FHMESQ twist on SSI -1.5 system plays, YTD = +12.05 UNITS

fhmesq44 · Apr 18, 2006

Should have been a much better day that it ended up. STL and SF couldn't hold on for the Ws, but it happens.

yesterday was 4-4 on the day for +1.1 UNITS or $110.

Season record so far:

Games: 16-22
Series: 17-2
Units/$: $1205, 12.05 units

Todays plays, all -1.5:

CLE 100/140
BOS 115/100
NYY 110/100
LAA 100/160
DET 100/165
TEX 100/225
PHIL 100/135
STL 200/240
ATL 200/410
MIL 200/490
SF 200/250

Best of luck.

fhmesq44 · Apr 18, 2006

Remember, don't worry about the games record. It will be pretty bad, but the series record and Units will be there.

mike0187 · Apr 18, 2006

Good luck, for now I am staying selective with just road teams and laying the 1.5 runs and some ML's like SSI is doing. I think there are a lot of ways to do this and come out profitable.

Biggest decision for me is whether or not to risk a full unit on each of these plays, which it looks like you are doing. Is it more profitable for you to win the later games in the series?

I'm starting to confuse myself, I think.

fhmesq44 · Apr 18, 2006

mike0187 said:
Good luck, for now I am staying selective with just road teams and laying the 1.5 runs and some ML's like SSI is doing. I think there are a lot of ways to do this and come out profitable.

Biggest decision for me is whether or not to risk a full unit on each of these plays, which it looks like you are doing. Is it more profitable for you to win the later games in the series?

I'm starting to confuse myself, I think.

Thanks, yeah, I am going 1 full unit at the start of each series and you are right, there are a lot of ways to play it. I do think the one absolute key is to avoid the bad teams. Not sure if you were on the dsitrbution list of the spreadsheet i just sent but you can see how the 7 worst teams were -200 or so units. The remaining 23 teams were hugely profitable.

Yes, it actually is more profitable if you win later. Of course, the risk rises as well. For instance, last night had STL won they would have been +100 and closed. Since they are +$120 today, if they win I will be +240 -100 (from yesterday) for +140, thus more profit. It is even more drastic when you get better odds.

BookieNemesis · Apr 18, 2006

Did you play this system last year? If so, how many units were you up? Please send me a copy of the spreadsheet d4hypercube@yahoo.com. Thanks.

fhmesq44 · Apr 18, 2006

BookieNemesis said:
Did you play this system last year? If so, how many units were you up? Please send me a copy of the spreadsheet d4hypercube@yahoo.com. Thanks.

I didn't play it last season but before playing it this season I went back and figured out how last season would have played out. I had to estimate the -1.5 based on the ML for the game. That information came from covers.com. Spreadsheet on its way.

In short:

if you played all the teams +4 units
all teams at or over .500 +220 units
teams under .500 -216 units
teams under .450 (7 of them) accounted for 210 of the 216 units lost of the under .500 teams. That is why I am fading the worst teams.

Bocious · Apr 18, 2006

Hey, I'm goin to try this with selective teams, is there a spreadsheet format that you could send me to make it a lil easier for me to keep track of? if so can you send it to jluu25@yahoo.com... I'd be happy to let you know how it's doin...thanks! BOL, sounds like a great system.

MathProf · Apr 18, 2006

FHM,

Your spreadsheet on 2005 absolutely confirms that eliminating
all plays on the worst teams is the key to best performance.

Ther may be even a better correlation between the difference
between the worst win/loss record overall and the worst
win/loss record on the road.

Also, there are a few bad road teams which have lurked for three
years in the "fewest road wins" category: TB, DT, PIT, COL
(all on your list. Two year lurkers: SEA and KC (on your list).

Cincinnatti won only 31 games on the road last year and only
36 and 34 in previous two years.
Their w/l record of .451 overall last year should not exclude them
from your losers list, IMO.
Milwaukee was a $$ winner last year but won only 35 on the road
and only in the thirty's both 2004 and 2003 (not doing well this
year either). Perhaps they should be on a "watch list".

But other than those two lurkers there is a remarkable consistency
between your "top seven" losers and the "top road losers".

Great job and best of luck!
MP

WorldNumberOne · Apr 18, 2006

did you take a look at last years scores and see where just playing the road team to win the game outright provided more series winners ?

i think their have already been 4 series this year that the road team won a game in a series but it was only by 1 run.

sometimes its easy to get caught up in the + 200 ARL numbers and not just go for a win.

good luck

fhmesq44 · Apr 18, 2006

Bocious said:
Hey, I'm goin to try this with selective teams, is there a spreadsheet format that you could send me to make it a lil easier for me to keep track of? if so can you send it to jluu25@yahoo.com... I'd be happy to let you know how it's doin...thanks! BOL, sounds like a great system.

Just sent it

fhmesq44 · Apr 18, 2006

Thanks Math Prof. Cincy is also on my watch list, as are Det and Mil. I suppose all teams are really. Hoepfully I can identify them quickly and fade them for victories. If you notice, I faded Fla and KC for this series and won them both already.

fhmesq44 · Apr 18, 2006

World Number One said:
did you take a look at last years scores and see where just playing the road team to win the game outright provided more series winners ?

i think their have already been 4 series this year that the road team won a game in a series but it was only by 1 run.

sometimes its easy to get caught up in the + 200 ARL numbers and not just go for a win.

good luck

I started looking at that, but didn't do the entire season. From what I did do, the increased wins weren't enough to make up for the diminished payouts. But as I said, I didn't look at the entire season.

WorldNumberOne · Apr 18, 2006

well so far this season the road team has won by 2 atleast 1 time in a series 48 out of 60 times. not counting yesterdays results.

where as the road team has won a game by atleast 1 run in a series 53 out of 60 times.

thats every series . i realize you dont play every series.

but that is turning 5 losers into 5 winners .

and 5 losers at what ? 7 units per ? 1-2-4 ?

just a thought .

fhmesq44 · Apr 18, 2006

World Number One said:
well so far this season the road team has won by 2 atleast 1 time in a series 48 out of 60 times. not counting yesterdays results.

where as the road team has won a game by 1 run in a series 53 out of 60 times.

thats every series . i realize you dont play every series.

but that is turning 5 losers into 5 winners .

and 5 losers at what ? 7 units per ? 1-2-4 ?

just a thought .

Correct, but you are also laying negative juice on a lot of road teams just to cover whereas the -1.5 lines are almost always positive. I thought about this as well and when I reviewed last season I started figuring this out and from a limited review, it didn't pay off as well. I suppose I could track it this season, but it would be a lot to track.

fhmesq44 · Apr 18, 2006

Also keep in mind I am fading the crappy teams (who are the ones most likely to get swept or not win by 2), so a team like KC who was swept @ TB over the weekend was a winner for me in game 1. Same with KC last night @ CWS and Fla @ Cincy.

WorldNumberOne · Apr 18, 2006

i got ya ..

i think it might have been me who brought the idea up in SSI's thread way back.

he was dead set on playing them because of the possible huge payback when i told him that the losses incured werent worth whatever possible payback he might gain.

you have to throw out a lot of series.

fhmesq44 · Apr 18, 2006

The bad teams really were where all the losses were last season.

$22,345.00 .500+ Teams
$(21,874.00) .499- Teams
$(20,165.00) .450- teams

I can send you the spreadsheet if you want. Those are the numbers, as you can see, 201 of the 218 lost units from the under .500 teams are from the worst 7 teams. That is why I am fading the worst teams. I have only labeled 5 teams at this point.

PatPatriot · Apr 18, 2006

FHM,

Your spreadsheet on 2005 absolutely confirms that eliminating
all plays on the worst teams is the key to best performance.

Also don't just go by road record.All around bad teams.that would be the worst 4 or 5 teams in each league by wiing pct.
i'm going to post my plays based on my own series but using the RL system till august only.

fhmesq44 · Apr 18, 2006

Pat Patriot said:
Also don't just go by road record.All around bad teams.that would be the worst 4 or 5 teams in each league by wiing pct.
i'm going to post my plays based on my own series but using the RL system till august only.

I went by winning %, not just road winning %. If you added the next two worst teams (Balt and Cincy), they were another -31 units, so you could eliminate even more and fade them.

the net-net is that you need to fade the bad teams. September was actually a profitable month last year, but the bad teams got worse.

WorldNumberOne · Apr 18, 2006

fhmesq44 said:
The bad teams really were where all the losses were last season.

$22,345.00 .500+ Teams
$(21,874.00) .499- Teams
$(20,165.00) .450- teams

I can send you the spreadsheet if you want. Those are the numbers, as you can see, 201 of the 218 lost units from the under .500 teams are from the worst 7 teams. That is why I am fading the worst teams. I have only labeled 5 teams at this point.