you would be losing at the C level where you have doubled up twice.
Thanks, but not so fast nolemonasses.... I think last year was a great year for the v1 system (aside from the chaos at the beginning). The years prior to that are shaping up to be nasty. I wonder if anyone has a JM version 0 NBA system to handle those back-dated losses?
I started backtesting by team, the NBA v2 for the
previous 4 seasons prior to last season and through just 2 of the 30 teams (Boston and NJ Nets), I do not
like what I see so far.
JM’s v2 system (buying the points for all games):
2004-05 season – 8-0
2005-06 season – 6-1 (loss is a v1 system loss)
2006-07 season – 7-0
2007-08 season – 5-2 (both losses are v1 losses)
Without buying the points:
2004-05 season – 6-2
2005-06 season – 5-2
2006-07 season – 4-3
2007-08 season – 4-3
I am getting off work now, so I will have some more time
tonight to continue. This is just a heads up. But you can see already 2 Morrison losses from 07-08 using v2. They also are v1 series losses as well. I only got through Boston and NJ Nets.
This is exactly what I was talking about with dataming. Taking good ol' JM or course. He had the original MLB system and in short time he has has it to 3.0.
Something that was killing him was the sweep rematch and one of the teams was just horrible. He was taking a loss in almost every series, so he put the 2.0 filter in. Now he sees that the team that is just horrible ends up getting swept the next series in the rematch. So now another filter has been put in place (3.0) that will take advantage of that.
Now next year there will be another filter and another and another.
That's what I'm talking about with datamining. Why didn't he have all these filters in place to begin with? Well with datamining you get that. You tune your systems with what had already happened. That is great if you can get paid for games that were already played.
Now if you find something that does go back 5 years and you can hit over 60% with, by all means share and see what happens. But start slowly and see how it goes.
All due respect: you don't know what you're talking about. He made no changes to v1. v2 says to make a bigger bet on your "B" bet in certain circumstances. He did not change the system with respect to which team to bet on, only suggesting to bet bigger. With respect to v3, v1 is still the same play. Under certain circumstances, if you win the "A" bet, you get to make an additional play. The v1 system did NOT change at all with the roll out of v2 and v3. v2 and v3 just give you more action. That's what gamblers want, right? More action?
To say that the v1 system "changed" with v2 and then v3 simply mischaracterizes v2 and v3.
This is exactly what I was talking about with dataming. Taking good ol' JM or course. He had the original MLB system and in short time he has has it to 3.0.
Something that was killing him was the sweep rematch and one of the teams was just horrible. He was taking a loss in almost every series, so he put the 2.0 filter in. Now he sees that the team that is just horrible ends up getting swept the next series in the rematch. So now another filter has been put in place (3.0) that will take advantage of that.
Now next year there will be another filter and another and another.
That's what I'm talking about with datamining. Why didn't he have all these filters in place to begin with? Well with datamining you get that. You tune your systems with what had already happened. That is great if you can get paid for games that were already played.
Now if you find something that does go back 5 years and you can hit over 60% with, by all means share and see what happens. But start slowly and see how it goes.
All due respect: you don't know what you're talking about. He made no changes to v1. v2 says to make a bigger bet on your "B" bet in certain circumstances. He did not change the system with respect to which team to bet on, only suggesting to bet bigger. With respect to v3, v1 is still the same play. Under certain circumstances, if you win the "A" bet, you get to make an additional play. The v1 system did NOT change at all with the roll out of v2 and v3. v2 and v3 just give you more action. That's what gamblers want, right? More action?
To say that the v1 system "changed" with v2 and then v3 simply mischaracterizes v2 and v3.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
