NHL Under System Broken Down

[Mr. 33]

I tried something similar with betting against home sweeps in baseball. First month up ~100 units. Fifth week, down 100 units....seven or eight (lost track) home teams got swept. When these systems go good, they go good, when they go bad, they're very bad. It was fun anyway.

[Thremp]

Meh. Its just a bad idea. More monies for me to take from bookies.

[Dudd]

I'm confused, how is this a Martingale? It looks like he's just betting one unit on the under when a certain threshold of x games in y days is met, and pointing out that you can bet multiple games in a row because you can bet on the third game in 4 days followed by the fourth game in 6 days if another game is played 2 days later. Where in this chain is a bet being doubled? The double push thing sort of looks like a Martingale, but it looks like some sort of logic where a team that doesn't go under while being tired twice is unlikely to go under when playing a third straight tired game. It doesn't seem to make much sense, way too obvious a phenomenon for the books to not catch on and adjust the lines, but I'm not seeing a Martingale, unless I'm missing something.

[niss]

What Dudd said.

I don't know where he said it's a chase.

I just question the theory behind it in the sense that taking a team under (widely available at most sites that frequent) would seem to be more logical.

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
I just question the theory behind it in the sense that taking a team under (widely available at most sites that frequent) would seem to be more logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

What theory? OP did some research on past scores and came up with a system that showed a profit for the last two years. It may work again for this season and it may not. Tail his selections at your own risk. Personally, if he posts the selections I'll probably try it out for short money just because I'm a degenerate.

Now as far as team under being more logical, you may be correct. Check it out and let us know. We can bet those too.

[MrFeelNothin]

[ QUOTE ]
What Dudd said.

I don't know where he said it's a chase.

I just question the theory behind it in the sense that taking a team under (widely available at most sites that frequent) would seem to be more logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well first of all he said exactly that, and I quote:

"There is no formula ... it's a chase system."

Secondly, use some common sense, for example the 4 games in 5 nights went 31-0 for 31 units profit in 2005-06. Do you think that if he ONLY bet the 4th game in 5 nights he would go 31-0, never once getting unlucky? And if he did somehow stumble on such a lock that the bookies didn't know about he would only bet 1 unit on it???

No, the 31-0 record is derived from never losing 4 games in a row.

Another example, the 3 games in 4 nights went 77-4 in '05 but for onl ~59 units in profit. This means the 4 losses cost over 4 units each while the wins were for only 1 unit, obviously a chase system.

[niss]

It would have helped had he called the thing a chase in his original post and not had it buried in the middle of the thread, where obviously I missed it.

[RichAM]

Well guys, it seems my hard work is just getting flamed b/c you dont believe me. That's fine, but I will continue to post the plays in this forum to show you it works. Books dont go around looking for systems to move their lines. You really think they are worried about this when there are so many degenerate gamblers that will spew their money all over the books site? They get their lines from Vegas and that's what they stay. Now if you have any actual QUESTIONS, I'd be happy to answer them for you.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh. Its just a bad idea. More monies for me to take from bookies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I finally found that other picture of you:

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh. Its just a bad idea. More monies for me to take from bookies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I finally found that other picture of you:


[/ QUOTE ]

My first thought was... "Why is that muppet beating off to flames?"