Saturday was a so-so day for dogs in general, a good day for the 7-dog trial...and a college hoops bonanza for the bookies!

_
Bookies have to make a living, we all know, and if they didn't make a profit, there would be nowhere to place a bet.

Still and all, Saturday's 99 college games included 22 so-called upsets that must have filled sportsbook coffers to bursting point.

I am leery of college sports of all stripes because of their erratic nature, and if I had a choice would stick with the pros.

But with the NHL on hiatus (they resume on Tuesday, praise be) I don't have a choice as long as my objective is to place seven dog bets whenever possible.

Saturday, we nailed one of the two underdog wins in the seven-game NBA lineup, plus three more from the 22 in the 99-game college schedule.

Notre Dame was the first college shocker, paying +425, and while most of the other underdog wins were deemed close matches by the bookies, standouts included Evansville over Drake at +380, New Mexico over BYU at +290 and North Carolina State over Miami Florida at +250.

None of those big payouts "qualified" as 7-dog trial picks, and although they keep winning with infuriating regularity, long shots are a really bad choice in the long run.

They are like naturals at blackjack or baccarat: They happen, but you can't count on them.

Making selections from the college schedule on any Saturday is tough, a clear case of too much of a good thing from a punter's point of view.

But obviously for the kids involved, their game is a very big deal, no matter how the bookies choose to rank it, and it is the only one being played that day.

The wide spread version of the dog trial finally got a boost from a +145 win at maximum bucks, and even the 5x rules set did will from four right picks out of seven selections.

Today, of course, is another day.

Updates are below, but first, answers to a couple of questions that have come up.

Some days, the numbers in the charts do not quite match up, but the discrepancy is never more than one day in more than 100 trial days so far.

It happens because sometimes I save screen snaps before I have added today's bets, which then stay in the minus column until all the finals are in.

A bigger question refers to the fact that the 50x trial hit a profit of almost $60,000 on Feb 10 before falling back.

Why didn't I take the money at that point and reset all the series to minimum bets once I had decided to continue the trial?

The simple answer is that it would have been a judgment call, which is disallowed in a trial that requires all prior losses to be recovered before each of the seven series can drop back to a minimum bet.

"Eating" a very small deficit in just one series back on Feb 10 would have been smart, and without the world watching, that is exactly what I would have done.

Unfortunately, it was never an option.

Here's today's data, five minutes before the first tip-off!






A quick addition to the recent posts about video poker, with thanks to a company called Two Patsies, Inc. (I couldn't find a website anywhere, but did find about a dozen references to the chart you see below).

What follows is a fairly typical VP strategy, with my rude highlighting added to show where I disagree...more than 50% of the time.

I say yes to holding high cards (A,K,Q,J) if they are same-suited, but not otherwise, and not always even when they are paired.

That variation alone rules out much of the standard strategy to the game and marks me as brave, stupid, innovative, or all three.

My reasoning is that winning combinations frequently come out of the clear blue sky when all five "cards" are junked, so it makes sense to do that as often as possible without ditching winning cards.

Remember, a high pair is not a win, it's a push, and putting a push ahead of a potential straight or a flush amounts to playing the game for the house rather than yourself.

No one ever got ahead by breaking even.

As I have said before, I now know that I have been playing these sucker-bait machines all wrong for years.

I don't feel bad about that because I play them very rarely, and always with money won at more sensible games.

I admit that I don't think of winnings as my money until I have turned chips or coins into folding green at the cashier's cage, and have stuffed it in my wallet before heading out the casino door.

Plenty of people disagree with that, and they have the right to be wrong!

Either way, my posts about VP continue to be ignored, and that's fine because in part this blog is about going on the record and maintaining a digital paper trail, even if those last three words add up to an oxymoron.


Monday, March 1 at 1:35pm:

A slow sports book day yesterday, and I don't have a lot to say for once!

A couple of thing, though: Bleak as the current 50x slump in the 7-dog trial might seem to be, only one of the seven series (#5, naturally) is in the red overall.

Here's some data:


And in the spirit of the cliche that there is no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer, I want to make it clear that none of the iPod games that I play permits players to add to their bankroll without winning.

Many online "demo" simulations of casino slots and table games allow exactly that, making a big fat bottom line meaningless.

The iPod video poker game I use starts you out with 100 points and adds another skimpy 100 only when you wipe out to zero.

The iPod blackjack game opens with a $500 bankroll which, again, is only renewed when the cupboard is bare.

So the screenshots below should actually mean something to those of you who are interested:



Here's today's 7-dog trial info:





Tuesday, March 2 at 3:00pm:

I'm celebrating the resumption of the NHL season with an all-ice dog pack today.

Monday's picks scored three wins out of seven, not bad against a pretty lousy overall DWR but not good enough to save us from sliding further into the red.

I have learned a number of useful lessons since the 7-dog trial started last November 1, but I can't apply them because the rules do not permit any mid-stream horse changing.

One is that +100 to +180 is far too wide a range to pick from, and another is that I need to develop a more rigorous selection process.

It'll happen, but not before dogs (oxymoronically) dig their way out of the hole under the current rules set(s).

Here are today's summaries:-



An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_

Read More

A great dog day Friday for the NBA, but college basketball favorites managed almost a clean sweep, handing us another red-ink day. Think green today!

_
Up against the clock today, so I'll just supply updates and leave it at that...



Later...

Today's games are partially under way and what will be will be.

Meanwhile, I confess I am just a tad disappointed that no one has picked up on my recent posts about video poker!

I realize that the kind of punter who is interested in betting smart against sports books is probably not the type to throw hard-earned money away on sucker trap slots.

The same applies to me.

I am a table games player, as a rule, and would only have been tempted back to video poker if my local casino had not shut down the pit, then sent out "free play" scrip worth more than $100 by way of an apology.

I didn't make my fortune with that Benjamin's worth of freebies, or with the $100 or so I added to the pot in the name of "research."

But I was able to conclude that I have been misreading video poker for years, deluded into assuming that because I had landed a few $1,000-plus royals I must be doing it right.

Logically, holding anything other than pairs, short-odds options or pat hands makes no sense, and the common recommendation that mixed-suit high cards ("paint" to a blackjack player) should be kept in hopes of a breakeven match is nuts!

Except from the house's standpoint, that is.

Similarly, busted straights - 2,3,4,6 and so on - should never be held unless they are also four-flushes, and money pairs (jacks or better) should always be broken up if one of the high cards matches suit with the three cards that would otherwise be junked.

Any scenario in which only one card is replaced and the odds of a winning draw are 12-1 against should be shunned.

If you have two pairs and are hoping for a full house, the odds are 6-1 and you are at worst sure to double your initial stake, a four-card flush is a 3-1 probability for a win, and a double-ended four-card straight is another 6-1 prospect.

Long odds, certainly, but you have a better chance of winning than if you hold high cards willy-nilly the way the "experts" tell you to do.

Here's where I'm at with the iPod game right now:


As always, I can't claim that the results I am getting are a guarantee that a life-size casino sucker trap will behave the same way, but I have yet to find anything on the 'Net to suggest that the iPod app is somehow deficient.

If anyone out there has information to the contrary, I would love to read about it.

I did find numerous references from people discovering that they have been holding the "wrong" cards for years, but did not click on all 101,100 links!

Maybe tomorrow?

An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_

Read More

Thursday was another non-dog day, but we managed three wins out of seven anyway - OK news for 5x, not so great for 50x (will the slump ever end?).

_
On days like Thursday, I am tempted to conclude that extending the spread from 5x to 50x is all very well, but the recovery process might be boosted by increasing the bet load on series that have already turned around.

That way, we would not see relatively piddling wins failing to substantially offset losses when series #5 keeps on missing out, day after day.

Then I remember that the 50x tracking spreadsheet is set up to permit a variety of "what if" scenarios.

And when I test the spread the load theory, a win that still represents 64% of the best to date (Feb 10, a lifetime ago!) vanishes in an instant, to be replaced by a very large puddle of red ink.

This whole experiment is all about patience, really.

Years ago, I spent time with one of the most successful businessmen in the Lake Tahoe area of Northern Nevada, and he complained about the current Wall Street obsession with day by day and month by month results.

"I'm a quarter to quarter man myself," he told me. "And by that I mean quarter centuries."

About a decade after that interview, my temporary mentor decided he was ready to move on to new challenges, but too young to retire at pushing 80.

So he sold a business that he'd started in an aircraft hangar with two employees to GE...for a few grand less than a billion dollars!

One last thing: No more posting hours and hours ahead of game times, with apologies to readers in Europe who will now have to stay up later if they want to match my bets.

In this past week alone, there have been four screw-ups twixt the early AM and gametime, resulting in posted "dog" picks becoming favorites, or odds dropping like bricks in a bucket.

So here I am, 10 minutes from NBA and CBB tip-offs, with today's updates.

Read them...and wait.





An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_

Read More

Dogs delivered again yesterday, and both versions of the 7-dog trial took significant leaps forward. Once again, the numbers were on our side.

_
Neither of the rules sets is out of the woods yet, but the 50x trial jumped to 80% of its best win to date and it's early days!

Dognostics take half-hearted potshots at me from time to time, suggesting that somehow I am cooking the books to support my nutty ideas.

Given that each day's bets are usually posted several hours ahead of game starts, and that when I'm occasionally beaten by the clock, it is never by more than a few minutes, I don't see how I could do that.

But the folks out there who believe with every fiber of their being that there is no way to beat the book (or the house) will do whatever it takes to dump cold water on anyone who dares to differ.

And that includes...cooking the books!

Response to my recent post about video poker has been tepid, but so far no one has suggested electric shock therapy or a straightjacket.

Breaking away from the consensus that high cards should always be held in pursuit of what usually turns out to be a push at best takes intestinal fortitude, I agree, but at least according to the iPod sim, it's worth it.

Here's the current state of play (although I promised myself that I would stop at +10,000 units!).


To those who say the app has to be flawed, I can only repeat that I have yet to see a single royal flush, and have only hit two straight flushes to date. The rest of the wins have been plain old fours, flushes, straights, threes and pairs.

The same skeptics look at my results against the iPod blackjack app, which would be much higher but for the $5,000 table limit, and grumble that I must have found some way to hack into the program and crank up the numbers.


I suppose it's possible, but I sure as hell don't know how!

Back to business with today's 7-dog trial updates:





Thursday, February 25 at 11:50am:

A nasty, nasty day yesterday. What more can I say?

Insult was added to injury when one of the only two winning picks dropped below the magic break-even point (+100) when the time came to place the day's bets.

%@it happens...

Here's the dreadful data:





My online meanderings yesterday led me to a British website that pitches a tip service focused on European professional football, or soccer to American readers.

Current results at Smarter Gambler show the service just under 10% ahead in terms of right picks over wrong ones, which is good.

The same summary shows both of the two separate "banks" that the service ties to its selections making a loss over the same period, which is bad.

How is it possible for a punter to be right more often than he's wrong and still lose money?

By backing favorites, that's how...

An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_

Read More

Dogs rule on Tuesday and we catch 100% of our bets, providing an all-around boost for the 7-dog trial. Pity we only made two selections that day!

_
I was a candidate for a nasty case of the coulda woulda shouldas when I caught up with Tuesday's final scores last night.

But I have been doing this just about long enough to be happy when I manage to take a few steps up the ladder, especially when I am trying to climb out of a deep hole, without worrying too much about what might have been.

I have come to accept that my selection process needs to be refined, which is certainly not to say that it should be more subjective.

I don't plan to launch vigorously into the "sports fund" arena until major league baseball gets underway, and by then I will hopefully have figured out a reliable way to use the numbers to pick each day's smartest bets.

Yesterday, with all of the NHL bunch off the ice to avoid stealing Olympic thunder, I came close to making no selections at all, and finally settled on two, both of which won.

As it happened, four out of five NBA games went to underdogs, along with three out of seven CBB games.

The one thing you can count on is that however bad it gets from day to day, underdogs will always claw their way out of trouble over time.

They won't win more than half of all games, or even come close, but they will achieve a DWR of between 43 and 45 percent, and with target betting rules consistently applied, that's more than good enough.

It's not always an easy ride, as we have seen from the 5x summaries since we hit our high point on January 18 and from 50x in the last week and a half, but over time it is an upward trajectory.

Here's the latest data:





An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_

Read More

A brief interlude in the on-going 7-dog sports book trial turns our attention to a game experts say is a guaranteed long-term loser: Video poker.

_
For as long as I have frequented casinos (46 years so far!), slot machines have been pretty much a no-fly zone for me.

There have been only two exceptions: dollar reels, back in the good old Vegas days when they were calibrated so generously that a $100 "investment" almost always saw a profit, and video poker machines, as long as I had blackjack winnings in my back pocket to assuage feelings of guilt.

With all casino games I have ever tackled (especially including blackjack and baccarat) my primary assumption has been that whatever the house encourages you to do, you'd be better off doing the opposite.

Video poker - "pokies" to readers in Australia and in that beautiful, even more English country I was taught in school to think of as "the antipodes" - is a case in point.

"Hold, hold, hold" is the rule most people follow.

So, naturally, I hold as few "cards" as possible.

I hit 10,000 units on the iPod video poker game today after testing yet another of my casino game theories for more hours than I like to admit to.

The essence of this idea (based upon my old habit of only risking cash on VP machines when blackjack has handed me a large win) is that players consistently sabotage themselves, and that the machines are designed to encourage and exploit that human weakness.

Generally, players hold far too many cards too often, preventing the machine from doing what it does best and delivering high-value pat hands from full sets of five.

I have not hit that many royal flushes over the years, four at most since we moved to Nevada in 1987.

But then again, my play on these machines has been a fraction of the time that fanatics (like the leading lady of local realtors here in rural northern Nevada!) put in.

I would not have got into this again if my local casino had not shut down its table games for more than two months for major renovations!

My multi-part VP rule is to hold all pairs, hold only same-suited high cards, hold four cards for a flush even if it means breaking up a "money pair" (Jacks or better), and to avoid all busted or one-ended 4-card straight possibilities like the plague.

The only time I will hold four cards for a straight is if the odds are 6-1 rather than 12-1, as in 2,3,4,5 which would be completed by either 6 or A, and K,Q,J,10, which also has two chances in 12.

Given K,Q,J,9,5 or similar with the high cards of mixed suits, I throw away all five cards and start over, doing the same with A,K,Q,J,? or A,2,3,4,?.

What's the sense in bucking odds of 12-1 for a payout of 3-1?

Breaking up a money-back pair (J,J or better) in pursuit of a 5-1 payout on a flush does make sense, however, keeping in mind that a 30u return on a 5u bet is 6 FOR 1, not 6 TO 1.

You don't actually win anything with a high pair.

You get your money back, which is a push, which is a waste of your time and talent.

Ah, say those who do a happy dance whenever they break even on a hand, it's better than losing, and you get another grab at the brass ring.

The method I have been following is actually quite a departure from the widely-published "optimum strategy" which in my view greatly limits the win potential.

I have saved dozens of screens from my iPod and at some point will gather them all together and post them on the blog with appropriate explanations.

In the meantime, words will have to paint the pictures.

Hard as it may be to throw away a K,Q,A of mixed suits, it is the right thing to do.

Sure, you have a slight (less than 50-50) chance of pulling a matching high card and "winning" your bet back - but did you sit down at the machine just to break even?

If you did, you won't, in the end.

But if you let the beast deal five new cards all at once, you may actually see a serious return on your money.

That's why holding even one high card before drawing is a bad plan: If it's an A of diamonds, you will need four diamonds for a flush, 2,3,4,5 or K,Q,J,10 for a straight, and another A for an even-money pair.

Think how you will feel if you draw four cards from a different suit (than diamonds), or a four-card straight flush that gives you a five-card winner but falls far short of really big money because the card you kept is a mis-match.

Throw the bum out and start over, as we all should with most of our politicians!

Of those Royals I mentioned, all but one of them came at me in a five-card deal, and as I recall, the exception was a four-flush that happened also to be a busted straight.

I have talked about this to other players, all of them far more experienced than I am, and they say the same thing.

The big money payouts usually come in a no-brainer package, requiring you to either hold all five cards, or to do nothing but say thank you very much after throwing away your first hand and starting over.

The closer you follow the advice of "experts" the more likely you are to lose your money.

Yes, odds are you will stay in the game for longer if your bankroll is limited to fewer than 100 rounds.

But if you keep on holding mixed-suit cards or prioritizing "money pairs" at the expense of potential flushes and straights, you are much less likely to see a long-term profit.

I think a 10,000-unit win (worth $2,500 on a quarter VP machine) says a lot in support of my ideas, although I am sure skeptics will claim that the "app" does not accurately mimic real play.

The sim allows a starting bankroll of 100 points, or 20 rounds at 5 points each, and until I adopted the new strategy, I blew away several 100-point startups and kept succumbing to the 10% house edge for the game.

I should add that I did not pull a single "Royal" to hit that five-figure iPod milestone (now 10,200 as I type this) and landed only two straight flushes paying 49-1 in all that time.

How hard can it be for the simulation to get it right?

It's easy enough to create your own, slower, "sim" by using a single deck of cards, dealing out first five cards face down, then below or on top of them, five cards face up.

Discarded cards from the second row are replaced with those from the first, but the rule is that a discarded #2 can only be replaced with the #2 above it and so on.

That's how it is with a "pokie" which hides another "card" behind each opening up card and simply flips it over after you have chosen your holds and hit the draw button.

Playing a manual version, the deck must be shuffled before each round, as it is on a machine.

It's a pain, but necessary, because otherwise the odds against you, bad as they are, will get worse as the deck diminishes.

I don't have time to mess with all that shuffling, so I use the iPod app and am grateful for it!

The Wizard of Odds touts a VP strategy that he says returns 99.46%.

Mine has returned more than 100x that amount. So far...

Which is better, do you think?

An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_

Read More

It wasn't underdog performance that was the problem on Thursday, it was the selection process that struck out! And so it goes...

_
Underdogs came roaring back yesterday with both NBA games padding the bookies' wallets, and 10 upsets in 24 contests on the college basketball roster.

In spite of the surge, we could only manage two right picks in seven, which pushed both the 5x and 50x 7-dog trials deeper into the red.

It was a great day for a process that accepts all bets in the +100 to +180 range, that's for sure.

Dog surprises (not to be confused with those squelchy things you find on your front lawn) included New Orleans thrashing -700 favorites UL Monroe, and Loyola Marymount stepping on -750 faves Gonzaga.

Not that there will ever be a day when I recommend betting on underdogs with odds that long.

Here's how things looked after Thursday's games:



Things will get better soon, right?

On the 50x side, series #5 is somehow always out of the room when wins are handed out.

I guess there is a chance that we won't get back to the top of the curve until all or most of the other series are betting enough to offset the losses when they bring in winners and #5 is passed over again.

Saturday, February 20 at 9:15am:

Finally, a little progress on both fronts!

Underdogs continued their mighty surge on Friday, winning seven out of 12 NBA games and two of six CBB events, for a combined DWR of 50%.

That's better!

Here are updates for today, with current selections included, as always...





Sunday, February 21 at 11:35am:

Dogs delivered a DWR of 18% yesterday, bringing tough times for the 7-dog trial with bets capped at 5x the minimum, but more progress for the 50x parallel rules set.

There is also a discrepancy between the records below and the pre-games bet list posted yesterday.

I make it a point of policy to accept the consequences of my mistakes when they actually are my mistakes, but yesterday brought the second damaging source error in as many days.

I should explain: I do my best to post each day's upcoming bets as far ahead of game time as I can so that readers in time zones eight or more hours ahead of PST can match the bets if they want to without having to stay up past their bedtimes.

Every once in a while, I mess up, and a team that was the "dog" when I first put my list together becomes the favorite or (more likely) I write the data down wrong when I am copying from the 'Net while sipping my early-AM cup of coffee.

What happens next is that when the bets actually come to be placed, the slip-up is caught, and the money goes on the right team.

I draw my first odds data from a single source, knowing that it is mostly reliable but occasionally quirky.

Saturday, I listed the Sacramento Kings as my pick over the Los Angeles Clippers, when from the start the Clips were the underdogs. The same thing happened on Thursday (Stanford over Oregon in the CBB) and I ate the loss. The second time, I caught the error, and put it right in the public record as well as my private one.

As I said, I am happy to pay for my mistakes (or if not happy, at least willing!). This time the culpa was not mea!

Here's today's (shortened) bet list and all that other stuff...





Monday, February 22 at 12:35pm:

I placed only three bets Sunday and two of them were winners.

Good news for the 5x bankroll, bad for the 50x because the loser was a $5,000 max bet.

The NHL hiatus continues to make pickings slim, and I remain skeptical about NCAA basketball in spite of the fact that yesterday, dogs topped favorites six times in nine games, one of which I had on my list.

Here are the current updates:





Recovery is taking a while for both versions of the 7-dog trial, but that's really nothing new.

Only time will tell...

An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_

Read More

You can't change the rules in mid-game, and that's fair enough. But that does not mean you are not allowed to learn from past mistakes!

_
The 5x trial bounced up for the first time in quite a while yesterday, thanks to four right picks out of seven.

But once again, the 50x alternative took an expensive hit because none of the four winning selections matched up with the day's biggest bet.

It's frustrating, that's for sure - but not, I think, a reason to assume that the the hallowed rule that makes each of the seven series independent of the others should be abandoned.

Not yet, anyway.

In my estimation, the folly of a too narrow spread has been amply confirmed by what has happened to the 5x trial since it hit its all-time high a month ago.

But the current slump in the alternate or parallel trial, while painful, is not the worst we have seen since this whole thing began on November 1.

For example, we hit a high on November 8, then suffered a series of hits that were not recovered until Nov 14, with a new high established on Nov 18.

The wheels came off soon after that, and it took until December 6 (almost three weeks) before recovery was achieved, with a new best win being recorded next day before another slump took effect.

The next recovery was on December 17, then on Dec 19, and a new high was set on Dec 21 before the next slump, which was turned around on Dec 26, followed by a new high on Dec 29.

The pattern was repeated with a recovery on January 4, a new high on January 5, a slump that was recovered on Jan 12, a new high on Jan 18, a slump, and a turnaround on Feb 10.

Too much information, perhaps, but what I am suggesting here is that the tough times we have seen since the Feb 10 high are nothing new and will probably be turned around.

For me the worst recent news is that after placing so many CBB bets, I fear I am stuck with having to add the NCAA games to the NBA database.

It will be a fearsome task because there are so darn many college teams!

Oh, well...

Here's the latest info:





An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_

Read More