Tweet
Holy **** I found this! Thought it was lost!!!!! Thanks UC! LOL
Chris sent this to me 5 years ago and I still wish I new who wrote it! I always wanted to pick there brain! Anyways just thougth I would share it! Feel free to add anything or if your the one who wrote it, enlighten us with the plays!
Thanks
I have used that same system for the regular
> season as well. While the system has worked better than average for most
> regular seasons, it has been outstanding during the
> tournament. During the past seven NCAA Tournaments, there have been 443
> games played. My system has predicted the correct
> over/under in nearly 56% of those games, going 238-190-5 ats. There were
> ten games where my system predicted the total exactly
> to the line. When my system has differed by at least 3.5 points, it has
> predicted the correct over/under in 58.3% of the games,
> going 176-126-3. That's 69% of all the games being played turning into
> over 58% winners. Further research has allowed me to
> uncover certain situations which excel and the farther my line is off
> from the total, the better the results, only enhancing how well
> this system has performed. I don't always know when the plays will
> click, only that they will click. During those seven seasons,
> they have only failed to produce a substantial profit in one year, going
> 24-25 three years ago on the totals and losing -7.9% in both
> sides and totals for that year. Every other year has produced at least a
> +10% profit, including going 44-28 +48.15% two years ago.
> Four years ago, I started out of the gates going 21-6 during the first
> two days. Two years ago it was about even after the first two
> days and then went 9-0 on the 3rd day. Last year I was down about -17%
> after the first day and was ahead by Sunday, the fourth
> day, winning each of the next three days. Bottom line is I recommend
> playing all or none of the games. I expect to have around 25
> plays during the first two days. If you are not comfortable playing that
> much bankroll, I recommend playing less per play but play
> ALL of the plays. I don't always know which plays will win, only that
> they will win in the long run.
>
> During the first round the unders have come in about 56.5% of the time,
> going 126-97-3 since 1996. Overall for the whole
> tournament the unders have gone 224-202-9 52.6%. The top four seeds have
> gone 63-47-2 57.3%. During the first round, number 1
> seeds with a total of 150 or higher are 6-2 to the under, with a total
> of 145 or higher are 10-5 to the under.
>
> Also during the first round teams getting 18 points or more and NOT
> facing number 1 seeds, are 20-12-1 ats since 1991. Those
> teams this year are Wagner (Pittsburgh) and Sam Houston State (Florida).
> Minor conference teams (teams Vegas doesn't set a
> line on normally) are only 38-59-1 since 1991 when not receiving at
> least 18 points. If they are receiving 8 or less points they are
> only 10-24 ats. Those teams getting less than 18 points this year are
> Holy Cross (Marquette) and Troy State (Xavier). There are
> none receiving eight or less points.
>
> In the number seven seed versus the ten seed, the team with more wins is
> now 42-23 SU. Number ten seeds with less than 20
> wins are just 2-11 SU. There is also a subset of that 42-23 record that
> is 23-5 SU for the number seven seed. The teams that fit
> that subset are Indiana, Memphis and St. Joseph's. Those teams are all
> laying short numbers and should be considered for betting
> purposes.
>
> Number 1 seeds are 9-2 ats if they are laying less than 25 points. That
> applies to Oklahoma here.
>
> Teams playing in their home states are now 54-26 67.5% SU since 1985.
> Those teams this year (Notre Dame-Indiana,
> Oklahoma-Oklahoma, and Florida-Florida,. Watch for Texas and Syracuse
> if they advance to the Sweet Sixteen. Those same
> teams are 45-28 61.6% ats since 1991. If we don't count the first round,
> they are 26-11 70.3% from the second round on. Counting
> the first round again, if we only use dogs of less than eight or
> favorites of 18 or less, our numbers rise to 37-16 69.8%. Take away
> the first round again and we get 24-8 75.0%. ND, Oklahoma and Florida
> could be very solid plays if they make it to the second
> round.
>
> As with all situations, they are only profitable plays if there is value
> to go along with the plays. You would never want to play a
> game because there is value on the game if there is a strong situation
> going against it and you would never want to play a game
> just because there is a strong situation supporting it if there isn't
> any value on that team. An exaggerated example would be we all
> know number 1 seeds are 72-0 SU when facing number 16 seeds in the first
> round. If the line in these games was around a pick
> 'em this would be an outstanding opportunity to take the number 1 seed.
> But we all know the lines are usually around 25-35 points
> and therefore the 72-0 is somewhat meaningless. The situations above
> fall into the same theory. If you find yourself getting value
> along with the strong situations that apply above, you have yourself an
> excellent wagering opportunity.
> Teams playing in their home states are now 54-26 67.5% SU since 1985.
> if they advance to the Sweet Sixteen. Those same
> teams are 45-28 61.6% ats since 1991. If we don't count the first round,
> they are 26-11 70.3% from the second round on. Counting
> the first round again, if we only use dogs of less than eight or
> favorites of 18 or less, our numbers rise to 37-16 69.8%. Take away
> the first round again and we get 24-8 75.0%.
sweet 16 over L4 yrs (ats records):
DDFav= 1-3
won as dog in rd 1 & 2= 2-7
covered spread in rd 1 & 2= 13-18-1 (if both teams did, Fav is 2-6)
off su dog win= 7-14 (if both are, Fav is 0-4)
Fav -2 & less= 1-6
Fav -2.5-5.5= 8=5=1
Fav -6-9.5= 5-2
Chris sent this to me 5 years ago and I still wish I new who wrote it! I always wanted to pick there brain! Anyways just thougth I would share it! Feel free to add anything or if your the one who wrote it, enlighten us with the plays!
Thanks
I have used that same system for the regular
> season as well. While the system has worked better than average for most
> regular seasons, it has been outstanding during the
> tournament. During the past seven NCAA Tournaments, there have been 443
> games played. My system has predicted the correct
> over/under in nearly 56% of those games, going 238-190-5 ats. There were
> ten games where my system predicted the total exactly
> to the line. When my system has differed by at least 3.5 points, it has
> predicted the correct over/under in 58.3% of the games,
> going 176-126-3. That's 69% of all the games being played turning into
> over 58% winners. Further research has allowed me to
> uncover certain situations which excel and the farther my line is off
> from the total, the better the results, only enhancing how well
> this system has performed. I don't always know when the plays will
> click, only that they will click. During those seven seasons,
> they have only failed to produce a substantial profit in one year, going
> 24-25 three years ago on the totals and losing -7.9% in both
> sides and totals for that year. Every other year has produced at least a
> +10% profit, including going 44-28 +48.15% two years ago.
> Four years ago, I started out of the gates going 21-6 during the first
> two days. Two years ago it was about even after the first two
> days and then went 9-0 on the 3rd day. Last year I was down about -17%
> after the first day and was ahead by Sunday, the fourth
> day, winning each of the next three days. Bottom line is I recommend
> playing all or none of the games. I expect to have around 25
> plays during the first two days. If you are not comfortable playing that
> much bankroll, I recommend playing less per play but play
> ALL of the plays. I don't always know which plays will win, only that
> they will win in the long run.
>
> During the first round the unders have come in about 56.5% of the time,
> going 126-97-3 since 1996. Overall for the whole
> tournament the unders have gone 224-202-9 52.6%. The top four seeds have
> gone 63-47-2 57.3%. During the first round, number 1
> seeds with a total of 150 or higher are 6-2 to the under, with a total
> of 145 or higher are 10-5 to the under.
>
> Also during the first round teams getting 18 points or more and NOT
> facing number 1 seeds, are 20-12-1 ats since 1991. Those
> teams this year are Wagner (Pittsburgh) and Sam Houston State (Florida).
> Minor conference teams (teams Vegas doesn't set a
> line on normally) are only 38-59-1 since 1991 when not receiving at
> least 18 points. If they are receiving 8 or less points they are
> only 10-24 ats. Those teams getting less than 18 points this year are
> Holy Cross (Marquette) and Troy State (Xavier). There are
> none receiving eight or less points.
>
> In the number seven seed versus the ten seed, the team with more wins is
> now 42-23 SU. Number ten seeds with less than 20
> wins are just 2-11 SU. There is also a subset of that 42-23 record that
> is 23-5 SU for the number seven seed. The teams that fit
> that subset are Indiana, Memphis and St. Joseph's. Those teams are all
> laying short numbers and should be considered for betting
> purposes.
>
> Number 1 seeds are 9-2 ats if they are laying less than 25 points. That
> applies to Oklahoma here.
>
> Teams playing in their home states are now 54-26 67.5% SU since 1985.
> Those teams this year (Notre Dame-Indiana,
> Oklahoma-Oklahoma, and Florida-Florida,. Watch for Texas and Syracuse
> if they advance to the Sweet Sixteen. Those same
> teams are 45-28 61.6% ats since 1991. If we don't count the first round,
> they are 26-11 70.3% from the second round on. Counting
> the first round again, if we only use dogs of less than eight or
> favorites of 18 or less, our numbers rise to 37-16 69.8%. Take away
> the first round again and we get 24-8 75.0%. ND, Oklahoma and Florida
> could be very solid plays if they make it to the second
> round.
>
> As with all situations, they are only profitable plays if there is value
> to go along with the plays. You would never want to play a
> game because there is value on the game if there is a strong situation
> going against it and you would never want to play a game
> just because there is a strong situation supporting it if there isn't
> any value on that team. An exaggerated example would be we all
> know number 1 seeds are 72-0 SU when facing number 16 seeds in the first
> round. If the line in these games was around a pick
> 'em this would be an outstanding opportunity to take the number 1 seed.
> But we all know the lines are usually around 25-35 points
> and therefore the 72-0 is somewhat meaningless. The situations above
> fall into the same theory. If you find yourself getting value
> along with the strong situations that apply above, you have yourself an
> excellent wagering opportunity.
> Teams playing in their home states are now 54-26 67.5% SU since 1985.
> if they advance to the Sweet Sixteen. Those same
> teams are 45-28 61.6% ats since 1991. If we don't count the first round,
> they are 26-11 70.3% from the second round on. Counting
> the first round again, if we only use dogs of less than eight or
> favorites of 18 or less, our numbers rise to 37-16 69.8%. Take away
> the first round again and we get 24-8 75.0%.
sweet 16 over L4 yrs (ats records):
DDFav= 1-3
won as dog in rd 1 & 2= 2-7
covered spread in rd 1 & 2= 13-18-1 (if both teams did, Fav is 2-6)
off su dog win= 7-14 (if both are, Fav is 0-4)
Fav -2 & less= 1-6
Fav -2.5-5.5= 8=5=1
Fav -6-9.5= 5-2
Comment