View New Posts
123
1. ## MLB Chase experiment

I recently posted a thread in NFL handicapping about something I call the Pendulum Cycle Theory. I was asked a question about the NBA and saw it was a different animal from the NFL. After pondering the question I decided to try an experiment.

I am going to randomly choose bets in the MLB using a variation of the Martingale System. The standard Martingale System would have you double your bet for every loss you incur. The problem is that your losses add up quickly and your bankroll can blow up before you know it. I tried an experiment before that was disastrous. 9 straight losses. A standard Martingale chase can not withstand losing streaks that deep. It would cost in excess of \$10,000, and if you suceed you would net an ROI of less then 2%. That's not even worth it.

The variation that I am using has you add one unit every time you lose. You keep adding a unit until you have recovered your losses +1 unit. Your losses are not fully recovered with your first win, so you keep adding more units until you have recoverd. I will gove an example. I will use roulette betting to demonstrate the concept. 11/10 odds of sports betting complicates things and this is hard enough to explain without adding that element to the picture.

Let's say we have a series of 5 bets that are all losses. We add one unit with each loss:
1. \$1 loss -\$1
2. \$2 loss -\$3
3. \$3 loss -\$6
4. \$4 loss -\$10
5. \$5 loss -\$15
Up to this point we have lost a total of \$15. Now we have a winning streak.
1. \$6 win -\$9
2. \$7 win -\$2
3. \$3 win +\$1
Notice how on the 3rd bet of the winning streak I only need \$2 to recover my losses. I add \$1 so that I am ahead by one unit.

The advantage of this system as opposed to doubling up every time is that you can sustain a much larger streak of losses before going bankrupt. The disadvantage is that it takes more wins to recover your losses.

I am going to apply this variation of the Martingale System to random bets in the MLB. I am not handicapping. My only stipulation is that I am risking \$110/\$100 or less. I will choose over/under or run line bets that meet that criteria. \$25 is one unit. I adjust my bet size for the juice to win \$25. Each time I add a unit in a chase it will be \$27.50 if I am risking 110/100.

I am paper trading this, not using real money. My bankroll is \$2,000. My target is 26.25% ROI. (\$525) If I reach my target I exit with the profits. I have chosen this target because if I can manage similar results in the NFL and the NBA I will be over 100% ROI for the year. At that rate it would take 6 years to break \$100,000 and make 6 figures a year. If I do not reach the target than the most likely scenario is that I have blown the account up.

I started this experiment yesterday, but than it dawned on me that it might be cool to post it in this forum. It will help keep me on track and share something cool at the same time.

Yesterday I chose

6/28/12 – (105/100 bet \$26.26 to win \$25) SD (Padres) vs HOU (Astros) Over 8.5 win \$2,025

Today's game is

6/29/12 - (110/100 bet \$27.50 to win \$25) PHI (Phillies) vs MIA (Marlins) Over 7

I'll try to post a new game every day. This chase system can sustain large losing streaks so I am hopeful that it will produce good results.

Let's see if this thing works.

2. Good luck...so you do not stick to just one team? You basically just pick games you like and keep adding 1 unit to recover losses?

3. So I assume you are planning on using the +1 chase for all sports? And you begin each series betting 1% correct?

4. Originally Posted by jolmscheid
So I assume you are planning on using the +1 chase for all sports? And you begin each series betting 1% correct?
I chose the 1 unit system for the MLB because a 7 tier system is not deep enough to sustain the losing streaks that are common to this sport. I have a whole bag of tricks. I have studied the Martingale System extensively and have several variations at my disposal. I am going to do a post in the near future explaining them.

I assess the situation to decide what the balance needs to be for profitability and depth. It mostly depends on how big any streak is that I see. A 10 tier Martingale is super expensive and the returns are very poor as a result. A 4 tier system can easily pull a 100% gain, but is also prone to annihilation because it does not have enough depth to withstand typical sustained losing streaks.

I use a 7 tier chase for the NFL. The 1 unit chase variation is for the NBA and the MLB to give me more depth. This is an experiment. I could very easily fall flat. The thing I like about it though is if I am doing this as the games come up then it is impossible to fake the results.

Although \$25 is 1.5% of \$2,000 I did not base my unit size on percentage. My thinking was the opposite. I started with a \$25 unit and asked myself how much money I would need to sustain a losing streak of 11. \$2,000 worked If I need more I add more to the total bankroll. The larger the bankroll is the smaller your percentage ROI will be. It's a big balancing act. I don't know if the Kelley Criterion would work for a chase system. I have not fine tuned a formula, I just experiment until I find a balance.

5. Originally Posted by jolmscheid
Good luck...so you do not stick to just one team? You basically just pick games you like and keep adding 1 unit to recover losses?

The reason I was sticking with specific teams was for backtesting purposes. You need to be hyper-aware of each team's performance to understand how the Pendulum Cycle pertains to them.

The approach I am taking at the moment is exactly the opposite. Rather than being hyper aware of the situation I am depending on the Pendulum Cycle to take care of itself. If I am right then randomly choosing teams with no rhyme or reason should result in a 50% win/loss %. As long as the streaks are managable the this chase system should work.

A pro bettor lives or dies by maintaining his/her win %. A chaser's main concern is losing streaks. A chaser can profit with less then 50% wins as long as a losing streak does not blow up the account.

6. 6/29/12 - (110/100 bet \$27.50 to win \$25) PHI (Phillies) vs MIA (Marlins) Over 7 win \$2,050

I may try to get 2 games in tommorrow. Here is my first game:

6/30 (-110 bet \$27.50 to win \$25) LAA (Angels) vs TOR (Bluejays) Over 10

The second game I am looking at is NYM vs LAD Over 7 for -105. The bet amount will depend on the result of the first game. If the Angels bet wins then the bet will be \$26.26 to win \$25. If the Angels game goes under then my bet will be \$52.52 to win \$50.

I am sticking with overs for now. There is no rhyme or reason for it other than the juice is where I want it. I am not going to lay -115 or more. Other then that, the choice is completely random.

2 wins is a nice way to start.

7. I just altered my target from \$800 to \$525. The reason I did this is because my main goal is to produce 100% ROI a year. 26.25% compounded 3 times is enough to accomplish this. Here are the numbers needed to accomplish this. I will round up to the nearest dollar amount for this example.

MLB turn \$2,000 into \$2,525
\$25 unit

NFL turn \$2,525 into \$3,197
\$32 unit

NBA turn \$3,197 into \$4,037
\$40 unit.

It would take 21 wins to accomplish each mark.

If you can consistently accomplish this it is possible to turn \$2,000 into \$128,000 in 6 years.

1 - \$4,000
2 - \$8,000
3 - \$16,000
4 - \$32,000
5 - \$64,000
6 - \$128,000

8. Im checking in! Will look forward to your chase plans for each sport..

9. The Martingale system and it's many variations are a compromise between two opposing forces - longevity, and profit.

When you step up to a roulette table the best chance you have to double your money is to place your entire bankroll down on one bet... ...say black. You have roughly a 47% chance of winning. If you lose you are done. This is the profit end of the spectrum.

Flat betting is the opposite end of the spectrum. It allows you to stick around longer, but your chances of doubling your money decrease exponentially with the size of your bet.

All systems fail against a negative EV. You can not fight the laws of probabilities. This is why most sharp bettors will tell you that systems do not work... ...period. My theory is that sportsbetting is different. The spreads are not random. They are created by the oscillating opinion of the public. The more times a favorite wins against the spread, the less likely it is they will win the next time because the public will gravitate towards them, trying to get a piece of the pie. As a result the spreads increase in size and eventually cause the underdogs to win. I call this oscillation the Pendulum Cycle Theory. The Martingale System corrects the losses of previous bets. As long as the system can outlast a losing streak it will be profitable. These streaks are what makes or breaks any chasing system. My theory is that if a chase system is deep enough it can outlast these streaks and make a profit with only a 50% win ratio. That ratio can even be lower. I have made a small profit using a chasing system with a win ratio of only 38%. I stayed alive because I outlasted the losing streaks.

The sharps are focused on win %. A chaser is focused on streaks. These are conflicting ideas and the source of great controversy. I humbly present the chasing side of this debate. I believe the system has merit.

Martingale Variations:

The Martingale System: The standard martingale system doubles your bet for every loss until you finally post a win. This was designed for a 1 to 1 win ratio such as roulette.

Here is a seven tier Martingale system:
1. \$1 loss down \$1
2. \$2 loss down \$3
3. \$4 loss down \$7
4. \$8 loss down \$15
5. \$16 loss down \$31
6. \$32 loss down \$63
7. \$64 win up \$1

When using the Martingale System for sports you must adjust you bet size to accomodate for the payout differential. A typical bet against the spread is to risk \$110 to win \$100. If you want to win \$25 you must bet \$27.50. If you do not adjust your bet size the profits will deteriorate the deeper you chase.

The Grand Martingale
The Martingale System attempts to win one unit by doubling your bet each time you lose until you get a winner and then you start the process over again. The Grand Martingale attempts to win one unit for each bet placed. It does this by doubling your bet plus one unit. Here is an example using \$1 as one unit.
1. \$1 loss down \$1
2. \$3 loss down \$4
3. \$7 loss down \$11
4. \$15 loss down \$26
5. \$31 loss down \$57
6. \$63 win up \$6

As you can see, this adds up even quicker than the standard Martingale. You profit faster but the risk is greater.

The 1 Unit Progressive System
This system is a compromise for longevity. It allows you to survive longer than the Martingale System but as we discussed earlier, the longer you survive, the less money you make. This system is no exception.
Instead of doubling your bet you increase your bet by one unit for each bet that you are down. The goal is to gain one unit. When the amount you are down is less then the last bet you bet how much you are down plus 1 unit. If you win you start the process over. If you lose you start adding one unit for each loss again.

Here is an example.
1. \$1 loss down \$1
2. \$2 loss down \$3
3. \$3 loss down \$6
4. \$4 loss down \$10
5. \$5 loss down \$15
6. \$6 win down \$9
7. \$7 win down \$2
8. \$3 win up \$1

The Anti-Martingale
This system is the opposite of the Martingale System, as the name implies. Instead of doubling your bets every time you lose you double your bet every time you win. If you hit a streak with the Anti-Martingale you can make a lot of money quickly. You had better have an exit strategy or you will lose it all in one shot.
Example
1. \$1 loss down \$1
2. \$1 loss down \$2
3. \$1 loss down \$3
4. \$1 win down \$2
5. \$2 win even
6. \$4 win up \$4
7. \$8 win up \$8
8. \$16 win up \$16
9. \$32 win up \$32
10. \$64 win up \$64
A series of 10 wins could turn a single dollar into \$512. Expecting to win 10 times in a row is both ballsy and illogical. When I use this system I use much larger units, say \$25, and exit after 3 wins.

I use the Anti-Martingale sparingly. If I have enough profits built up I may tap some to take a shot on a game I feel strongly about. This increases my ROI faster and allows me to exit sooner.

I have a few more variations up my sleeve, but this is my basic toolkit.

Exit Strategy:

This is perhaps the most important part of this discussion. Everytime you bet you are putting your money at risk. I believe it is important to set a target and exit when that target is reached. The longer you are in the game the higher the risk is that you will hit a streak that wipes you out. This risk can partially be counteracted if you exit with your profits, thus reducing your exposure.

It is much easier to make 25% using the Martingale System than it is to make 100%. If you make 25% in a few months than you are far outperforming any mutual fund. I am still experimenting to find the right balance. If that balance turns out to be 10% per season I am okay with that. If you multiply that times 3 for different sports seasons you have 30% without even compounding.

The point is not to get greedy. I made 600% my first year betting the NFL. It was the worst thing that ever happened to me. I am not complaining about making a huge profit, but it convinced me that this whole thing was easy money and it is anything but. I have since gained respect for the game and am happy to allow compound interest to snowball my profits over time rather than try to make 6 figures in a single season.

I have experimented mixing and matching these variations. Do these systems work? I do not have enough results to conclusively say, but my results were convincing enough to get me write posts like this. I will say that the evidence is compelling enough to warrant further investigation

I would warn anyone thinking about tailing me with real money. If the sharps are right this little experiment is doomed to end in disaster. I have a lot of respect for their opinions and insights.

10. Already covered the Over in the Bluejays game and it is only the 6th inning. Up to \$2,075

Next play:

6/30/12 – NYM (Mets) vs LAD (Dodgers) Over 7, bet \$26.26 to win \$25

11. Lost on the Mets over. Bankroll is now \$2,048.75

Today's game:

7/1/12 - WSH (Nationals) vs ATL (Braves) Moneyline WSH -110 bet \$55 to win \$50

12. I may try to squeeze a second game in today as well. I am looking at the Oakland team total for under 4 -110. If this game wins I will be short of \$100 by \$1.75. I will stay at 2 units instead of returning to 1. If the Nationals lose I will go to 3 units: \$82.50 to win \$75. Once I have broken the \$2,100 mark I will return to 1 unit bets and the chase will start over.

13. Good Luck..

14. Nationals win. Account up to \$2,098.75.

Next game:

7/1/12 - TEX (Rangers) vs OAK (Athletics) OAK team total 4 under -110 bet \$55 to win \$50

15. If you're picking randomly and not handicapping, each individual bet you are making has a negative expectation due to juice. There is no pattern of betting amounts that can make 100 negative EV bets into a positive long-term expectation. Literally. Math does not work that way. Whether you get lucky or not, every bet you make is theoretically losing money. It's the same reason why no "roulette system" has ever been theoretically profitable, nor ever could be.

That doesn't mean you can't get lucky, just like in roulette, but I just don't see the point of this "experiment" or what you expect it to prove. All the result will tell you is how lucky you got. Basic mathematics already knows whether or not the system is profitable -- it isn't.
+415 points SBR Poker

16. interesting. what would the potential downfall for this?

17. Originally Posted by blankoblanco
If you're picking randomly and not handicapping, each individual bet you are making has a negative expectation due to juice. There is no pattern of betting amounts that can make 100 negative EV bets into a positive long-term expectation. Literally. Math does not work that way. Whether you get lucky or not, every bet you make is theoretically losing money. It's the same reason why no "roulette system" has ever been theoretically profitable, nor ever could be.

That doesn't mean you can't get lucky, just like in roulette, but I just don't see the point of this "experiment" or what you expect it to prove. All the result will tell you is how lucky you got. Basic mathematics already knows whether or not the system is profitable -- it isn't.
I respectfully disagree. If sportsbetting is truly random like roulette than I would agree with you. The fact is that it is not random. The odds on the games are a reflection of the results of recent events. If a team is on a winning streak then the odds will be pushed further and further until that streak breaks. That is not random and thus your math does not apply.

The gambler's fallacy is based on the belief that prior outcomes have an effect on the odds of future outcomes. In a game of pure chance this is absolutely false. The system used to keep underdogs vs favorites at 50/50 is not random but cyclical. I understand the negative EV argument but if it is true that prior results effect the current game odds then is the EV truly negative in a system that corrects prior losses? I discuss this further in my post on the Pendulum Cycle. If I am right it is simply a matter of outlasting the streaks. That is what I am out to prove.

I am presenting a new idea. The Martingale System and it's variations are not new, but the idea that sports are not random is. If my theory is correct than it vindicates chasing as a valid money management system.

18. Originally Posted by fataliz
interesting. what would the potential downfall for this?
If I understand your question than BlankoBlanco has already answered it. The mathematicians have "proven" that chase systems do not work on games of chance... ...if the results are random. That is a big if. The cycle is very difficult to see most of the time because there are two teams in their own separate cycles. The idea did not strike me until I studied the 2007 Patriots. They won 8 games ATS and then pendulum reversed. It is the purest example of the bubble mentality that dictates the odds in sports. The entire system is built around this mentality. I am at the early stages of development, but I believe that this can be tracked and exploited. Chasing is the perfect system to do this.

If my theory is wrong then this experiment will end by blowing up the account. If it works then Vegas has already done the handicapping for me. In baseball the odds are very close when you are laying -105 to -110. The further off the odds are from this the more extreme the bubble mentality is. I have developed a system that can withstand a 10 game losing streak. I believe that if I continue betting the games with close odds the chase system will correct any losses I incur. A 50% win ratio is not sufficent to profit in flat betting but is more then sufficient to win in a chase system. Flat betting depends on percentage to make money, chasing depends on the size of losing streaks. If you can outlast the streaks you profit, if not you blow up your account.

19. Oakland 3 / Texans 1 The account is now \$2,148.75. See you tomorrow

20. Today's game:

7/2/12 - HOU (Astros) vs PIT (Pirates) Over 7.5 -110 bet \$27.50 to win \$25

21. So arp...what do you think of playing against winning streaks in all sports and using your 1,2,3,4 wagering strategy until you show a +1 unit profit? If one is laying a MAX of -110, one could go on a 12-game losing streak before bust correct?

22. Originally Posted by jolmscheid
So arp...what do you think of playing against winning streaks in all sports and using your 1,2,3,4 wagering strategy until you show a +1 unit profit? If one is laying a MAX of -110, one could go on a 12-game losing streak before bust correct?
If you are going to buck a trend I think it is better to use a straight Martingale then the 1,2,3,4 approach. The problem with the 1 unit progression is once you hit a losing streak it takes more then one win to get you back in the black.

First - define the sport that you are looking at.
Second - investigate the past 5 years or so and get an idea of the size of the losing streaks. What are the largest streaks you find? If the largest streak you find is 11 then give chase with the 7 tier Martingale at around 8 or 9 games in.

I am thinking that it would be better to try and ride the trend then to buck it. If you see a trend developing and you feel it can continue then jump on it and ride until the streak breaks.

A 12 game losing streak seems pretty steep to me, but I've only dabbled with the MLB. I would not rule it out. I am actually doing the complete opposite in this experiment.

The idea of sticking with -110 is that these teams are generally performing at expectation. I would expect a pattern something like win, loss, win, win, loss, win, loss, loss. I call this formation "tight". If you are nailing 50% of your picks in a formation like this you will make plenty of money using a chase system.

If I get caught in a skid I am thinking that rather than try and buck an extreme trend I would look for a team that is in a tight formation like this and chase them instead. You could spend 6 or more games trying to break a streak when bucking a trend. However if you chase a team that is in a tight formation then you will recover in only 2 or 3 games.

The Pendulum Cycle was an idea inspired by a stock trading strategy. Perhaps if I explain the stock strategy it will make more sense. Stock market guru Wade B Cook devised something that he calls rolling stocks. This is quite literally the stock market version of the Pendulum Cycle. Stock ABC cuts production cost, thus increasing profits. The public gets excited and buys. (The public over reacts to everything. This is the key to making money) The excitement wears off and a few weeks later the price dips back to it's original mark. Earnings reports come out and the stock soars on the news only to fall in price a few weeks later. The stock continues on this roller coaster where it gains about 20% only to fall back to it's orginal price. This is the long term investor's worst nightmare, but for a day trader this is a dream come true. Buy the stock low and ride the momentum up then dump it. When the cycle starts again you repeat the process.

That is ultimately what I am trying to do with this chasing system. I want to ride the momentum. If there are teams that are caught in a very tight cycle ride it. If there is a checkered pattern with a 50% win ratio I'll ride that to the bank all day long.

Streaks are a different animal though. You know that a reversal is inevitable but you have no idea exactly when. Let's say you notice a 7 game streak. You decided to buck the trend and it turns into a 12 game streak before reveresing. You chew through 5 tiers in the Martingale System before you finally make a one unit gain.

Instead of bucking the trend let's say you see the same scenario and decide to ride the trend until it breaks. You are up 5 units before you finally encounter a loss. You are 4 units ahead of where you would be if you buck the trend. I would prefer this scenario where you are riding the momentum instead of fighting it.

There is no right and wrong here, simply different ideas. If the math-based gamblers are right then none of this should work anyways. The problem I see with that is that they are so wrapped up in EVs, models, binomial probabilities, and poisson expectations that they are failing to see the driving force behind the whole thing: crowd psychology.

My approach, be it right or wrong, is to study the psychology that is driving the point spreads, run lines, etc. If you can recognize that psychology you can profit from it. I think you can learn just as much or more from studying tulip mania of 1636 then you can from complex math-based models. I am not saying that the math is a bad thing. People are using it to successfully make money... ...but they are busting their asses off doing it. Bubble mentalities on the other hand are much easier to understand and recognize. the fact that everyone should be paying attention to is that this bubble mentality is the driving force behind the odds. The crowd psychology comes first, and the math is a byproduct of it; not the other way around.

23. Originally Posted by blankoblanco
If you're picking randomly and not handicapping, each individual bet you are making has a negative expectation due to juice. There is no pattern of betting amounts that can make 100 negative EV bets into a positive long-term expectation. Literally. Math does not work that way. Whether you get lucky or not, every bet you make is theoretically losing money. It's the same reason why no "roulette system" has ever been theoretically profitable, nor ever could be.

That doesn't mean you can't get lucky, just like in roulette, but I just don't see the point of this "experiment" or what you expect it to prove. All the result will tell you is how lucky you got. Basic mathematics already knows whether or not the system is profitable -- it isn't.
Why pick games at random? I believe that public opinion, the driving force that creates the odds on these games seeks balance by over reacting to events. Rarely is a game a 50/50 shot. If it were we would see a lot more pushes than we do. If the system were efficient than practically every game would land within one or two runs of the totals, a couple points from the spread (NBA, and NFL), etc. The fact is that this is not the case. Some are close and other are a mile off target. Ultimately the public balances these discrepancies out by reacting. This means at any given time a team is overvalued or undervalued. I call it the Pendulum Cycle because teams will oscillate from one extreme to the other throughout the season.

This system is constantly seeking balance. It was made this way by design. A roulette ball does not seek balance. Neither does a coin toss or a roll of the dice. In these games each play is entirely independent from the prior results... ...not so in sports. If a team wins ATS, moneyline, runline, etc., the odds are likely going to be raised in the next game as a result. If the streak persists the odds will increase with each game until the streak breaks.

Knowing that the system actively seeks balance than it is logical to think if one picks games at random they will hit a 50% win ratio. If the chase system is deep enough to withstand the losing streaks then the chase system will be profitable. The negative EV argument is based on the idea that each game is independent from the others. This simply is not true. Getting a chase system to work against a system that actively seeks balance is just a matter of depth. Can a chase system have enough depth to withstand the losing streaks and still make a decent profit? That is the true question. A standard martingale system 10 levels deep is so expensive that the ROI is peanuts even if you succeed.

Basic mathematics knows the system does not work when each outcome is independent of the next. It is a mistake to think that sports are completely random like Roulette. Those same mathematics may actually prove the system valid when you take into account the variable of the odds seeking balance by way of public reaction.

My random approach is simply a test of that balance. Once I see how well it works or does not work I can then start implementing tools that actively guage the psychology behind the odds. I believe that is the key to making this system work.

24. would like to see where you could go with this. i mean, you did mention that you were only paper trading, so no biggie.

25. Originally Posted by fataliz
would like to see where you could go with this. i mean, you did mention that you were only paper trading, so no biggie.
Absolutely brother!!! I further warned people not to to tail me. I have a great deal of respect for the sharps that can maintain 60% win ratios. They are some very smart cats and here I am bucking one of their cardinal rules. I am fully prepared to admit that I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

I think this is one of those discoveries like the world is not flat, or the world is not the center of the universe. It seems silly to us now, but at the time these ideas were met with great resistance.

26. Another win HOU 2 / PIT 11. Account is now \$2,173.75

Today's game:

7/3/12 - BAL (Orioles) vs SEA (Mariners) Over 6.5 -105 risk \$26.25 to win \$25

27. Good start arp..so right now you are just picking randomly to test your 1+2+3+4 wagering strategy correct?

I would be very interested in how you apply the pendulum theory in each sport...I agree that teams are overvalued and undervalued based on recent performance, current streaks, etc...would love to hear how you really go about implementing streaks and the pendulum theory in each sport..

I totally agree with your pendulum cycle however I am still confused as to how to "find" these types of situations..

28. [QUOTE=jolmscheid;15263632]Good start arp..so right now you are just picking randomly to test your 1+2+3+4 wagering strategy correct?

I would be very interested in how you apply the pendulum theory in each sport...I agree that teams are overvalued and undervalued based on recent performance, current streaks, etc...would love to hear how you really go about implementing streaks and the pendulum theory in each sport..

I think you are as up to speed as I am. It is a matter of experimenting to find what works. My first experiment was last year in teh NFL. I chose the Lions, 49ers, and Packers and used the model that i showed you with the Patriots. I tailed those teams for 8 games and then faded them for the second half of the season. The 49ers and Lions worked like a charm, but the Packers did not follow the pattern.

I spent the past couple of months doing a random study in the NFL. I went to NFL.com and chose the first game listed on the regular season, the Sunday late game, and the Monday Night game. I stuck with favorites for the whole thing. 5 years straight and not one loss with the 7 tier system. (I did make it to the 7th tier once, but no system failures)

That experiment is what led me to this. My hypothesis as to why it is working is that the system seeks balance. This means that there will be streaks, but they will generally be confined to a certain size. A streak larger then 8 is really rare for the NFL. It happens, but not often. When you pick teams randomly you are jumping from one cycle to the next and not locking yourself into any one specific pattern. If things are truly random as the math guys proclaim then this approach should be disastrous. If things are held in a balance than it makes sense that random selection would work.

I must confess that my choices are not completely random. I have hit a streak picking overs. I don't know why it is working, and I am not questioning it. I am just riding the streak until it breaks.

Take a look at my first loss. (my only loss so far, pretty scary considering I am basically throwing darts at the wall) I had 3 wins prior to this where I picked overs. I then lost a game so I switched gears on my 5th bet and chose a moneyline. I did this purposely to break things up. I played the Athletics for the under because the price was right,-110 and was the only available game for that time slot. I then switched back to overs and I am currently riding the streak again.

Strategies for locating games:
• 8 vs 8 approach. Designed for the NFL. That was my approach with the 3 teams I mentioned for last year. I have since abandoned this in favor of riding streaks to their completion.
• Riding streaks. If I find myself on a roll I will ride it until I incur a loss. I do not sweat that one loss because the Martingale System corrects your losses. I simply move to something else and try to break the losing cycle before it eats my bankroll.
• Finding balanced teams and riding them. If a teams is in a tight checkered formation of win, loss, win, loss, etc., this is very profitable and tells you that they are riding very close to public expectation. This is the bread and butter for a chaser, because this is the most consistent pattern. Streaks are unpredictable.
• The random approach. This is what I am doing now. We know that the odds seek balance. If you can outlast the losing streaks than it is profitable. It defies everything we know about sharp betting but if you are using a chase system it makes sense. The bookies want their books to be balanced. They do not want streaks like the 2007 Patriots 'cause Average Joe is going to jump on the bandwagon and pull in tons of cash. The bookmakers want things balanced so that money is even on both sides. I think the reason it works is that you are not overthinking the situation. You are not fighting the system like the pro cappers do. You are using the natural order of events to make money instead of bucking the system. I may end up eating my words on this, but so far it seems to be working.

If I make it to \$2,525 I will exit and wait for Football to start. I will not be so random once that begins. I don't know squat about baseball. Watch me do better with baseball then football. lol hahahahaha I may stick around for one more unit in baseball and try to grow it into something with the anti-martingale but we will cross that bridge when we get there. The exit point is ultra-important. This is a matter of being disciplined. You must understand that when you use chasing systems your entire bankroll is at risk. I typically use a 7 tier system. I have already posted 7 games in less then a week. If they all lost I am out of the game. The 1 unit progression can withstand more losses, but it still adds up fast.

If I make 26.25% in baseball, then repeat the same thing in football and basketball that is a 100% if you compound the profits. Do this for 6 years and you will have \$128,000.

It may take me a few years to tweak the system til it works, but I think this is achievable. After a certain period I would have to move to Vegas because betting limits are too small on the sportsbooks. I have also read that if you do too well they will kick you off. I haven't reached a level even remotely close to that so I could not say, but it is something to consider.

29. Today's game:

7/4/12 - PHI (Phillies) vs NYM (Mets) Over 8 -105 risk \$26.25 to win \$25

I am looking at a second game:

TEX (Rangers) vs CWS (White Sox) CWS moneyline -105

• If the over wins on my first game then I will risk \$26.25 to win \$25.
• If the over loses I will risk \$52.50 to win \$50

30. I am observing the first pendulum swing. I wanted to continue riding the "over" streak for my second game but could not find the price I liked. There have been a lot of games going over lately so the price is rising. There were only 2 games 7pm or later where the over was -110 or less. Both of those had previous records of going under so it is not riding a streak but bucking a trend.

Since I believe that crowd psychology is the key to all of this I think it is important to note my own psychology as this experiment progresses. The very first pick was the easiest. I looked at the price and went with the over. The decision took all of 5 seconds.

Now that I have been on a winning streak I find myself putting more and more thought into each selection. I still am not handi-capping. I don't know who is pitching, offensive or defensive stats, etc. I know so little about baseball that I could not tell you every team name from memory like I can with football. Before this experiment is done that will change.

The thought I am putting in now is looking at the previous performance of teams. I shot down 2 over bets that were in my price range because the previous performance of those teams went under. That is not random. I now find myself trying to ride streaks. The winning streak has clearly affected my judgement.

Since I could not find an over that I liked for the late game I opted to take the White Sox moneyline. They blasted the Rangers yesterday. The books favor the Rangers in this game but the moneyline reveals opinion is very close. When the underdog has a -105 moneyline it tells me they have a good chance of winning.

I am not ready to buck the over trend, but if I can not find the prices I am after I will look to moneylines, team totals, or run lines. I am looking for public opinion to be split, not lopsided. I am seeing that in baseball the price tells a big part of that story.

I am not going to risk -200 because to chase. That is ultra-expensive if it loses. Chasing is expensive enough as it is.

I will continue to lean on overs if the price is right. When the majority of teams start going under that will indicate the official reversal. That has not happened yet.

31. Thanks arp...very good points. I do like your 1+2+3+4 wagering style as it does keep you in the game longer (around 12 games assuming -110 odds).

Again, it would be nice to just kind of have a set way of knowing how to wager on each sport. I mean, say riding a team at "X" amount of games or going against a team at "X" amount of games...the same with totals.

I also like your exit strategy, however, why would you exit earlier if you have a good system? Aren't you leaving money on the table then? I mean, you could get to +100% in baseball and then just wait until the next season then!

Look forward to talking more...

32. Originally Posted by jolmscheid
Thanks arp...very good points. I do like your 1+2+3+4 wagering style as it does keep you in the game longer (around 12 games assuming -110 odds).

Again, it would be nice to just kind of have a set way of knowing how to wager on each sport. I mean, say riding a team at "X" amount of games or going against a team at "X" amount of games...the same with totals.

I also like your exit strategy, however, why would you exit earlier if you have a good system? Aren't you leaving money on the table then? I mean, you could get to +100% in baseball and then just wait until the next season then!

Look forward to talking more...
The reason I exit is to protect my gains. I understand your point, but what I am doing right now is inherently dangerous. I do not know squat about baseball. If you asked me to name 5 pitchers I couldn't do it. I am truly playing with fire right now. I may get more daring when the NFL arrives.

In my mind it is better to make small gains and exit quietly than to try and make a killing all at once. There is a saying in the stock market "Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered" (Jim Cramer). It means don't get greedy. If I exit early there is less of a chance of me hitting a streak that wipes me out.

Right now people will pass me off as just lucky, but if I continue this experiment for several years and people see this account grow to \$16,000, \$32,000, etc. they will take notice. Sooner or later they will have to admit that I must be doing something right. I doubt you will ever convince the pros, but others will take notice. That is what I hope to accomplish with this. I want to show that chasing is a viable method.

Riding a streak is a defined method of betting. Look at the streak that I am on right now. I have been betting "Overs" because the majority of games have been going over. With the Pendulum Cycle we are trying to understand public opinion in order to profit from it. We know that the streak will eventually break. You can try to anticipate it with a set number of games, but I think that is a mistake. Ride that horse til it drops. If the Over streak lasts for 15 games and you started fading after 7 games you have taken a severe beating. However, if you ride the streak to completion you pick up 15 units and lose one when it breaks. You should have your eye out for any other developing streaks while this is going on. If you have one lined up you can simply jump ship and ride the next one.

33. PHI 9 / NYM 2 another win account is now \$2,223.75

34. Thanks for the insight arp...so do you just keep track if most teams are going over / under and follow the trend or do you focus on certain teams going over / under and following that trend until it breaks?

35. White Sox squeak pull it off. Account now \$2,243.75

Today's game:

1. 7/5/12 - PHI (Phillies) vs NYM (Mets) Over 7 -110 \$27.50 to win \$25

1234 Last
Top