Perdicting Future Events

AlexDiC

New Member
Sharp wrote; "As an afterthought, how about using underdogs? Payoffs would be much higher, but hit rates would undoubtedly drop through the floor. It changes from having a list of 3-4 winners out of 5, to 3-4 losers out of 5.

The answer is 1) we only view one winner at a time/day. 2) once you set up a "card" with five teams you need at to insure that least one will win or your RV cue is non sense. With all underdogs on your card the likelihood is much greater for a non sense cue and a waste of time. too many people involved to set up non sense cues and waste their time. I would lose my team's interest. I keep the team together because we generally are correct and people are making money...

Gone over this several times..... We double our money weekly. blah, blah, blah.... Slowly, disciplined and average 20% return per day. 5 days = 100% on what you invest. Invest $100 make $100 per week, Invest $1000. make a $1000, etc.. you do you wagering on your own.. Loraine is truly confused, suggesting to "try it" you have to spend $1500... Hope that helps.. Alex

TRY IT!!!! it's simple.. Why doesn't anyone try it? Not one person from this site (that I know of) has tried this application I know Loraine has not, apparently too busy figuring out if blind people "see" while viewing. And she's not blind! .... yet people insist that they know what I doing. Talk about "blind"....
 

sharp

New Member
AlexDiC said:
Gone over this several times..... We double our money weekly. blah, blah, blah.... Slowly, disciplined and average 20% return per day. 5 days = 100% on what you invest. Invest $100 make $100 per week, Invest $1000. make a $1000, etc.. you do you wagering on your own.. Loraine is truly confused, suggesting to "try it" you have to spend $1500... Hope that helps.. Alex
Ok, I guess this is what I am trying to understand. How can you get 100% of what you invest wagering on home favorites when payouts on the moneyline are less than even money? The reality of betting favorites is one loss can wipe out two or more wins. If you are hitting 4/5, you may still be fine and making cash, but 100% of what you invest? Unless you are rolling winnings into subsequent wagers, and not getting any misses?

I believe, for baseball anyway, -150 favorites win around 66% of the time. So on average, you will have at least one that loses out of 5 favorites. Sure, it does not mean every time, but most times there will be a loser in the group of 5.

I would not really get too caught up on the whole ARV/RV distinction thing. In the end it does not matter. I can see your point that it is different than a traditional ARV set up. I also saw you post predictions under NHL ARVs. Who cares? Call it an application of RV to make money wagering on sporting events. Call it magic. Call it good forced choice guessing. Does it really matter?
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Sharp.. You sound confused. It's a conservative, disciplined approach to investing.

1) We create a card of 5 teams. Our data proved that we pick 3/5 winner on an "average", that's 60%
2) We RV the optimal winner of the group and double our wager on "that" team. It's like making 6 wagers on 5 teams.
3) The typical 3/5, now with the double RV pick wager goes to 4/6. 67%. (of course some days we only hit 2/5, while others we hit 4/5 5/5, it' averages slightly over 3/5, 63%)
4) the -135 and -165 odd simply mean you wager $135 to return $100. Remember you always get your initial $100 wager back plus the approximate 60% winnings in a -135 odds. ie. wager $1000 on a team with -135 odds (favorite) you collect your initial $1000 plus your $600. Of course the odds change on each team each day. Some days you are wagering on teams with a -120 other days -200 etc. It's the long term trend with consistent wagering where we make money.
5) General with two misses, you return about $200 on a $1000 wager, but you spread the risk and protect the downside. So a 20% daily return is the average. Five days a week (20% times 5 days equal 100%) on your money weekly.

hope that clarifies. Alex
 

AlexDiC

New Member
further clarification... We wager on ALL five teams, expecting to miss 2. Or hit 4/6 (it's 6 games, from a pool of five, because we double down on our RV pick)
 

AlexDiC

New Member
You can invest/$100 or $10,000 or more each day, but at the end of the week you will on an average have doubled you initial investment.
 

Loraine

New Member
Loraine said:
Alex (you know nothing at all about my viewing beyond ARV and have no foundation to comment on what I've been doing or not doing!) this is the last you'll hear from me on this, I have many more worth while things to do, just want to save people from wasting their cash. THOSE WILLING TO PAY $1500 FOR YOUR 'TRAINING' in order to try it for themselves can go ahead and do so, but CATEGORICALLY it is not 'simple direct RV' when there is more than one possible target (all of which are known by the tasker prior to the event), and the viewer knowing anything AT ALL about the target is front loading.
 

N00BLET

New Member
AlexDiC said:
Gene Smith wrote: "I can assure you there is at least one person here (And most likely many, many others) that are reading and following every single post with great interest. I think that provably and consistently making money with this is the holy grail that everyone has been seeking for a long time. For some yes it's the money for others it is the undeniable proof even the scoffers would have to accept.

Seriously this IS a big deal you are doing and is much appreciated."

BUT NO ONE has any comments or more importantly any questions. Is anyone else doing this with the same results?

Yes this is the holy grail somewhat and it can be applied to virtually everything as it follows the standard blind protocol of RV. It does take more work for the tasker to provide these extensive cues for one sure win.
Yes this is a big deal in a way and I applaud you for knowing the constants and applying them as variables it's brilliant. For example you know the game is going to have to be played in an stadium that's an constant. But what kind of stadium, that's a variable.
Like all new radical ideas there will be debate, but in principle I agree with this being an big deal, who doesn't want to get on the money train!
I've been doing something similar in concept, with constants and variables (sounds like math ;D).
For example I know that an horse will finish 1st in a race, I know that there's an always an constant jockey on the racing horse, but the variable will be what's their name?
The difference is I don't always follow the standard protocol method (it's a lot of paperwork), so that's why in principle I agree with you. Knowing what the target "should be", or front loading can allow the viewer to disregard irrelevant data and continue to focus on what the acceptable parameters of the data "should be", in your case the design of the building.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
As I have been saying the entire time.. we use sport wagering as a convenient vehicle to perfect the application, but the application is far greater than just sports wagering. As I showed with the USA presidential campaign prediction. ..

Viewer should stop speculating and try it......
 

suspect_0

New Member
Hi Alex,

Just a couple of questions.

1. How much money this year alone have you made based
On your current RV system.

2. How much have you made in total since you you started wagering using
Using RV

Thanks
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Confidential of course. Silly question. Try doing a rv session yourself. Happy to help you thru the process. There are any number of good ways to cue it up. After all..... that's what this posting is all about.
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
I'm not sure it was mentioned earlier but where do you see the difference in your method and the following cue:

"Next <Team A> vs. <Team B> NFL game / winning team's home town / most recognizable feature"

..beside the fact that here is a feature of the teams home town viewed.
Maybe because you view a sideline event (your best choice to get money) than to view an outcome directly?!


BTW, Lorraine believes you give trainings for $1,500 but I think this was some times ago and now you are not giving these trainings at all - correct?
 

AlexDiC

New Member
1) fundamentally different. We use a "compound cue" where we embed a list of 5 teams that we believe should win. This breaks the strong association between winner and loser of a specific game, we only view winning teams of 5 specific games. *None of the embedded teams play each other. All play at different stadiums.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Dawn (member of Ed Dames original team when Joe and I workon it) joined us yesterday and immediately acquired the correct target after not viewing for a few years. In total we had seven viewers successfully acquire the winning team LA Kings last night for another win.
 

N00BLET

New Member
AlexDiC said:
Dawn (member of Ed Dames original team when Joe and I workon it) joined us yesterday and immediately acquired the correct target after not viewing for a few years. In total we had seven viewers successfully acquire the winning team LA Kings last night for another win.
It's just like riding a bike, even if retired viewers haven't viewed for years, the potential is still there.
thanks for proving another valid point.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Katz. Good. You need to have someone produce a list of home teams with a winning record that are playing that day. List should clearly identify the team, stadium, date and outcome (winner).

Assign that list a title and a TRN.

Write a cue embedding that TRN and direct viewers to identify the optimal winner's most recognizable architectural feature of the facility where the win occurs. Be careful to erite the cue soit really focuses the viewers attention to exactly what you want. Dont forget to clearly identify the date...today or next. good luck. Alex
 
Top