THE 80-0 BASEBALL SYSTEM

[ComptrBob]

Date Bet-Size ML Result
March 20: 200 LAD -200 W
March 28: 117 Atl -117 PPD, 93 Phi +107 PPD, 220 AZ -220 W, 145 Hou -145 L, 110, Minn -110 W, 115 TEX -115 W, 181 BAL -181 W
March 29: 125 Atl -125 W, 87 Phi +115 L, 319 Hou -130 L
March 30: 152 Phi +123 L, 733 Hou -130 L
March 31: 282 Phi +120 W, 1581 Hou -122 L

Teams that have won (w/ # losses): LAD(0), AZ(0), TEX(0), BAL(0), Minn(0), ATL(0), Phi(2)

Hou lost 4 in a row, so the system loses -$2771 and only wins $700. Net -$2071. Total Amt bet $ 4250.
Shows that chases with small favs (that fail) will lose less than large favorites (that fail). However, it's also much more likely that a series like the Astros will lose 4 in a row.

All of the out-of-sample data put together: W/L 145-7, net -9.03u (556.80u total risked since 2010), ROI = -1.62%.
This is the statistically significant result of the system up to and including the 2024 season.

Will look forward to next year!

 

[Wade]

I went with the 5th game and won. Was a no hitter as well. Never give up.

 

[ComptrBob]

Getting ready for the 2025 MLB season.

Teams are NL: SD, LAD, NYM, & Phil and AL: NYY, KC, Det & Clev.

 

[Wade]

Nothing wrong planning 6 months in advance.

 

[ComptrBob]

Welcome to the 2025 Season for Ned's 80-0 system, bets made so far:

Date Bet-Size ML Result
March 18: 200 LAD -200 W
March 27: 94 NYM +106 L, 175 Phil W -175, 154 SD -140 W, 155 NYY -155 W, 173 KC -173 L, 61 Det +165 L, 69 Cle +145 W
March 28: 158 NYM +123 W, 260 KC -+105 W, 100 Det +160 L
March 29: 158 Det +165 L
March 31: 392 Det +107

Detroit has lost 3 in a row, they have one more shot at winning at Seatle on Monday.

Teams that have won (w/ # losses): LAD(0), Phil(0), NYY(0), SD(0), Cle(0), NYM(1), KC(1)

Amount Won: $700 Amount Risked: $2135.

 

[howid]

Det has lost 3 in a row, they have one more shot at winning at Seatle on Monday.

first page it says ignore series if two playoff teams play each other; too too lazy to read 8 pages to see if anything amended ...

 

[ComptrBob]

first page it says ignore series if two playoff teams play each other; too too lazy to read 8 pages to see if anything amended ...

Yeah, I pointed out that if you ignore the playoff team matchup, the system is no longer 80-0. As I remember, if you just stop, the system was 78-0, if you continue with the next series, it was 78-2.

Ned (tout Alan Eastman) hadn't data mined it correctly, but it is 80-0 if you play both sides for Game 1 and just continue with the loser. Of course this makes no sense from a betting standpoint. Rather than admit his mistake about ignoring the series, he surreptitiously just created a different rule.

 

[ComptrBob]

Let me offer a disclaimer before I get into this. I'm not an advocate of chase systems whatsoever, they almost always end in big losses, no matter how good they are, how well concieved, they require you to wager tons of money and lay it all on the line for the hopes of 1 unit several times during their course. With that said I think I have devised one, that eliminates the huge risk by playing into a 5th,6th, or 7th game, because this one only requires you to double up 3 times at the most, and there is a safer version of this same formula, that would require doubling up just 1 time, certainly not too threatening.
THE SYSYEM:
Wager on all the teams that were in the playoffs last year in game 1 (if 2 playoff teams happening to be playing each other you pass). If it losses, you double up on them to win through game 4 only! You double your bet, plus 1 unit, as you are seeking to win one unit. As soon as they win, even if it is game 1, you STOP! DO NOT PLAY THEM AGAIN. The first time they win you stop, be it game 1,2,3 or 4, and if they don't win any of their first 4, then you also STOP!

Re: THE 80-0 BASEBALL SYSTEM
It is clear from the OP's first post that you skip any game between two playoff teams and only bet a team when they play a non-playoff team. In the last 10 years, there have been 9 playoff teams who met another playoff in the first series of the next year, so how could this system go 80-0 unless every team was allowed to go to the full "4 game stretch"?
Actually, the system as described has not gone 80-0.

Re: THE 80-0 BASEBALL SYSTEM
based on baseball-reference.com, Ned forgot to skip games in which teams play other playoff teams. Hint: Cubs and Hou both were playoff teams in 1998.
//www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1999-schedule-scores.shtml
The standard responses to such flaws in the system are to do further datamining and/or change the rules in midstream.

I'm going to make one more attempt in hopes that those that frequent here can keep this civil, and just respect the fact that we all have one goal, and like it or not, that goal is to beat the books. If you want to question the integrity of what I do here, please send me a PM and I'd be more than happy to address any and all issues you may have. I do this for a living, and not to blow my own horn, I'll let my results do the talking, and if you decide I have something worthy, then use your own discretion to utilize the information or pass. Don't attack the integrity of the information, because I can say this and back it up, I know more than you do when it comes to this. Just leave it at that.
ADDRESSING THE 80-0 SYSTEM:
For the record it is now 88-0. I did not address what to do when teams play each other, in the first 4 games. For most this is going to sound dumb, because you don't get it, but for others, you will totally get it. It simply doesn't matter if teams are playing each other, you play both sides! For those that think this is dumb, I'll try to explain and hopefully it gets through. That guarantees you a win, and if the underdog wins, then you are plus more than one unit. If the favorite wins, you are down 1 unit chasing game 2. Whay is this solid handicapping logic? Because no team has ever lost the first 4 games! Your reducing the risk by guaranteeing a winner, for a simple vig, and there is a chance of going positive in that one both-sided game. Based on trust of the system, going forward with the team that lost, still leaves you in a winning situation, that has never lost, nad for the record is now 88-0!!! The naysayers are going to look at this and question the logistics, because they just don't get what putting yourself in a winning situation is.

Re: THE 80-0 BASEBALL SYSTEM
You did address what to do when playoff teams play each other, you said pass, now you say play both sides. It is clear that you either you did not test this theory or you overlooked and/or missed the exception in 1999.
The "new rule" is exactly what I predicted in a previous post, classic datamining, i.e. change the rules when it is pointed out that the proposed system is flawed.

Of course, in this case, betting both sides of a game is the one way out of the conundrum, the other way would have been to present a system with just 8 years of data which goes 64-0 even when passing games between playoff teams.

Also, just for the record, since the wild card system was permanently adopted in 1995, the "modified system" (bet both sides of playoff games) has failed twice, once in 1996 and once in 1997. Thus it is 110-2 when not datamined to avoid the first 3 years of the wild card system.

This is the sub thread of posts concerning the "invented" bet "both sides" rule.

 

[ComptrBob]

Date Bet-Size ML Result
March 18: 200 LAD -200 W
March 27: 94 NYM +106 L, 175 Phil W -175, 154 SD -140 W, 155 NYY -155 W, 173 KC -173 L, 61 Det +165 L, 69 Cle +145 W
March 28: 158 NYM +123 W, 260 KC -+105 W, 100 Det +160 L
March 29: 158 Det +165 L
March 31: 392 Det +107 W

Detroit had lost 3 in a row, they save the chase with a win at Seattle.

Teams that have won (w/ # losses): LAD(0), Phil(0), NYY(0), SD(0), Cle(0), NYM(1), KC(1), DET(3)

Amount Won: $800 Amount Risked: $2135.

All of the out-of-sample data put together: W/L 153-7, net -1.03u (578.15u total risked since 2010), ROI = -0.18%.
This is the statistically significant result of the system up to and including the 2025 season.

Will look forward to next year!

 

[Ray Luca]

Yeah, I pointed out that if you ignore the playoff team matchup, the system is no longer 80-0. As I remember, if you just stop, the system was 78-0, if you continue with the next series, it was 78-2.

Ned (tout Alan Eastman) hadn't data mined it correctly, but it is 80-0 if you play both sides for Game 1 and just continue with the loser. Of course this makes no sense from a betting standpoint. Rather than admit his mistake about ignoring the series, he surreptitiously just created a different rule.

Wait

Ned is Alan Carbone Eastman who is ACE ACE from Rx??