It's like I keep saying: What goes down must come up. The bad news is that like slumps, surges can't last forever!

_

[Scroll down for Sunday's dog selections]

I had scheduled a break from blogging for a few days, but the ongoing "correction" after one of the worst dog dives since I started this experiment almost six months ago merits special attention, I think.

The 50x rules set for the 7-dog trial had another great day Tuesday thanks to a baseball DWR of 10/16 = 63% (10/21 overall) that gave us five right picks out of seven.

Casino advocate Mike Shackleford, self-anointed as the online Wizard of Odds, will tell you that winning is lucky and losing is the norm, and if you bet fixed or random values, he'll be right.

But target betting puts you ahead of the game even when you lose more bets than you win, and that's what's happening here.

In the 7-dog trial, right now we can claim 490 wins and 649 losses, which puts the bookies up a whopping 14 percent.

Betting a tight 1 to 5 spread, and even after a succession of wins, we are still $7,900 in the hole, or -5.6% of all betting action since November 1. The only good thing is that at least we're not 14% in the red.

I have been saying for decades that a tight betting spread is long-term suicide even against casino games with a house edge of less than 2%, but I set the 7-dog trial up on a twin track just to see if paybacks exceeding even money would put us ahead over time.

Widening the spread to 1 to 50 has us 30% down from our best win to date, but we are UP 4.7% of total action, and against a 14% bookies' advantage, that is no mean achievement.

Best of all, after yesterday's wins, only two of the seven lines or series are chasing recoveries in the 50x column, and matching and then exceeding the high we hit more than two months ago is looking do-able again.

Here's the latest data:





If you find yourself thinking This can't last, just remember that Mr. Shackleford and his casino clients very much want you to believe that, so you will do the right thing and quit while you are behind.

The last thing their bottom line needs is for punters to start thinking that betting right, rather than randomly, can improve their long-term prospects.

Thursday, April 29 at 9:50am

Checking yesterday's finals started out a thrilling experience then went rapidly downhill!

It was pretty much like the hour I spent in a Reno casino, where after winning fifty bucks in two minutes, I had to fight like crazy to get out with my skin in one piece...

The overall DWR was a healthy 44%, but we managed just three right picks out of seven, and the 5x rules set won just $100.

In the 50x column, unlucky timing meant that all three wins were at $100 bets, and the four losers lined up with big buck bets, one of them at the max.

That's how it goes sometimes.

Today's picks:

MLB 11:20PST 903 Arizona D'backs +135 13
MLB 7:05 907 Milwaukee Brewers +110 7.5
MLB 10:05 912 Detroit Tigers +125 9.5
MLB 11:05 913 Chicago WS +110 9.5
MLB 4:05 917 Oakland As +115 7.5
NHL 6:00 53 Detroit RWs +115 5.5
NBA 5:00 Dallas Mavericks +145 3.5/191

Friday, April 30 at 9:50am

Thursday left 5x at a standstill and 50x suffering the consequences of dropping a winning series all the way back to a minimum bet after a recovery!

Three wins out of seven selections isn't a terrible performance, but some days it's not quite good enough.

I repeat, the rules put in place on November 1 are, for the purposes of the 7-dog trial, sacred and inviolable!

That means that lessons learned along the way are lessons lost.

No complaints, just stating the fact that experience - what's past, in other words - is the best teacher, and adaptability has its place in the real world.

Today's dog picks:

MLB 11:20 951 Arizona D'backs +135 14.5
MLB 4:05 953 NY Mets +130 10.5
MLB 7:15 965 Colorado Rockies +105 7.5
MLB 4:05 971 Oakland As +115 9
MLB 4:05 974 Baltimore Orioles +130 9
MLB 7:10 979 Texas Rangers +130 7
NBA 7:00 554 Milwaukee Bucks +110 2 189.5

Saturday, May 1 at 9:50am

Friday's underdogs delivered an overall DWR of 47% but our 7-dog trial managed just three right picks out of seven.

50x got a nice boost because its two largest bets lined up with winners.

Today's picks:-



Sunday, May 2 at 9:20am

The timing that helped boost 50x to 78% of its best win to date yesterday would be dismissed as "lucky" by some.

In fact, as I have demonstrated here before, each of the seven series in the ongoing 7-dog trial has won and lost about the same number of times as any other.

Numbers rule, as always, and all we are seeing here is the fulfillment or vindication of statistical expectation.

Today's 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. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this.

Read More

The experts say the only lesson we are allowed to learn from past experience is that we can't win. Target betting says otherwise.

_

[Scroll down for current underdog selections]

Yes, I would be much happier if both the 5x and 50x rules sets for the on-going 7-dog trial were thousands ahead and the record showed nary a dip in our fortunes.

But even little kids still in diapers quickly learn that real life is all about ups and downs and learning how to get back on your feet after a fall.

The last three underdog days have been kind to the 50x column and not too hard on the conservative approach to target approach (which, as is so often the case, has proved to be the most dangerous betting policy in the long run).

The wide-spread tracker is firmly back in the green but still a long way short of its best win to date.

The 5x chart seems to be doomed to bouncing up and down interminably, deprived as it is of the ammo it needs to blast its way out of the hole on those days when the dog win rate matches or exceeds its 45% historical average.

Here are the current numbers:





Monday, April 26 at 12:15pm

Today's picks, hot on the heels of another 4/7 day on Sunday...

NBA 526 Milwaukee Bucks 189-2 +115 5:30PST
NHL 6 Nashville Predators 5 +130 6:00
MLB 952 NY Mets 8.5 +110 4:10
MLB 955 Washington Nats 8 +140 5:05
MLB 964 SF Giants 6.5 +140 7:15
MLB 966 Toronto BJs 9 +120 4:10
MLB 967 Detroit Tigers 9.5 +125 5:05

Tuesday, April 27 at 11:10am

One game was delayed yesterday (Dodgers/Mets) but dogs managed "upsets" in three out of six picks and the 50x column leaped ahead dramatically thanks to great timing. Even the 5x rules set eked out a win!

Today's picks are all from the MLB schedule:

903 4:10 San Diego Padres 9 +115
905 5:05 Washington Nats 8 +135
916 7:15 SF Giants 9.5 +120
919 4:05 Min Twins 8 +110
922 4:05 Baltimore Orioles 9 +130
923 4:10 Oakland As 8.5 +135
931 4:10 LA Dodgers 7 +120

(All target betting wagers are "straight up" or money-line only, meaning that only the final result matters; I include totals and spreads where appropriate for those who bet on such things - both toss-ups that in my opinion are only good for the book!).

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. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this._

Read More

Finally, after two dismal days, dogs get their tails out from between their legs and deliver a 50% win rate. Once again, "It's the percentages"!

_
[Scroll down for Saturday's picks!]

Thursday's results brought a much-needed surge to both the 5x and 50x columns, and chances are there will be more good news today and over the weekend.

Why the optimism?

Because in every season in every sport, underdogs do substantially better overall than they have been doing lately, and that indicates that frequent "corrections" are as reliable (if never precisely predictable) in sports betting as they are in market investments.

In both cases, surprise slumps can do huge damage and for a while it looks as if there will never be a recovery.

But surges or spikes happen at least as often as slumps.

And as on Wall Street, they make the game worth the candle.

(That's an expression I have always been fond of, by the way: It's a pre-electricity saying to indicate that an after-dark activity is or is not worth the cost of the candle required to illuminate it!)

Once in a while, someone writes to tell me underdogs do not have to win in order for the bookies to make extra profits, and I get a lecture about "double-diming" and other sportsbook fictions.

A cursory examination of any day's odds schedule demonstrates that the book routinely pads odds in its favor so that its profit from popular events will far exceed 20%...or even 30% or 40%...whether the favorite wins or loses.

Given that 80% or more of all bets jump on the favorite, it stands to sense that an underdog win is always far more profitable for the book than the 20% or so it collects when the favorite prevails.

It's math that can be done on a napkin with a french-fry dipped in ketchup, and not a lot of squiggles are needed!

Today's my day to head off up to the Lake to recover my local losses at the tables, so I'm a little early with Friday's dog picks.

In a day or so, a breakdown of all the dog trial ups and downs to date, but for now, here's today's update:



Saturday, April 24 at 9:45am

Friday knocked 5x back a couple of notches but gave 50x a solid win worth more than $2,000.

Too rushed to post full details today, so here are Saturday's dog picks:

NBA 11:00am (508) Charlotte Bobcats +115 182/2
NBA 1:30pm (510) Portland Trailblazers +110 202.5/2
MLB 10:05am (952) Washington Nationals +130 9
MLB 10:10am (954) NY Mets +115 8.5
MLB 1:05pm (967) Cleveland Indians +120 7.5
MLB 3:10pm (973) Toronto Blue Jays +115 8.5
MLB 5:05pm (979) Detroit Tigers +145 9.5

I'm going to have to take a longer break next week, probably from Monday through Thursday, but will resume the 7-dog trial earlier if my work schedule permits.

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. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this._

Read More

Some days, you feel maybe you should have stayed in bed! Wednesday was a horror story on all fronts, including local table games.

_
It's like I always tell myself when everything that could go wrong has gone wrong: You have to lose to win.

And even after all these years, I still believe it.

Dogs gave me just one win in seven picks for the second day in succession, so now even the 50x rules set is awash in red ink for the first time this year.

I concluded quite a while back that seven picks a day is too many, but on days when all dogs are getting their hides thrashed, you're going to do badly no matter how many selections you back or how clever you think you are.

It's the percentages, stupid (I'm quoting a former President of the USA here, not insulting my readers!).

When I strolled into my "local" for a half hour of blackjack, I had no idea, obviously, that all but one of my underdogs were doomed to defeat.

Not that it would have made any difference.

What woulda made a difference was if I had paid attention to one of the regulars, who was standing in the cashier's line with a long face, and told me: "I wouldn't if I were you...all the dealers are hot this afternoon."

An hour later, I was licking my wounds from my first serious loss in months, and contemplating the awful truth that for now, I'm in the hole for the year to date.

Ouch!

There are still eight more months to go, of course, and I walked away from the killing field in mid-recovery after the dealer turned a stiff into 21 for the third time in a row.

That kind of luck you can't beat!

I'll have to buy in with three times as much cash next time to support the higher level of betting, but that's standard and nothing to worry about.

The likelihood is that I will be ahead again after the next session, which probably won't be until next week because I am never in a hurry to get back in the action after taking a rare drubbing at the tables.

One thing that provided an interesting distraction yesterday was the misbehavior of a player who was a stranger to me, and whom I hope will remain so.

He wasn't drunk and he didn't violate the basic strategy for blackjack, but he was a jerk who flashed green chips like a sailor on shore leave, and sighed and moaned about the fact that the two players on each side of him were betting the royal match.

My view is that RM is a mug's game, but yesterday the two punters at my table were making more money at that than they were at blackjack.

I don't like the way that what I see as a silly bet slows up everything else, but there is no sense in joining other players at a table if you have a hard time suffering the strangeness of your fellow man.

The fact that he was pushing hundreds of dollars out on each of two hands - and, what was worse, kept winning while the rest of us took it in the shorts! - did not give him the right to try to control the table.

The right way to respond to players who irritate you (a dealer too, for that matter) is to take up your chips and walk away.

Fools have a right to be parted from their money (as I was yesterday!) any way they want, and giving them a hard time is just plain rude.

The deadly table session was a reminder that the sports book is so much more civilized than the casino floor in so many ways.

I'm still waiting for Pinnacle to credit my new account - they have had my money for more than a week now, and the only thing that is stopping me from getting seriously anxious about that is the A+ rating they get from pretty much all the objective online critics I have canvassed for background.

The Pinnacle site is certainly impressive. Pity I still can't play any of their games!

Here's today's sports book update. Shed a few tears for the 7-dog trial, by all means...



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. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this.
_

Read More

And now for a few words about stop-loss. Is it cowardice, or is it as sensible as a parachute (in which case, how long should the ripcord be)?

_

[Scroll down for a sports-book update for Tuesday and Wednesday, April 20 and 21]

I have probably had more knock-down, drag-out disagreements about the stop-loss concept than about any other aspect of progressive betting, maybe because I am so used to winning that I hate to be forced to admit defeat in mid-game!

There can be no argument that if you bet a flat or fixed amount every time, or if you select your bet values randomly, you are sure to lose in the end.

The truth of that hard fact can be easily demonstrated, and is accurately covered by the axiom Any amount bet against a negative expectation must always have a negative final outcome.

And never mind the math: It's simply logical that if the house has an overall edge in a game (and there are none in which it doesn't) you will over time lose more bets than you win; it therefore follows that if, by flat or random betting, you make your average win worth the same as or less than your average loss, you must also lose more money than you win.

Progressive betting in a manner that is neither as obvious nor as dangerous as a simple Martingale or double-up is, as we all know, the only way to win in the long run.

It works because it enables you to achieve an average win value that exceeds your average loss value by an amount sufficient to more than offset the expectation that your number of losses will be greater than your number of wins.

Luck can be useful, but it is never more than a short-term ally, and it has a nasty habit of siding with the house at least as often as it does with any player.

We then have to deal with the tricky question that asks how far you should be willing to go before you pull the plug on a progressive strategy, and its even thornier corollary that demands a number to cover the bankroll required.

I have always had to compromise when it comes to a stop-loss because although I can honestly claim not to have had a losing year in casinos in more than two decades, I have never had the million-dollar bankroll that years of research tells me would be pretty much bullet-proof.

Stop-loss came up again recently because of the hours I have spent playing Pinnacle's online table games (Bodog's too, but that's another story!) and patiently waiting for the dough I wired more than a week ago to show up in my account.

Stop-loss is what I have always referred to as a how long is a piece if string? question, especially when dealing with players who have far more money than I do, but far less tolerance for risk.

Confidence and consistency are far more critical to success in gambling than luck can ever be, but to be sure, lots and lots of money is a big help.

Years ago, I played alongside a foreign visitor at Harrahs Stateline, and he mentioned in passing that he never lost at blackjack because he had "too much money."

Nice, I thought.

My own real-play rule for as long as I can remember has been to try to stay away from blackjack and baccarat unless I have at least 500x my minimum bet in my back pocket.

So tackling a $5 game requires a $2,500 bankroll, assuming you are lucky enough to find a low-rent blackjack layout that is not crowded with partying punters who split 10s and stand on 16 (or less!) against a dealer up-card that spells near certain death.

I have always thought of 500x as less than ideal, and whenever would-be backers of target betting have come along, I have done my best to convince them that bravery (backed by big bucks) will trump an excess of caution every time.

Meanwhile, I keep plugging away with real money, content to walk away with a profit of less than $100 if I am pressed for time or if for whatever reason the game does not feel right.

The countless models I have created over the years to analyze the realities of progressive betting down to the mathematical equivalents of the last crossed t and dotted i tell me that any stop-loss is sure to be a bad idea eventually.

But that's because my models or "sims" churn their way through tens of thousands, even millions of bets, and do it at such blazing speed that reality can never get a look-in.

Anyone who has ever been a regular casino player knows that in real time, when real money is involved, all manner of factors affect the flow of wins and losses that cannot be programmed into a simulation.

The mythematicians of gambling dismiss those factors as absolute irrelevancies, and lecture us about the immutability of numbers and negative expectation.

But in the real world, it is wise to pay attention to gut feelings and to, for example, warnings from friendly dealers who want you to know before your first hand that they wiped out an entire table of players a few minutes earlier.

Dealers get hot, tables go cold.

Keep that in mind, but never let emotion or hunches prevent you from applying the rules of target betting, and of basic strategy at blackjack, strictly by the book.

A guy I know who's a regular at my closest casino is an immaculate basic strategy player, except when he's holding three or more cards adding up to 16.

He knows better, but he will tuck that 16 under his chips even against a dealer's 10 up, and more than half the time, those chips are swept away.

It is simplistic to assume that the dealer will always have a 10+ in the hole because the odds are 8 to 5 against it, but standing on 16 only makes sense against 2 through 6.

I try never to play to this guy's left because somehow, if I have a double-down out and he tucks a 16, I will catch "his" 4 or 5 instead of the 10 I need.

The flip-side of all this is that he hates to see me hit 13 against a dealer's 2, and sighs sadly whenever I catch a card that would have bust the house, even if that card gave me a winning hand.

There is no need to argue with anyone about basic strategy at blackjack. It's almost entirely black and white.

As far as a stop-loss ideal goes, none would be nifty, but real life tends not to cooperate with the over confident - just keep in mind that the lower your stop-loss, the more often you will lose it.

I know that in my regular rounds of local casinos, my greatest weakness is that I will often walk away with wins that are too small to build a reserve for the next time the cards don't fall according to plan.

In other words, I slow myself down with a "stop-win" that may not be greedy enough.

My rule has always been to keep the bankroll free as far as possible from such irritating demands as food and a roof overhead, and to add half of each session's win to it when the dealing's done.

It's a good policy, and I win less often than I would like, but far more often than most of the other players I know.

I really hate to lose, perhaps because I have never had a chance to get used to it.

One of these days, I will be able to stash enough cash to raise my loss limit to at least $5,000 and to play more in order to win more.

I must confess that if I had not applied a loss limit during the dozen or so hours that I have been playing pointlessly against the Pinnacle game, I would be bankrupt by now, rather than close to $30,000 ahead in funny-munny.

I logged every Pinnacle bet and will in a few days run them through a model and post the details. Betcha can't wait...

Tuesday, April 20 at 9:10am

Monday's dogs did well with a 53% win rate, but I felt like a break in the action and had a good day at local table games instead.

After a while, playing blackjack online with no real money at stake becomes both tedious and hard on the eyes.

Here's the latest sports-book info:





Wednesday, April 21 at 10:45am

There's no other way to say it: Tuesday was a flat-out disaster for both columns in the 7-dog trial.

Fact is, there hasn't been a worse day since I started the ball rolling on this experiment last November 1.

Even the 50x rules set is on the brink of insolvency, and that's a bad, bad state of affairs.

It's not much consolation that if the max had been higher when the going was great just a couple of weeks ago, we would still be at 80% of our best win to date.

Those who scoff at any systematic attempt to beat the odds pounce on information like that as proof that the only way to win is to keep betting more and more and more...until you eventually go broke, and didn't win after all.

I have said since I started this blog over a year ago that a wide spread (as wide as you can afford) is the key to long-term success at betting of any stripe, and that has been confirmed again and again by the 7-dog trial.

Here's the sad and sorry state of affairs after yesterday, with today's underdog selections in their usual spot.





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. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this.
_

Read More

Underdogs made a comeback on Saturday, but once again, unlucky timing got in the way of a 7-dog surge. Can't complain, but a big win would be nice!

_
(No selections for Monday, April 19, but Sunday was an all-around good day with baseball "dogs" winning more than half their games - more about that next time).

It's interesting to see how winning and losing patterns sometimes set in, and frustrating to know that there is really nothing we can do about it.

In the 50x "aggressive" side of the 7-dog trial, Series #5 has been missing out on wins day after day, while #4 keeps on raking in the bucks.

And those bucks are not big ones, because the rule applied is that when any one of the seven lines or series recovers, the bet falls back to the minimum and climbs only in response to a loss.

It's a sensible strategy, and a temptation we have to avoid is the urge to set good sense aside and go for broke once in a while.

That urge is, of course, the undoing of many a gambler and it helps build casinos and keep their doors open!

Saturday, the 5x rules set inched forward, and 50x slid backwards a notch or two.

That's life.

Here are today's bets and summaries:




Dog selections for Monday, April 19th:


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. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this.
_

Read More

"Saying that your selection process needs to be improved is like saying you have a strategy that will only work if you win all the time. Brilliant!"

_
Fair comment, I suppose, but all I was trying to get across in the last post was that I want to eliminate subjective choice from the selection process as much as possible.

When I am playing blackjack - my favorite poison when it comes to casino games - I get a great kick out of winning, obviously, but an even bigger one out of knowing that I always play my hand according to strict rules, and set my bet values the same way.

Subjective choices (hunches, whims, gut feelings or whatever) are likely to help the house more than the player, and they have no place in the battle to stay ahead of the game.

Blackjack and Pai-gow are the only table games that require the player to make hand-affecting choices after the cards have been dealt.

In every other game, how much you bet is the only decision you have to make, and I know for certain that I much prefer to have a plan than to fly by the seat of my pants (where does that weird expression come from, anyway!).

In sports betting, I want the numbers to pick the day's bets, not me, because as my Daddy used to say, I could stick everything I know about sports up my nose and still have room for my finger.

(Dad could be a tad vulgar at times!).

This week has been a horror story for underdogs, and therefore for the 7-dog trial.

If this keeps up, even the 50x rules set will be back in the red for the first time in 2010, and the tight-spread column will drown in blood-colored ink.

You have to expect occasional lingering slumps, but this is ridiculous!

Today's updates:




As for the video poker distraction, it's all about NOT playing the way the house expects (and needs) you to.

I have queried quite a number of VP players on the rare occasions when I wander away from table games, and the majority of them believe in holding high-value cards, trying for busted straights with four cards, and holding three suited cards in the hope of getting a flush.

Whenever you hold non-suited high cards, you greatly limit your chances of seeing a payback higher than 2 for 1 (keeping in mind that getting your money back on jacks or better is not a win but a push!).

Hold suited fat cards only and flushes or straights are a possibility, however slight.

Mix and match those Aces, Kings, Queens and Jacks and flushes are out.

Busted straights (A,2,3,10,5) are a 12-1 proposition and therefore a foolish bet, and even open-ended straights (10,9,8,7,2) are a 6-1 long-shot. I confess, I will hold a straight that can be filled either end, but wince as I do it!

No way will I hold three suited cards for either a flush or a straight, except suited A,K,Q,J in any of the six tri-card combos that apply.

My own experience - and those folks I have talked to say the same - is that my best wins have come at me five cards at a time, no holds.

That includes the one and only royal flush that ended my prolonged experiment with the iPod Touch game with a "profit" of more than 25,000 units.

If you want to win steadily at VP you have to be open to those out-of-the-blue big paybacks.

Hold too many cards and you will need to be extremely lucky to win.

End of discussion!

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. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this.
_

Read More

Even in a slump, the 50x 7-dog trial results confirm that underdogs are a good bet. But my selection process definitely needs work!

_
(Video poker update tacked on to the end of this post)

Gamblers are an impatient and often greedy lot, which is why so many early-in-the-game winners go home losers.

I can't pretend to be delighted with the continuing downward spiral that is affecting both sets of 7-dog trial numbers, but I learned long ago that consistently beating the bookies is not a short-term sure thing.

I cringe to see the 50x rules set at its lowest point for weeks, and take little comfort in the fact that more aggressive betting would have had us out of the hole by now and heading for a new win record.

The one weakness that becomes ever more clear as time goes by is in the selection process, which started out as a totally random roll of the dice, then swung all the way in the opposite direction to become too subjective.

As you know, most days I get picks posted way before game time and even when I don't, I pay no attention to mid-game results because I invariably have my bets placed long before I sit down to update this blog.

That has become much easier since I switched over to online "bookies" - but I am still waiting for that darn pigeon to land in Taiwan, and cannot help but wonder if Pinnacle is ever going to acknowledge my deposit so that I can get really serious!

I spent a lot of time pulling together a custom database of games starting with the opening of the 2009 baseball season, because I wanted to be completely confident that I was basing my dogs concept on accurate data.

Today I went "what if?" fishing to find out the optimum "plus range" according to the 7-dog trial data set, and then via the whole database covering all four sports (baseball, pro-football, basketball and hockey).

It is an axiom of the no-one-can-win fraternity that nothing about the future can be learned from the past and that win-loss patterns observed in one data set, no matter how enormous, will not be found in any other sample.

I decided to confine today's efforts to dogs with odds above even money (+100) because the greatest benefit of underdog betting is that a lesser number of wins is more than offset by a greater payback when a favorite is trounced, and you have your money on the presumed loser.

Just lately I have been tightening my range, feeling ever more uncomfortable because whenever I had too many choices, it was up to me to whittle the number of picks down to seven at most.

The ideal is to have a selection method that is completely objective.

That may be easier for me that it is for most people, because I have never had the slightest interest in professional sports and marvel at friends who can work themselves into a frenzy while watching a bunch of strangers try to beat the crap out of one another.

Google might suffer an upload implosion if I try to post all the results I generated today, so I'll stick with the nitty-gritty.





What you see above are depictions of a tightrope walk, with the rope at different lengths and heights!

Logically, shorter odds mean more frequent wins, and longer odds mean fewer wins with bigger paybacks.

Nothing controversial about that...

So what we have to do is find a happy medium that gives us a better chance of beating the book without making too many bets and risking too much money.

Our 7-dog trial sample within the range +110 to +145 gave us a flat-bet value of +0.12% vs. a house edge of (-)10.2%, meaning that even with target betting, we would have ended up just a little ahead betting ALL dogs within that range from Nov 1 last year to April 15.

The number for the whole database, going all the way back to April of last year and consisting of about twice as many games, was an overall "punter's edge" of +1.08% vs. a house advantage of (-)9.7%.

The dog win rate (DWR) for the smaller sample was 44.9% and for the whole database, it was 45.1%.

The average dog payback for the small set was +124 and for all entries it was +125.

Any similarities, do you think?

Crimping the range to +110 to +125 gives us a 7-dog trial flat-bet win rate of +2.05% vs. a bookies' edge of (-)5.6% and a DWR of 47.2%. The average payback was +116 against a break-even value of +112 (52.8/47.2).

The matching numbers for the whole database are +1.75% vs. (-)6.0%, a DWR of 47.0% and an average payback of +117 (+113).

Again, patterns in the larger sample are mirrored in the smaller.

And what we see in both data sets is that if we did not vary our bet by a thin dime throughout the year-long test period, backing underdogs all the way would show a small profit.

But since we are not about breaking even, target betting is the way to turn the underdog edge into consistent long-term profits.

More about that next time.

Meanwhile, today's update.





And now for something completely different...

I have mentioned my video poker (or "pokey"!) theories before, and just want to add the last screenshot from my iPod experiment.

It's the last because I finally landed a royal flush, after building a bankroll of over 21,000 units just from flushes, straights, a mish-mash of nothing much, and three straight flushes to keep it interesting.

It's been said that I have somehow found a way to manipulate the application to get my hands on more than the 100 units it allows each time you bust out.

It's funny, but whenever I demonstrate the flaw in the conventional wisdom that casino games can't be beaten, someone out there will accuse me of cheating.

Which casino does he or she work for, I wonder!


I am now so far ahead on the mini-screen iPod versions of blackjack, baccarat and 3-card poker that I would have a condo in Hawaii if it was all real money.

It's not, so here I stay in rural northern Nevada, happy as a clam.

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. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this.
_

Read More

In the long run, sports betting won't break the bank if you do it right. But there will days and weeks along the way when it will break your heart!

_
The 5x rules set has been wallowing in red for most of this year (since January 28!), and hope is fading that a tight spread will ever bring a turnaround.

On the 50x front, we were just a fistful of dollars away from revisiting and surpassing our best win to date when a prolonged downturn set in and the brass ring slipped away.

For now.

I'm late with today's post and apologize for that, but I have been putting in time on the Bodog question (does the "casino" run table games software that switches algorithms when possible double-up betting is detected?).

I can't prove a darn thing with just 120 real-money bets to go on, but even with such a small sample, a house edge of between 16.5% and 25% sets sirens blaring and red flags waving.

I haven't tried Pinnacle's blackjack and baccarat games since my bank's carrier pigeon is still flapping its way to Taiwan after battling headwinds all week!

But when I take on Pinnacle's virtual games, I will track every bet, compare my records with the house log, and post a full report.

Meanwhile, here's today's betting 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. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this.
_

Read More

"Conservative" (aka suicidal) sportsbook betting has been tumbling over a cliff lately, and 50x is suffering from yoyo-itis. C'mon, doggies...hunt!

_
Nothing to add on the Bodog front!

Until my bank's tired old pigeon drops my Pinnacle deposit in Taiwan (!!!), I plan to stick with bets that can't be fiddled.

Someone in Mohawk territory north of the border hit the blog within an hour of yesterday's post, so the folks up there obviously have a super-sensitive spiderweb to match that super-slick gaming site of theirs.

So, back to the 7-dog trial and the ongoing demise of tight-spread betting.

To be fair, the 50x rules set has not been doing brilliantly just lately, either.

At least it hasn't seen red ink in four months (since December 15, to be totally accurate).

Right now, we're at 58% of the best-win-to-date.

Interestingly, widening the spread to 100x would have us at a current profit of $78,000 or 94% of a best of $83,200 achieved on March 27, less than three weeks ago.

I have spent a high percentage of the words in this blog trying to persuade readers that spreading wide and target betting (no rude remarks, thank you) combined are the only recipe for long-term betting profitability, and the wide gap between 5x and 50x dramatically bears this out.

I will say yet again that trying to "preserve" or "protect" your bankroll in a downturn sounds oh so sensible until you do the math.

Then, like a soldier under siege, you learn that saving ammo in a firefight is a fatal mistake.

Games are under way, so here's today's info:





(No bets for Wednesday, April 14 - and Thursday's schedule is looking skimpy, so we may not start winning again until Friday!)

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

Bodog is the only online casino endorsed by the self-annointed Wizard of Odds, so we can trust it completely, right? So far, that's a NO!

_
UPDATE: Monday, April 27, 2010. If Bodog or any other online casino chooses to "protect" its table games from progressive betting by tinkering with what is claimed to be random output, it's a matter of concern for everyone, including those players who bet within a narrow range. A reactive game (one that responds differently to different styles of betting or play) is a crooked game. It's that simple. It's ironic, because the conventional wisdom is that progressive betting is long-term suicide, and if that is true, casinos everywhere should welcome and even encourage it. Because it isn't true, Bodog, and presumably other online operations as well, must feel justified in enforcing a crackdown that requires them to cheat. Online betting is of course "illegal" thanks to the lobbying clout of conventional casinos, and is therefore unregulated. So the only regulation we can rely on is an across-the-board boycott of online versions of all the popular casino table games. Michael Shackleford, aka the online Wizard of Odds, has dismissed my comments about Bodog's probably crooked game as "just the ramblings of a sore loser," confirming that his loyalties lie elsewhere than with the players he pretends to work for. No doubt he would say the same to the victims of Bernie Madoff!

(Monday's 7-dog Trial picks are at the bottom of this different kinda dog post...)

Let's first of all concede that anyone putting himself out there as an expert players' advocate has to make a living just like the rest of us, and that's hard to do when your advice is free of charge.

So a gambling website that does not have real-money games has to pay for itself, and probably the only businesses willing to write checks in exchange for endorsements are casinos, conflicts of interest be damned.

Next, let's accept that a truly exhaustive test of the honesty of an online gambling site that does offer games requires thousands upon thousands of outcomes with every spit and cough analyzed to the nth degree.

Then what the hell, how about we allow reality a look-in here and recognize that most online punters need to know that they are getting a fair shake over just a few dozen bets, not a "representative sample" with multiple zeroes and commas?

Bodog's blackjack simulation allows bets from $1 to $500, and like every other online "casino" it is potentially more vulnerable to a progressive betting strategy than its bricks-and-mortar competition.

That's because in a real casino, eagle-eyed dealers and pit bosses can step in and thwart a Martingale or double-up bettor by marching him smartly to the door.

Here in Nevada, progressive players do their best to hide their agenda by betting just a handful of rounds against any one game, wearing out shoe leather as they trudge from layout to layout and casino to casino in search of the single win that will turn all their prior losses around.

Blackjack is their game of choice because a natural payout that coincides with a fat bet will give them at worst a 20% "bonus" on top of the chips they need to stay in the game.

(A quick sidebar here, Judge Ito: Could it be that the growing trend toward 6:5 payouts on naturals, down a whopping 60% from 3:2, has something to do with the Martingale players whom the "experts" pretend do not exist?)

Without debating the merits of progressive betting, let us now ask if any counter-measures that online casinos might put in place to defend themselves against it must also have a negative impact on random bettors.

The answer, of course, is that any self-serving change that Bodog or its competitors choose to make to a standard casino table game is sure to hurt everyone.

And if such a change is made without it being clearly and openly announced before the first card is dealt, then the "casino" is, by default, guilty of fraud and deception.

As announced in previous posts, I am ramping up my online betting activity (from zero to whatever the traffic will bear!), and in preparation for that, have been doing some research.

I have spent most of my time playing blackjack "for free" against Pinnacle's virtual casino, because Pinnacle offers the 1 to 5,000 spread that is ideal for target betting (although very, very, very rarely needed, thank the gods of gambling!).

So far, I have put in less than 10 playing hours at this experiment, plus about double that time to process all the data from pencil logs that tracked every outcome.

I play as close to a perfect blackjack basic strategy game as I can get, given that Pinnacle does not permit re-splits but does allow post-split double-downs.

Right now, the overall house edge is not a house edge at all but a "player advantage" of +2.4%.

That's unusual after some 2,300 rounds against a game of chance with a negative expectation (and there is no other kind) but the cumulative HA has been at or above (-)1.0% for most of the time I have been online.

My funny-money "win" to date against Pinnacle stands at $28,000 - or about $3,000 an hour, reduced to a little under +$20,000 or $2G/hr if the -$2,500 stop-loss I have mentioned in earlier posts is applied (twice so far).

Now, I do not anticipate that if and when I begin real-money betting against Pinnacle's blackjack game, I will maintain that level of profit.

But I do need to know that the game is not rigged against me.

The bad news is that (for economic and logistical reasons that make sense) none of the online casinos offers a bet-by-bet log of its games unless real money is at stake.

So taking $500 of my profits from the ongoing 7-dog sportsbook trial, I logged on to Bodog for a test run.

I picked Bodog for two reasons: 1) The Wizard of Odds, an erudite and articulate fellow with an excellent reputation as an honest broker in the world of gambling, says again and again on his website that Bodog has straight games; 2) Depositing money at Bodog requires just a few clicks, whereas most Internet "casinos" set up a tortuous fiscal fire-walk that can take days.

Knowing that every online "casino" is especially vulnerable to progressive betting, I set out to discover if more high-value bets are lost than low-value ones once wagers climb substantially above the $1 minimum.

If so, it would suggest (but not prove without thousands of outcomes as evidence) that the result of each round is not random but reactive, with the game algorithm deliberately tweaked to cost the online player more big bets than little ones.

And if over a sample of rounds that is representative of an average player's resources of time and money, a house bias greater than the standard negative expectation for the game is found, then punters who trust the endorsement of the Wizard of Odds need to know about it.

Bottom line:

a) The house edge for my 119 blackjack rounds against Bodog's game was (-)15.13%, or about fifteen times standard negative expectation with perfect basic strategy applied.
b) Adjusted to exclude 13 pushes, Bodog's edge was an even more astounding (-)16.98%.
c) For bets below $100, there were 41 winners and 57 losers, giving the house an edge of (-)16.33%.
d) For bets of $100 or more, there were 3 winners and 5 losers, equal to an increased house bias of (-)25.0%.
e) Target betting is intended to win more when it wins than it loses when it loses, delivering an overall average win value (AWV) that exceeds its average loss value (ALV) even when temporarily unrecovered LTDs produce a negative final outcome; the Bodog log confirms an AWV ($25.56) that is 6.65% LESS than the ALV of $27.32. That is an unprecedented statistical anomaly.

Regardless of whether or not Bodog's virtual games are as fair and honest as The Wiz says they are, the rules of fair play require that I allow the following:

1) 119 (or 106) rounds do not add up to a statistically representative sample.
2) I did not like losing my $500 (plus $120 in bonuses), even though I expected that to happen going in, but I am not a sore loser seeking cheap revenge!

Also in fairness, I ran a couple of tests using random numbers to set both the outcome of each round and the value of each bet, then the same random numbers (with the house edge set at a high 1.5%) with a Martingale applied.

In those parallel tests, there were 119 rounds, as in the Bodog logs, and here's what happened:-



Naturally, punching the recalc button in Excel will give a different random result every time, and I deliberately chose one with a high house edge that mirrors the nasty negative number Bodog delivered.

What I wanted to see was a comparison between the house edge for bets above $99 and those at or below $99.

Neither random run-through with the house edge set at a high (-)1.5% produced numbers to match Bodog's apparent tendency to target bigger bets for a higher percentage of losses.

None of the data presented here are definitive.

But what I see is possible evidence of hidden manipulation of at least one popular casino table game that a self-styled leading gambling expert claims is safe, fair and honest for all players.

I ran card distribution and card count tests that did not uncover any glaring anomalies.

But it is no great challenge to stick within finite parameters when it comes to available "cards" while ensuring that disproportionate and statistically anomalous percentages of large bets go south, guaranteeing an overall house win.

Given that the vast majority of casino table game players bet a tight spread that maxes out at 1 to 10 and is generally closer to 1 to 5, the fair way for an online "house" to protect itself from progressive punters is to limit bets from $1 to $10, $5 to $50 and so on, with bettors prohibited from virtual table-hopping.

That would make a lot of potential customers madder than wet hens, and put a major damper (pun intended) on projected profits.

But it would, at least, be an honest and up-front solution.

My guess is that just like their non-virtual competitors, online casinos may privately justify any clandestine jiggery-pokery by telling themselves that progressive betting is no better than cheating.

That's crap, of course: set up a game that fleeces the vast majority of your clientele, and you had better be ready to pay out to a few players who know how to beat it.

Think of it like basketball: First, we devise a game that sets hoops just enough beyond the reach of regular humans to make skill and accuracy essential, and then we breed super-tall players who can drop a ball in the net almost without standing on tiptoe!

Are you a cheat if you stand seven feet tall and have arms longer than most people's legs? Hell no! You're just a player with a slight added advantage.

The Wizard of Odds will tell you that progressive betting is suicide, without informing you that, absent excessive luck or cheating, it is also the only way to win in the long run.

That assumes, of course, that whatever game you choose to play is not crooked.

I was dragged kicking and screaming into the world of sportsbook betting, and after more than six months, have come to agree with my friend "Peter Punter" that it offers a unique profit opportunity for those of us who are not bookies.

Again, target betting - aka progressive betting - is demonstrably the only way to go, since fixed value or random wagers will always fall foul of the house vigorish in the end.

Backing underdogs is especially attractive, because payouts with a potential value above even money that is always known ahead of the game help keep down the overhead.

Obviously you can't know in advance that your next pick will be a winner (wouldn't we all love crystal balls!).

But if your win target is $100, your last bet cost you $600 and the odds you've bought are at +120, you can get ahead with a $600 wager instead of the $700 you would have to risk at even money.

Every little helps.

Betting sports online holds no Bodog-ish hazards because the house cannot manipulate a real-world game's outcome the way it can rig the upshot of a game of chance played out on its own server if it chooses to do so (and let's hope it doesn't!).

Underdogs across all sports except pro-football tend to win around 45% of their games, so you need average odds of a tad better than +120 to stay in the game, assuming flax or fixed bet values.

Toss target betting into the mix and you have a recipe for long-term profits.

My Mom always taught me that it's wrong to talk about anyone behind their back.

So since I doubt that he is among my millions of (oh, OK, several) regular readers worldwide, I plan to copy this post to the Wizard of Odds and let him pass it on to his Bodog buddies if he chooses to do so.

Any response will be posted here.

Underdog selections for Monday, April 11:

NBA: Indiana Pacers 504 (+140), Washington Wizards 505 (+145), Toronto Raptors 507 (+120), Houston Rockets 517 (+115), OK City Thunder 519 (+110); MLB: Baltimore Orioles 972 (+135), Toronto Blue Jays 974 (+100).

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

What negative expectation really means is that the house has a very poor opinion of you and expects you to play like an idiot. Surprise!

_
(No 7-dog Trial picks for Sunday, April 11)

The conventional wisdom is absolutely unequivocal: If you risk money at any casino game of chance, you will ultimately lose.

Some experts try to flex their math muscles by predicting that if you belly up to a game with a 3.0% negative expectation, you can expect to lose 3.0% percent of your total action.

So if you bet an average of $100 against 100 consecutive betting options, your action (or handle or churn etc.) will be -.03 x $10,000 = -$300.

Impressive, huh?

And totally wrong.

Unless you bet a fixed amount every time, take no defensive action at any point, and the house edge at the end of 100 bets precisely matches the game's overall negative expectation.

None of those things actually happens in real life.

The house's expectation when you buy chips at a table game is that you will over-react to both winning and losing streaks, choosing your bet values randomly and risking more when you are losing than when you are ahead.

If you get ahead of the game, you will press your luck (again, randomly) until eventually the house edge sets in and whittles away at your puny profits until your chips are all gone (or are, at best, seriously depleted).

You will fail to exploit winning patterns, and will panic when a prolonged losing trend comes along.

You will, as I said before, play like a twerp.

As I reported earlier, I am gearing up to do much more betting online in response to worrying developments at my local casinos.

Single deck 21 with loose rules used to be everywhere, but now, most of the big casinos severely limit splits and double-downs/re-splits/redoubles at those layouts, and have slashed the payout on a natural from 3:2 to 6:5.

The minimum bet in the big casinos is now $10 except before lunch and past my bedtime.

And layoffs have so greatly reduced the number of open tables that seats are often hard to find, and a crowded game means slow progress against drunks, fools and other hazards.

Heads-up (solo against the dealer) is the best way to play blackjack, but these days it is an impossible dream outside of the graveyard shift.

So, Pinnacle and competitors, here I come.

I have been testing the waters at Pinnacle (with whom I promise you I have no connection beyond the few hundred bucks I just wired into my account!), and my mathematically impossible winning streak continues unabated.

It is possible, I readily concede, that the online casino's so-called practice game is a whole lot easier to beat than the one that kicks in when real money is on the line.

But the fact is that the house edge currently stands at -1.9% and I am notionally more than $20,000 ahead.

That house advantage is a little on the high side for perfect basic strategy play against a multi-deck shoe, but the Pinnacle software shuffles the "deck" after every round so the number is not so surprising after all!

Since I don't count cards (tried it for a while, hated it) the constant shuffling trick does not bother me.

I don't know exactly what my action to date has been, but after 1,887 bets, my educated guess would put it at about $75,000.

According to my records, I have been placing an average of about 250 bets per hour of play, earning around $2,850/hr.

Pity it wasn't real money!

But to repeat the unequivocal mantra of those "experts": right now if their math was accurate, I would be -.019 x $75,000 = -$1,425 in the hole.

Oops...

If you blackjack players out there have not tried online betting before, give it a shot, using the following modification of standard betting rules, tailored for a low-bet game ($1 minimum, $500 max):-

Bet $1.
After a win, bet $2, then $5, then $10, then $15, $25, $40, $60, $90 etc.
After a loss, bet $5, then $10, $25, $25 etc.
After a push, increase the bet to the next "win level" ($5, $10, $15, $25) but do not bump the bet once you reach $25.
Make $25 your increment once you get that high, and use it to calculate your target after a mid-recovery win (Example, -$1, -$2, -$5, -$10, -$25, -$25, +$25 requires a next bet or NB of $75 to recover 2 units +1u).

Play strict basic strategy, grabbing ever split and double-down the game will permit, and you should end up with results that look something like this:


The grey area in the summary above highlights a departure from my standard stop-loss of $2,500, or 2,500 minimum units.

The one and only time I got into serious trouble, I opted to drop out of the low-rent game and fire up Pinnacle's high stakes option, which allows bets up to %5,000.

As expected (by me, not by the house), recovery was very quickly achieved once the table limit was hit.

At no other point in the 54 short blackjack sessions to date has the stop-loss been reached, and by the start of session #24 above, I was $10,580 ahead and well able to accept crying Uncle at -$2,500.

Count the grey lines as a stop-loss setback, and the total win to date drops from $21,000 to $17,460.

If Pinnacle delivers that kind of profit when real money applies, I will be a very happy punter.

Friday's 7-dog trial picks gave us just two piddly wins out of seven, costing the 50x tracker $3,735 and 5x $1,275 it could ill afford.

Again, the lesson we take from this trial: spread wide, spread wide, spread wide!

Today I am backing the NBA's Boston Celtics (#509) and Golden State Warriors (#515), both at +110, and baseball's St. Louis Cardinals (#955 at +125), Houston Astros (#958 at +115), LA Dodgers (#959 at +115), San Diego Padres (#961 at +135) and Tampa Bay Rays (#972 at +120).

Truth is, it doesn't much matter what I pick: In the end, the numbers will deliver a profit, in spite of a few bumps along the way.

It's worth noting that the 50x trial once fell $15,000 into the hole but now stands at +$48,660 and has not been in red-number territory since December 15!

The 5x rules set has been bouncing up and down in the red since January 27 after hitting +$6,000 on January 18, 80 days into the 7-dog trial.

Will 5x ever recover?

Probably not. Just as a blackjack or baccarat player spreading a tight 1 to 5 can expect to go broke in short order.

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

Six baseball dogs out of seven crush their short-odds opponents, giving the 7-dog trial its best day in far too long. It's all about the numbers!

_
When nine out of 11 games deliver final results that the bookies tell us are "upsets" you have to wonder how the guys in green eye-shades set their odds!

I'm not complaining, but on Wednesday, underdogs came out on top in seven MLB games in 15, and yesterday was an even more dramatic dog day.

In our ongoing trial, the 5x column powered ahead by more than $3,150 and the 50x rules set got a handy boost as well, reduced by the fact that the day's only losing pick was a maximum $5,000 bet.

I have heard it said that at the front end of a new season, no one is an expert on how games are likely to shake down, and when underdogs beat favorites by 9 or 10 runs, that counter-prognostication makes sense!

So, Wednesday and Thursday the bookies cleaned up, and I am always happy when they do because I get to pick up a few crumbs from their table.

Today is another out-of-the-office occasion for me, so I'll keep this short and just add the latest set of picks.



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