[Doug]

do you follow him ?

More to come, just my lead !

[Doug]

He has a system.... it seems to work.

[Doug]

It ain't no joke :

arry's "All in one Formula explanation" thread OK There seems to be alot of confusion concerning this formula. I doubt this thread will clear it all up, but I am going to give it a try.

First I will post the formula , then I will explain my interpretaion of it, and then I will tell you the different variations.

Here we go. Buckle your seat belts.


Formula, as it was given to me by Walt many years ago. THis is how I received word for word, typo for typo. (Well one or two typos may be mine)



Example : Clev vs denver
Cle winning % is .600 and Denver is .057

Subtract the difference

Clev 600 - Den 057 = 543

Give 1 point for every 20% points Therefore 543 = 27, round to the nearest tenth

Home team is given 3 points

Subtract or add the difference
Clev is 37 and Den is home thus 27- 3 = 24

Then subtract or add point spread for the final number value

The spread for the game is Cle -9.5 points, thus 24 - 9.5 = 14.5

The final number must be 10 or greater for a PLAY. In this example, Clev is the PLAY.

If the spread is 10 or greater , do not play.


Anoterh PLAY can be derived rom a negative /positive computation. For example Utah/Chic 1/25/98

Chic % is 714 and Utah is 675. Thus 714 - 675 = 39 or 2 points for Chic. Chic was home 3 = 2 = 5 The spread had Chic by 5 or 5 - 6 = -1 or +1 for Utah. UItah won the game outright. The negative/positive computation must be -1, +1 or greater for the PLAY

10 steps to predicting the outcome of an NBA game:

1. Check % Clev 600 - Den 057
2. Subtract teams winning % 600 - 057 = 543
3. Find point equivalent 543 = 27 points
4. Give home team 3 pints Clev 27 - den 3 = 24 Add/subbtract difference
5. Add/subtract the point spread
6. Final number value must be 10 or greater Cle 24 - 9.5 = 14.5
7. Negative /poitive computation Chic 714 - Utah 675 = 39
Chic 2 + 3 (home) = 5
Chic 5 - 6 = -1 or +1 Utah

Final number is "-" for a favorite and "+" for an underdog. Final number must be greater than 1 or less than -1

8. Don't play if selected team played the night before (No back to back games)
9. Dont play of one or more starters are out. Allow one week for return starters
10. Don't play 1st 20 games of the season or 1st 3 games after all star break
------------------------------------------------
The record for 1999 was 60-25 and for 2000 it was 73-30




Ok There it is.

Now this is how i figure it out.


If you have a home favorite with a better winning %, to me, this is pretty much straight up.

You take the higher % , subtract the lower %....divide by 20. Add 3 (for being at home) and then subtract the spread.

If this final number is above 10, it is a play on the favorite.
If this final number is negative 1 or less, then it is a play on the dog.
If the final number is anywhere in between (0-10), then it is a no play.

That's it. Straight up, simple as can be.

Now the tricky one

What to do if a home team with a lower winning % is favored.

This is where the confusion lies. THere has been much dicussion as to whether or not the dog need to come out with a number above 10 or just the fact they are a positive number is enough.

Nw I have had great difficulty interpreting how this should be played, and why.

I finally decided to base my plays selection on two emailed examples I had received from Walt.

Here they are:

-------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1:

Christmas Day 2000
Indiana at home minus 5 1/2 vs. Orlando

This is what he types , word for word, letter for letter:

Orl462-Ind429=33 or 1.5Orl-3(H)=1.5Ind-5.5(SP)= -4Ind or +4Orl -4 is > than-1 thus it is play. Orl (+5.5)Ind. Orl lost.


Example 2:
Feb 2 2001
ind home minus 4 vs Denv

This is what he wrote:

Keeping an eye on den(+4)Ind-this is the 3rd situation where one team is % better but is getting points and is not a -/+computation game. Den565-Ind444=121or 6Den-3(home-Ind)=3Den+4(spread Ind)=7Den (people would sub and think it was 3-4= -1, I add 4 because if Ind -4 then Den is +4) It seems logical that if a team is better % wise they shoulod be giving points not getting them so I have decided to watch this 3rd situation (1st-final #10 or more, 2nd - -/+comp)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So what is the difference between these 2 plays . Both have road teams with better winning % and are dogs, but one is a play, and one he is "watching".

The only difference I can see is with example one, your final number before the spread is a negative number. In example 2 , it is not.

I ahve asked others to detrmine the difference between the 2 plays, and no one has come up with anythig.
So without Walt to answer the question (it is possible he screwed up), I have nothing else to go on , but the fact that he talks about +/- computation and in one example where it is a play, the number before the spread goes into the negative and then back to positive.

So this is how I have determined these plays. Others still disagree and believe both examples should be plays, and thus the reason I have decided to post and track them separtately rather than not at all. They have been winning, and I want people to benfit with as many winners as possible. But I also want to keep the system to its purest sense possible.
(also note...this system had only been licking out about 100 or so plays a year, and by playing every road dog with better winning %, there will be a ton of plays. Not what the formula had intended)


So these examples are how I determine the plays. One plain and simple and the other, up for debate. I may one day have a euphoria,, and all of a sudden see the equation in a whole different light and change my thoughts on this, but for now, this is how I am proceeding.

Now on to "Filtered vs. non filtered"

I am not sure if Dice is labeling the above debated plays as filtered or non filtered, but I am pretty sure what is being referred to as "non flitered" are plays on team that have injured starters , played back to back games, or are more than 10 point spread. He had found these were winnning anyway and decided to play them regardless of aformentioned filters.
I still am not.

Notes:
back to back. If the team that is a play, played last night, it is a NO PLAY. It does not care what thier opponent did yeterday. Nor does both of them playing last night cancel each other out.

Injuries:
the rules say do not play if a starter is out and to wait one week for return.
I never remember Walt waiting a week after a starter returned. And I do remember him playing on teams after they adjust to the starter being out.

So this I am playing as a judgement call.
Example, Artest is out and Sac is still covering, so I will now play them if they come up as a play. And I will not wait one week after he is back.


Maybe "wait one week for return starters" meant wait one week for them to return, and if they don't, then play as normal"


He didn't play spreads of more than 10 simply because he was afraid of "garbage time"

So there it is. This is how I have come to understand it, and this is how I am playing it.

You can dissect and twist and turn and find a 1000 different variations to come up with as many more plays as you wish. If it works, more power to us.

But for me, I prefer to keep it to its simplest and play less plays. I would rather play one 10 unit play than play 5, 2 unit plays. (At least for this part of my bankroll)


And I hate to sound like a broken record but, if this formula works for oyu and you are able to make a profit from it, please please please find it in your heart to pass some of it along to others less fortunate than yourself. Drop a few coins off at a church or charity, give a pair of gloves to a guy living on the street. Many ways to do this. And it makes all the difference in the world.
Oh, and also, make to show the ones you love, how much you love them.

Take care all,

Larry Legend
__________________
"Mistakes are honest, excuses are lies ", Mofome

[Data]

He has a system.... it seems to work.

The system does not look impressive yet it is not a total nonsense as it accounts for winning percentage, schedule and starters. So, it deserves a bit closer look.

If you have a home favorite with a better winning %, to me, this is pretty much straight up.

I ran that part of the system on my data, starting with 2002-2003 season. Here are the results:
1) favorite 34-33, this year 4-0
2) underdog 186-165-11, this year 11-3-1

For simplicity sake I made three exceptions:
1) I did not account for all the starters, only for good ones
2) I did not account for a week after starter return
3) I excluded only 1st games after all star break
So, the system would actually produce less plays. Based on my preliminary results I am not going to bother accounting for these system filters as the results were not impressive.

[Doug]

I'd like to hear Ganchrow's thoughts as well. Plays are verifiable for the current season, posted at RX by Larrylegend.

I can't verify this claim.

The record for 1999 was 60-25 and for 2000 it was 73-30

No record for 2001-2006, and I don't know how to test it for those years.

[Doug]

I like this system because it doesn't throw out a ton of games, just about a 100 a year.

Ganch: What are the odds of going 28-4-1 ( he has one push).

[chandler1981]

Doug, I really dont have the time because I am pretty busy at work. Would you do me a favor and try it for the two games today?

[Doug]

There are 6 games today. None qualify for the system. Larry posts the picks at RX tracker forum. Some play the games that the system filters out, like for playing the previous night. These don't fit the 28-4-1 record.

LarryLegend
RX Member

LarryLegend's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ny
Posts: 303

Default
No plays for Sunday
YTD 28-4-1

There are 2 "debated" plays for today

Port + 5.5 and N.O. +1
These are 3-3 since Jan 1st

[twtb19]

I have been following and it seems to be working well. The system in my opinion works well because it is used to determine when there is a large margin of safety between the line and that advantage a team has.

The filters are there simply to keep to protect against a tired team going b2b, garbage time(spreads larger than 10), and teams missing key players because who knows how they will perform missing a starter.

[Doug]

I only started to notice this guy when he was 26-3-1, since then he has gone 2-1.

The chances of putting together a record like this have to be slim.

[2Pac]

Yes, tail blindly

[RickySteve]

Pseudo-quantitative pablum.

[curious]

I only started to notice this guy when he was 26-3-1, since then he has gone 2-1.

The chances of putting together a record like this have to be slim.

I went something ridiculous like 35-6 in NCAAB betting a "system" that then turned around and is 0 - "Forget about it" and STILL hasn't won a single game after 8 days. So, it is possible to post a ridiculous win record "by accident".

The "system" i was using was simple. Find teams that are winless on the road and are playing on the road and bet against them unless the spread is > +30 and then bet with them. Did great for a long time. Now it hasn't won a game in 8 days.

[Doug]

it sure has worked...so far !

what are the chances of this record by a coin flipper ? I'm disregarding the claims for 1999 and 2000, I can't prove that record, but the current year is all posted in NBA room at RX, you'd have to go back months to find it, but its there.

[curious]

it sure has worked...so far !

what are the chances of this record by a coin flipper ? I'm disregarding the claims for 1999 and 2000, I can't prove that record, but the current year is all posted in NBA room at RX, you'd have to go back months to find it, but its there.

The coin flipper analogy is not comparable. I didn't use a coin flip to pick games. I used a formula. I'm just saying that when you have linesmakers as part of the equation they can see trends to and react to them. So, why would betting against winless road teams work so well in the beginning of the season and then stop working? Perhaps the linesmakers had a difficult time setting lines for those teams but now they know how to set the lines. Or perhaps it was just blind luck. Or, perhaps this down trend is an aberration that will be corrected eventually?

I'm not skeptical about the past record. I don't believe the record could have been achieved by flipping a coin, but that wasn't what the poster was doing. He was using a formula that the linesmakers may have time to react to eventually. Perhaps the reason it works is that the linesmakers are off on games like that.

Or, it really could work and now you have told the whole internet all about it and the books will all go out of business and we have you to blame.

[teazeman]

Are you going to back-test for the missing yrs? I would also like for Ganch to take a look as well, were you able to point him in that direction?

[Doug]

The coin flipper analogy is not comparable. I didn't use a coin flip to pick games. I used a formula. I'm just saying that when you have linesmakers as part of the equation they can see trends to and react to them. So, why would betting against winless road teams work so well in the beginning of the season and then stop working? Perhaps the linesmakers had a difficult time setting lines for those teams but now they know how to set the lines. Or perhaps it was just blind luck. Or, perhaps this down trend is an aberration that will be corrected eventually?

I'm not skeptical about the past record. I don't believe the record could have been achieved by flipping a coin, but that wasn't what the poster was doing. He was using a formula that the linesmakers may have time to react to eventually. Perhaps the reason it works is that the linesmakers are off on games like that.

Or, it really could work and now you have told the whole internet all about it and the books will all go out of business and we have you to blame.

Its all over the RX already, everybody on forums knows the system now

[Doug]

Are you going to back-test for the missing yrs? I would also like for Ganch to take a look as well, were you able to point him in that direction?

I don't have the ability. I'd need lines, injury reports, winning percentages at the time of games, figure out who is a starter.

I'm not going to attempt all that.

[curious]

I don't have the ability. I'd need lines, injury reports, winning percentages at the time of games, figure out who is a starter.

I'm not going to attempt all that.

Let's just follow it and see what happens. I'm game to bet a $100 per play for a while.

[teazeman]

agree it's a "tall" task, he may in fact have something but it seems to generate a very, very small amount of plays when adhering to the strictest guidelines of his system. most of the losses the rest that are playing it come from their efforts to "force" additional plays.

[curious]

agree it's a "tall" task, he may in fact have something but it seems to generate a very, very small amount of plays when adhering to the strictest guidelines of his system. most of the losses the rest that are playing it come from their efforts to "force" additional plays.

so play it with the strictest interpretation.

[teazeman]

so play it with the strictest interpretation.

i haven't played it at all, i just noticed it this week.

[donjuan]

So, why would betting against winless road teams work so well in the beginning of the season and then stop working?

Variance.

[Doug]

Let's just follow it and see what happens. I'm game to bet a $100 per play for a while.

I have bet it for the last three games, since I noticed it.

I saw the guy post months ago, but dismissed it as just another nutty system at the time.

The record got me to look again.

Curious: How is the Rollover ?

[jjgold]

It might work this year but eventually all systems fail.

[curious]

I have bet it for the last three games, since I noticed it.

I saw the guy post months ago, but dismissed it as just another nutty system at the time.

The record got me to look again.

Curious: How is the Rollover ?

I have $150,000 left to go. Been on a long losing streak. Its been rough.

[Doug]

sorry to hear that !

[Thremp]

It might work this year but eventually all systems fail.

Stick with video production. Gambling isn't your strong suit.

[greek]

what about that MOGUL WALL STREET DUDE ON RX?

[curious]

what about that MOGUL WALL STREET DUDE ON RX?

He's kind of strange. Claims to have a good win record. I looked at some of his posts that seemed to back that up. He started sending everyone emails tellling them he had a book of "secrets" which show you how the linesmakers set the lines, and it was yours for "only" $5,000. If you can ignore all the stupidity he seems to have solid picks.

[WileOut]

There will never be a publicly known system that will ever work long term, even if it is a system that produces long term winners on current lines-making methods. This is because if the system won for a long enough time books would start using the system to tighten their lines.

For any system to work over the long term it would have to be kept secret from the linesmakers. This one is unfortunately not secret anymore so even if the guy struck gold he has just screwed himself by posting it.

Even so, I would bet that it wont be a long term winner anyway.

[donjuan]

I have $150,000 left to go. Been on a long losing streak. Its been rough.

I don't think anyone here will shed a tear if you bust your account before meeting the rollover. Luckboxing it up and then asserting that you knew everything there was to know about gambling, among other things, was quite amusing though. Thanks for the laughs.