Sunday, 30 October 2011
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Thursday Night Football 2010 New Orleans Saints vs. Minnesota Vikings 9/9/10
Thursday, 27 October 2011
Sreser111's 2006 Playoff NFL Football Box Break
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Monday, 24 October 2011
2010-2011 NFL Playoff picks
Saturday, 22 October 2011
Friday, 21 October 2011
Chase Betting Systems (Also Known As Dog Chase Betting)
If you are an experienced sports gambler you know the old adage, that if you chase your loses you will lose your shirt and be certain to bust your account. It is time to throw all that non-sense out of the window and learn for the first time, that chasing your loses is the best possible scenario. In order to make money using a chase betting system you need three items at your disposal:
1. A decent bankroll (or account balance)
2. A Plan
3. A strong stomach to carry out the plan
The old adage states that: he who chases his losses will burn through his bankroll. This is true, only if you do not have a true plan, a strong stomach and a decent bankroll. Let me explain. The old adage comes from the gambler who bets $100 on Team 1 to win today. Team 1 loses, thus tomorrow the gambler bets $200 on Team 2 to win (he thinks he can not lose twice in a row and plus Team 2 is a sure thing). Team 2 loses, then on day 3 he bets his remaining bankroll on Team 3, he loses and within three days his bankroll busts. The old adage is true, for this gambler...not for you.
You see a chase system uses simple mathematics to ensure that you do not ever lose money. However, you must make sure you bet the correct amount and you must have the guts to follow through with this program. The system is easy to follow regardless of which sport you bet on and regardless of if you are chasing a specific team or a general sport. In 2007, AFSB completed a study of the chase system in the NHL focusing on the Montreal Canadians. The system worked like this: On day 1, $25.00 was bet on Montreal, if Montreal lost, then the next time that Montreal played $50.00 was bet on Montreal, if Montreal lost again, then in the next game $100.00 was bet on Montreal, if Montreal lost that game then $200.00 was bet on Montreal and so on until Montreal wins or you run out of money. Once Montreal wins then the system resets and the next time Montreal won $25 was bet on Montreal in their next game, if they lost then in the next game $50 was bet on Montreal, however, if they won, then in the next game $25 was bet on Montreal.
This simple system made us $1,210.00 in the NBA Playoffs in 2007 (see our Article on Absolutely Free Sports Bets regarding the NBA Dog-Chase System). We again used this system in the 2008 MLB playoffs and picked up a nice $1,373.00.
In the 2010 NCAA Basketball season we are utilizing this system in a more generic manner. We are playing one Dog-Chase and one Favorite-Chase that is not team specific. Click on our Free Picks link to see the details of the 2010 NCAA Basketball Chase System hard at work.
In order to ensure that your account does not bust we recommend that you only bet with 1/4 of the normal amount that you gamble with per game. For example, if you bet $100 per game, then under a chase system you should only bet $25.00 per game. This is why:
The chase system is based upon the premise that you should not be able to incorrectly handicap a game for seven days in a row. If you are betting $100.00 per event in a chase system, and are incorrect 7 times in a row then you will be betting $6,400.00 on the seventh game ($100, $200, $400, $800, $1,600, $3,200, $6,400). To protect yourself you should bet 1/4 of the normal amount, in our examples we assume 1/4 would be $25.00 per event ($25, $50, $100, $200, $400, $800, and $1,600).
Let's examine the power of the Chase system. Let's examine one gambler who bets on 14 games (1 per day, over a 14 day period) and this gambler does not do so well, he wins 6 and loses 8. Example 1 below shows if he simply bets $100.00 per game at a normal -110 per game. Example 2 shows the same gambler with the same results, however, he bets $25.00 in a Chase system.
Example 1 - Sports Gambler that wins 6 bets and loses 8
betting $100.00 per game, one game per day
Game 1: Winner, $91.00
Game 2: Winner, $91.00
Game 3: Loss -$100.00
Game 4: Loss -$100.00
Game 5: Loss -$100.00
Game 6: Winner $91.00
Game 7: Loss -$100.00
Game 8: Loss -$100.00
Game 9: Winner $91.00
Game10: Loss -$100.00
Game 11: Winner $91.00
Game 12: Loss -$100.00
Game 13: Loss -$100.00
Game 14: Winner $91.00
This gambler is 6-8 and lost $254.00 over a two week period.
Example 2 - Sports Gambler that wins 6 bets and loses 8
betting $25.00 per game (with chase rules), one game per day
Game 1: 25 is bet and Wins $23.00, so in the next game:
Game 2: 25 is bet and Wins $23.00, so in the next game:
Game 3: 25 is bet and Loss -$25.00, so in the next game:
Game 4: 50 is bet and Loss -$50.00, so in the next game:
Game 5: $100 is bet and Loss -$100.00, so in the next game:
Game 6: $200 is bet and Wins +$182.00, so in the next game:
Game 7: $25 is bet and Loss -$25.00, so in the next game:
Game 8: $50 is bet and Loss -$50.00, so in the next game:
Game 9: $100 is bet and Wins $91.00, so in the next game:
Game10: $25 is bet and Loss -$25.00, so in the next game:
Game 11: $50 is bet and Wins $45.00, so in the next game:
Game 12: $25 is bet and Loss -$25.00, so in the next game:
Game 13: $50 is bet and Loss -$50.00, so in the next game:
Game 14: $100 is bet and Wins $91.00
This gambler is 6-8 and WON $105.00 over a two week period with a losing record.
Obviously you can use this system in way you wish, here are some possibilities:
(1) Team specific. In 2007, in the NHL we only used this system betting on Montreal. If Montreal lost, we doubled up on the next game, if they won, then in the next game we reverted back to our starting point.
(2) Position specific: In 2010, we are playing one dog and one favorite every day in NCAA Basketball, if the dog loses then we double up on a different dog the next day, if the dog wins then the next day we revert back to our starting point. (The same is true for our favorite system)
(3) Position specific within a series: In the 2007 NBA playoffs we played on the dog throughout a series, thus the dog could be Team 1 in game one vs. Team 2, but then Team 2 could be the dog in game 2. We played on the dog regardless of who we played on the previous game.
You must be cautioned, there will be a point wherein you find yourself wagering more than you ever wagered before on one game, however, when that game hits your profits skyrocket. Please do not bet your normal unit, bet 1/4 or less.
If you are skeptical, review our article on NBA Dog-Chase from 2007, view our results from the 2008 MLB Playoffs, or just click on the Free Picks link from our web site and see how the system is working in 2010. Once you see how good it works, you will be addicted.
For more gambling articles or methods for winning sports gambling bets, see Absolutely Free Sports Bets.
Learn more about sports gambling and review free premium sports gambling picks at: http://www.afsportsbets.com.
afsportsbets is a website created solely to provide sports gamblers with free sports betting picks without a charge for any service.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
1997 NFL on NBC Intro (DEN vs. JAX -- 1996 AFC Divisional Playoff).wmv
Monday, 17 October 2011
Saturday, 15 October 2011
Madden 10 : AFC Divisional Playoffs Simulation : Jets at Chargers [(Final Few Minutes) Part 1]
Friday, 14 October 2011
Steelers vs Ravens 2010-11 AFC Divisional playoff highlights
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
TooHod's 2010 Absolute Football Box Break
Monday, 10 October 2011
Brawn Over Brains - Philip Rivers, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Toughness In Pro Sports
Picture this scenario: two secretaries get hired by a well-known law firm, and work there for several years. One (let's call him Phil) is somewhat of an underachiever, and is notorious for his surly attitude. The other (let's call him LT) represents the firm with class and dignity, and is the most efficient worker they've ever had. One day, they both come down with injuries while typing. Phil has a torn ligament in his wrist, while LT is in the early stages of developing carpal tunnel syndrome. They both need time off, but the firm's biggest client goes on trial in one week. Phil decides to fight through his tremendous pain, because the person who would take over his work (William E. Volek) isn't trusted by anybody in the firm. LT takes the necessary time off, comforted by the fact that his replacement is infinitely better than Phil's, and can help the company get through its busy time. After the trial, everyone hails Phil's courage, even though the damage in his wrist is so severe that he might not be able to work when they next need him. LT is condemned for his choice, even though he decreased his risk of suffering a long-term injury by getting adequate rest. Despite the fact that LT is an all-time great secretary, and had only called in sick once before in his career, he will forever be remembered for failing to come through in that one week, and his years of hard work become tainted in the process.
Seems kind of rough, no? How many of us would do what LT did, and make sure to avoid long-term injury in order to continue earning a good living for their family? This situation came to fruition this past Sunday in the AFC Championship Game, when San Diego's future Hall-of-Fame running back, LaDainian Tomlinson, carried the ball only twice against New England due to a sprained medial collateral ligament in his knee. Their inconsistent quarterback, Philip Rivers, played the whole game with a completely torn anterior cruciate ligament in his knee, and actually had preliminary surgery six days before in a last ditch effort to play. It's possible that he won't be back in time for their next training camp, as recovery time for this injury can last up to eight months. As expected, Rivers has been universally hailed for his courage, while Tomlinson has been lambasted by fans and media members alike. The obvious question that emerges is this: why do we expect so much from pro athletes? In no other area of life would we debate this dilemma. If you have an injury, and it's going to affect your production, you take time off to heal. Case closed. However, if you play pro sports, and especially pro football, it isn't enough to just be good at your job. You also have to have a level of toughness that's acceptable to not only your teammates, but to the millions of people on their couches who watch and criticize what you do.
We as fans always expect a superhuman effort from our athletes. We demand it, since they charge us so much for tickets, and especially since the athletes get paid such ludicrous amounts of money. So this past Sunday, everyone wanted to see the Chargers play the Patriots with their full complement of starters. We wanted LaDainian to tough it out, since his presence would have made the game better. The problem is that there are plenty of instances when athletes did risk it all, and never were the same again. We always seem to forget that Bill Walton felt such pressure to play through injury that he went against his personal beliefs in the '78 playoffs and took pain killers in order to deal with his foot problems. We also seem to forget that over the next five years, he missed 3 full seasons, and played in only 14 and 33 games in the other two. We also forget that NFL players are more prone to depression, arthritis, and an assortment of other mental and physical problems when their careers are over, because they take risks similar to the one Rivers took. So while I respect Rivers' toughness, I can't use his decision as a reason to fault Tomlinson. Because there is no right or wrong way to deal with this dilemma. If Rivers felt like the risk was worth it, and LaDainian didn't, then who are we to tell them otherwise? Only one thing is certain - next year, if LaDainian continues to break records, while Rivers struggles to make it back from his injury, people will finally acknowledge the complexity of this issue, which isn't as clear-cut as it's currently being presented.
Christopher E. Smith, http://xenfulmusings.blogspot.com/
Saturday, 8 October 2011
Go For It On Fourth Down - The Data Says You Should
It's Fourth and Long. Go For It. The Numbers Are In Your Favor.
It's the playoffs in the NFL and I'm bummed. One of the teams I had as my favorite to go far in the tournament went out with barely a fight. It's not so much that they lost. It's just that they left a lot of money on the table. There were opportunities for them to take a chance and go for it on fourth down, and the coach decided that the "winning" strategy was to kick it away to the opposing team. That got me thinking --- whose idea was it anyway to believe that kicking the ball away on fourth down makes sense when a you're playing in a one-and-done playoff series? Isn't this the time to roll the dice and take creative chances and gather exceptional courage?
I've spent the past 10 years teaching homeless people a new method that expanded their capacity so that they could arrive at new solutions to old problems. We call this new approach The Window Effect. It incorporates the teaching of Quantum Physics to people who've probably never been exposed to those ideas before. It also incorporates philosophy, political discourse and visioning. It should be noted that I never teach down to these students. I always encourage them to come up to the level of information I provide. This pushes the student beyond their comfort zone, but asks them to go further. From all of my work over the years doing this course, one thing I know for sure: - you can't teach courage, but you can create an atmosphere for people to get it for themselves. Courage requires people to think beyond their normal reasoning. In order for my students to wrap their heads around models of thinking beyond the normal, I decided to break courage down in terms of sports, namely football and the infamous fourth down decision.
Anyone who watches American-style football with any regularity knows that teams often punt the ball or kick a field goal on fourth down. The conventional wisdom is that you play to not lose the game by tying it with a field goal or you punt the ball so far away, the other team has less of a chance of scoring, thus increasing the odds that your team will win. According to an emerging number of statisticians and economists, going for a first down or touchdown instead of kicking the ball is a better bet. One guy from this new school of thought is David Berri, a sports economist and professor of applied economics at Southern Utah University. He comes flat out and says teams punt much more frequently than they should. "You don't want to punt when you have the ball in the area of your opponent's 30- to 40-yard line," he says. "The cost-benefit study indicates you should go for it. If you punt, they're probably going to get the ball on the 20 anyway, which isn't much of a gain, and it's a long field goal. The value of going for it increases dramatically in that area of the field. "
I started talking to the students with these facts just to let them know that the odds are often in their favor when they decide to take chances where contemporary conventional wisdom tells them to play it safe.
We started describing fourth-down scenarios in their lives where they were asked to either go for it or punt. Most of the time (not all), we realized that when they punted (using the analogy) the situation didn't get better. In many cases, it got worse. Going for it on fourth down is not necessarily the best idea all of the time, but making it part of the discussion instead of going for the punt immediately increased the student's courage ratio and possibilities for success. The numbers bear it out. Go for it.
Chet W. Sisk
Chet W. Sisk is a thought leader in Sustainable Society Leadership and the author of the new book "Think This, Not That: It's Time To Update Your Conventional Wisdom".