Here NBA V2.0

I know, sir!  Thanks! 

BTW, he wasn't taking a loss in almost every series.  He only lost 1 "unofficial" series--it was the Royals a week or two ago.  v1 has not lost an official series this mlb season and v2 and v3 don't have anything to do with it since they are not filters to v1.

I won't post this stuff all day, but I am through 5 of the 30 teams and things actually are looking up where old JM is concerned.  The records without buying points is still pretty poor, but wanted to pass on what I have so far.  I am making progress. 

JM's v2 NBA system (buying points for all games)
2004-05: 21-0 or 20-1; controversial [C] bet pushes in some cases.
2005-06: 19-1
2006-07: 17-0 or 16-1; controversial [B] and [C] bets in the same series.  Probably counted as two wins by JM.
2007-08: 17-2

Without buying points:
2004-05: 16-5
2005-06: 17-3
2006-07: 14-3 or 13-4; shady [C] bet
2007-08: 15-4 or 14-5; shady [A] bet

I have to say, I didn't realize so many of the system plays actually came down to buying three points.  It wouldn't surprise me if most of those games came from a last possession backdoor-type cover in blowout games.   

Due to the NBA scheduling, you will most like find either the first two or the last two games in a series against out-of-conference teams.  I have not seen any out-of-conference, in-conference, out-of-conference series yet.  If that were to occur, it will most like be with the teams located in the central part of the U.S. like Memphis, New Orleans, and now Oklahoma City.  Most of what I am seeing thus far from backtesting, is the straight three game out-of conference series. 

We're talking basketball in this thread

You are correct, V2 was just increasing the wager, but that is still a filter that was added later.  Just as under certain circumstances you get another play with V3.  But yet another filter added.  That's what I am talking about.

And next year threre will be V4, another filter will be added again.  That's what datamining is.  But if it doesn't bother you, no big deal.  Just go with what wins right?

Also that's the problem with most gamblers.  Wanting more action, that's what gets them in trouble.  The wise ones want better investments. 

Tell me, would you rather have more action or less plays that hit at a bigger percentage?  I would rather play $1,000 a game with something I knew was solid instead of $200 on a great deal of more plays

BTW, you should e-mail covers and get Lou to see if he can do something about your rollover.  I've been thinking about that and even with what they said that still sounds shady

PM me if you want his direct e-mail, although I'm pretty sure you can guess it.  

Lou works at covers

So what's the bottom line Kangy?  What do you think ?

Lippsman, so far the JM system is holding its own.  Halfway through the teams from 2004-2008 seasons.  There are a few legitimate losses from the v2, that would not have been plays with v1.  When I am complete (probably tomorrow), I will post my findings. 

Here are the back-tested results for Morrison's NBA v2 system and the same without buying the points.  A few assumptions:  Teams that played 6 or more road games were treated as two seperate series beginning with the 1st game and the 4th games that these systems qualify.  I do not take into account injuries.  I do not take into account worst road records at the time of the series, except where a team lost the first three straight up and that series qualified as a V2 play.

The hardest part was figuring out whether JM would count a push as a win or a controversial bet as a push, which is just as good as a win.  I marked them as losses instead, but included the number of controversial bets as a reference.  Controversial bets are classified as those where you purchase the 3-points and the bet either pushes, wins or loses based on your line.  If a series has a controversial [A] or [B] bet, but won the [C] bet, then I marked it as a win.

JM's v2 NBA system (buying points for all games)
2004-05: 104-6; 1 controversial [A] bet and 3 controversial [C] bets push in some cases. (e.g. JM would probably mark this as 108-2).
2005-06: 105-3 or 103-1; two Sacramento-type series to begin the season
2006-07: 92-7; 4 controversial bets, 2 in same series.  Sacramento-type series to begin the season even those bet would have pushed, the road team would have lost all three road games to have the worst record.  (JM probably would mark this as a win and the series following it as a win to go 97-3. 
2007-08: 100-2; 2 clear-cut losses. 

Without buying points:
2004-05: 94-16
2005-06: 96-12
2006-07: 86-13; shady [C] bet
2007-08: 93-9; shady [A] bet

Again, there were a lot of series decided by that 3 points on the [C] bet.  I didn't realize so many of them were close.  Without going back, there were a handful of plays in the V2 system that would not have been V1 plays.  On a couple of occasions, the V2 system plays lost, and that's too bad!!!

All in all, the V2 system looks pretty solid, but there is no way to tell if a series (which is a V2 play, but not a V1 play) will lose or win, that's why they call it gambling, I guess. 

In my next post, I will break down the records of each [A], [B] or [C] bet without buying points, for those interested.... See ya

For those who want these.  Here are the individual games for the 2004-2008 seasons without buying the points - pushes are not included.

2004-05:  [A] 52-56, [B] 25-32, [C] 17-15 (1)
2005-06:  [A] 47-58, [B] 33-27, [C] 16-10 (2)
2006-07:  [A] 53-44, [B] 27-18 (1), [C] 6-12 (1)
2007-08:  [A] 58-42 (1), [B] 26-18, [C] 9-9

Numbers in parenthesis indicate bets that, based on your line would have been a win, loss or push.  This ultimately resulted in a loss for the series.

Cheers!
Kangy

Great work! - Just for my clarification, v2 in 2007-08 had 9 series losses? do you have what team they were?  Now about 2008-2009?

thanks

 

 

This is difficult to tell, because some of the plays may not have been plays based on road records at that time.  I think it about evens out.  Most of the V2 plays were V1 plays (i.e. there were no in-conference games during that particular road trip), but there were some V2 series that did not meet the V1 criteria - most of them won, but just a handful lost. 

I will go back and see if I can find the number of times V2 series losses were introduced because the series did not qualify for a V1 play, and I will find out how many times a V2 series converted a V1 series from a loss to a win (due to a team's 4th consecutive road game being against an out-of-conference foe) and any other combination I can think of.

Give me time to go back and review the data.  I do know there were some legitimate V1 losses as well as a couple V2 losses that were introduced. 

No, that is not what this is saying.  This is saying there were 9 series losses in 2007-08 using the JM V2 system without buying the points.  I calculated the real JM V2 system to go 100-2 (see post #36).  Therefore, there were 7 of those [C] bets that were decided by those three points that Morrison desperately persuades you to buy.

Posts 16, 17, and 21 show the 2008-2009 JM system with and without the points based on how I understand the system.  I did not break down the individual wins and losses for each [A], [B], and [C].  I will review my data and post.

As far as posting JM V2 system individual [A], [B] and [C] results, it would be choas because I know that on pushes he would just count that as wins for either bet.  The reason being, it is easier (and better to his name) if he took the losses on an [A] bet that was suspect, than if he took the losses on a [B] or [C] bet that was suspect.  And most of JMs system plays that had iffy [A] bet outcomes, LOST on the subsequent [B] and [C] bets, even though he may not have played them.  So to really get an accurate count on the indivdiual records would be impossible.  However, I can base those results off the Covers official lines.

Here are the nine losses from 2007-2008 if you did not buy points...

BOS @ Den, GS, Phx
NJN @ LAC, Phx, Sac
NJN @ SA (this game was a push), Mem, NOH
TOR @ LAC, Por, OKC
ATL @ Char, LAL, Sac
POR @ Den, Phi, Was
LAC @ Mia, Orl, Atl
SAC @ Char (could be push or loss), Orl, Mia
SAS @ NOH, Det, Phi


The two losses by the Morrison "buy-my-3-points-and-make-me-more-money-on-your-losses" system are:

BOS @ Den, GS, Phx (Boston actually had one of the best road records at this time of 18-5, so this should have been a loss in V1 as well ).  The fact that it was the first set of games after the All Star break might have had something to do with the fact that you go from 18-5 on the road to losing 3 straight as a small dog or favorite.

NJN @ LAC, Phx, SAC (This one was a legitimate loss.  The Nets were 9-6 on the road at this time and suffered 3 blowout losses SU and ATS.) 

The other seven series were won on either the [A], [B], or [C] bets where the three points were enough to get the series win.

thanks for the clarification - I was wondering if over all we would but up more units without buying the points and accepting 6-7 series losses - I hate betting $1700 to win $1000 and not needing the points and leaving so much profit on the table. but I guess if your gonna win them all then it doesn't matter how much is out there.  someone told me that to only buy the points when the line is +4 or +7 if your on the side of the dog - then you would be +7 and +10 which may be harder to beat - especially when free throws in the last minute always screw you - 

thanks 

Losing a three game series without the points (laying -110), and betting to win $100 profit per series, you would be down $915 (-9.15 units).  If you lost the three-game series buying the three points (laying -170), you would be down $1868 (-18.7 units). 

If the V2 method adds additional losses where otherwise there wouldn't be, it might be time to take a look at not buying those points.  Since most of the V2 plays are V1 plays, the advantage there is obviously not to buy the points, however with that comes a risk. 

I will be out most of the day today, so will try to get those stats I promised earlier and determine how many of the V1 series losses were turned into wins by V2 and vice versa. 

Also, I read somewhere that if a dog has a +3 line, more often than not you want to play the dog, whereas if the line were +3.5 or +4, you would take the favorite. 

Also, I have notices that for the most part if you have a small dog play (+3 to about +5), and the dog is down late in the game, you want the dog to keep the game close (usually within 2 points).  If the game starts drifting into the 4-5 point lead range, it will be a foul fest.  Same can be said about over/unders.  If you have an under play, and it looks to be close, you would want the game to remain a one possession game to give yourself a better chance to stay under.  Yes, overtime could come into play, but most times, if the game is close, the foulfest is not a factor.

Here's a nice little article I found that helps you with this logic.
https://www.slate.com/id/2213713/

OKAY!  I completed this work comparing the V1 and V2 NBA systems.  All results were back-tested over the past five seasons.

The main difference between the V1 and V2 systems is that V2 only requires two out of three road games to be against out-of-conference foes.

Here's how this stuff breaks down:

Additional V2 series - due to 1st (or 2nd) game against an in-conference opponent and there is no 4th (or 5th) consecutive road game against an out-of-conference foe.

System record: 45-2; [A] is 28-18-1, [B] is 13-6, [C] is 4-2


Additional V2 series - due to 3rd game against an in-conference opponent and no 4th consecutive road game.

System record: 46-0; [A] is 32-24, [B] 18-6, [C] is 6-0


Shifted series - occurs if there is at least one road game prior to a qualifying V1 series that is played against an in-conference opponent.  This basically "converts" a V1 series into a V2 series.  For example: Boston (East) plays consecutive road games against  Charlotte (East), Memphis (West), Dallas (West), San Antonio (West), Utah (West), and Detroit (East).  The original qualifying V1 series is against Memphis, Dallas and San Antonio, but the series is "converted to a V2 series with the addition of a Charlotte road game prior.  The new V2 series is Charlotte, Memphis, Dallas.

Series record: 71-5-1; [A] is 50-26-1, [B] is 14-12-1, [C] is 7-5-1.  But a push is a win for "Morrison", so it is 72-5.


Additional V2 series - due to shifting, additional series can be introduced during longer road trips.  In the example above, by shifting the original V1 series to a V2 series, there are three additional games (San Antonio, Utah and Detroit) that qualify as another V2 series.

System record: 15-0; [A] is 11-2-2, [B] 4-0, [C] is 0-0
 

Additional notes:

• Two V2 series were introduced as losses (Washington in '04-05, LA Lakers in 06-07)
• Four V1 series losses becomes V2 series wins (due to shifting described above)
• Two V1 "loss-loss-push" series (which Morrison proudly claims a series win) becomes V2 series wins (due to same shifting method)
  
• Only one V1 series win becomes a V2 series loss (due to shifting)

Conclusion:

All in all, the NBA V2.0 system looks extremely solid.  I tried to fail it and it kept producing winners.  A total of 113 new series were created as a result of the criteria change, over the past five seasons, going 111-2 overall.  The V1 series losses are still there, but with the additional 111 wins, those more than make any losses from the series that fall both under the V1 and V2 criteria.  So I give it a thumbs up. 

Thoughts or comments???

Too bad for Tan or "Morrison" that everyone now has these systems for free.  Thanks Tan and thanks to all on this board for sharing them.....

Looks fantastic... I'll begin working on a spreadsheet with all for all of the plays

111-2 is nothing to shake a stick at, esp when we introduce Labouchere methods

Also please note, the results test above use the system buying the three points.