Another bad day yesterday (2-4), but, keep pressing on.
The only play for today,

L.A. Angels +120

System Record 8-19 (-8.46 U)

Colorado?

Colorado is a no play:

Brad Penny in top 20 Sagarin ERA

Very good...thanks!

No Penny is not in the top 20 NL ERA in 2006

Brad Penny is 26.

You also missed LA Angels @ Clevland (MIL) that too is a play.

Westbrook is 22 in AL ERA 2006, so according to the system, LAA is a play.

And depending when you got on SEA, which opened at +146, they're a play against DiceK.

GLTU
FH

So the Rockies are a play?

He opened the thread by saying LA Angels were a play.

Seattle is not a play based on the fact that most books have them at 150+

L.A. Angels are a play, as I initially posted

Penny is 26th, missed that and I apologize

So Colorado +130 is play #2 for tonight

This is a system that Tony Stoffo sold which he either took from the internet or it was passed on to him.

I have had it posted in two other forums this past week or so that this system and it's rules as a breach of copyright laws as I wrote about this system back in the late 90's and had it published in a book and several sporting newspapers.

What Tont Stoffo and all the other cronies that shout about this sytem is that there have been several changes to the original which are the ones being posted.

If you played the system rules as it stands today you would only make plays during a 20 week window and certainly no plays have qualified under the system as of yet.

Just to let you know, that any further mention of the rules on this forum will consistute a breach of copyright and will leave who ever is responsible open to prosecution.

I have posted this message as a warning and if anyone from statfox would like to contact me, they have my e-mail addy.


But I am happy to let you know to save you some money that no games qualify until starters have made atleast THREE starts and tossed at least 15 innings.

Further more, the system stops before the end of the regular season as line value disappears and there are also two other breaks during the regular season, not including the all-star break. Also starters have to make atleast one start aftert he all-star break.

Finally, the totals system ("Under The Gun") which is inter-linked to this underdog system which was originally called the "Ultimate Underdog System" has failed to produce profits of any note over the last two and a bit seasons.

Good luck trying to shut this thread in this forum or any other one. I've seen it in about 5 different forums.

You have a better chance of stopping a breaking dyke with your finger... LOL

From now on we can call it the boydel system if it makes you feel any better. What do you hope to accomplish by posting this pseudo threat?

Go check out Drew15 in therx.com forum, he too claims to have created this system. LOL

You keep talkin' and all I hear is blah, blah, blah.

tweaks or no, I'm playing this as it was ORIGINALLY POSTED ON STATFOX. I will not take liberties with it, I'm only posting it for tracking purposes, at least until it shows me that it can win.

I am drew15 at the RXforum.

Check details held for posters.

Just because I am Delboy here, does not mean I have to be delboy at all forums.

I post under different names at madjacks, bettorstalk, aaahandicapping.


So please dont make threats to me as I will push this further and start legal proceedings.

You say it was posted at statfox a few seasons ago.

When was that? Because Tony Stoffo sold the system in the early 2000's and that's after I had the work published in two publications in the late 1990's.

So dont call me out. If you want to persue this matter, then fine. I will get legal matters underway and then see what happens when sites and forums produce copyrighted material.


I am not being spoken to by you like I'm a piece of ****.

Let me break it down for you, in case you don't understand

1) You have already stated that we 'got the system wrong.' So it's NOT (in the eyes of the law) the same system, not the same name, not the same parameters, nothing. Perhaps similar, but it's not copyright infringement

2) Coming in here and spewing empty threats will get you a negative response. Period.

3) If Stoffo stole/sold this system, why aren't you going after him instead of some random person on the internet who's not making any money off of it? Especially since to this point you've offered no proof that the system was in fact yours, other than saying it's 'appeared in several publications.'

To summarize, I haven't treated you like a piece of ****, as you've accused. I've reacted with skeptecism to a currently-unfounded claim of copyright infringement and the threat of legal actions for no apparent reason.

The posting of the rules to the system are from the original method that was devised back in 1997 ........... so YES it is a contravention to copyright law.


I will take this matter up legally tomorrow and be sending a copy of such to the owners of "Statfox"


I am sick and tired of people taking other peoples work.


Back in 1997 I produced a number of systems for football (soccer), american football, baseball, basketball, ice hockey and horse racing and all appeared in a weekly periodical over the sapce of six months creditted to myself. In 1999, some of these same systems appeared in another publicaton, again under my name and then finally in 2003 three systems with some amendments appeared in a magazine, again creditted to myself.


I hold full copyrights to all my published work and under each system has appeared the copyright symbol and statement - "All rights reserved". I am sure you are aware this is the most commonly used statement, and perhaps the clearest, and covers most eventualities. It simply means that I withhold all rights to the maximum extent allowable under law.

It covers such areas as; Copying, Duplication, Reproduction, Selling, Distribution.


My work is also registered with the UK Copyright Service. The UK Copyright Service (UKCS) is an additional deterrent against infringement, and as I have displayed the notice, I am in effect demonstrating that I'm aware of my rights and that I take my rights seriously, and that I have very strong evidence with which to pursue a case if my work is infringed.


All my systems and furter amendments have been copyrighted for life of the author (myself) plus 50 years from death.



The UK is a member of several international conventions in this field, notably the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC). Copyright material created by UK nationals or residents is protected in each member country of the conventions by the national law of that country. Most countries belong to at least one of the conventions, including all the Western European countries, the USA and Russia.

Under UK law anyone wishing to put copyright material on the Internet, or further distribute or download such material that others have placed on the Internet, should ensure that they have the permission of the owners of rights in the material.



As I am aware, you or no one else for that matter has seeked my permission (the copyright owner) to use copyright material.



May I point out to you and any others, that before you can legally sell, publish or distribute someone else’s copyright work, you must obtain the permission of the copyright owner. This rule applies even if you are only using extracts or samples from the work.

Although national laws may allow some limited use without permission under the terms of fair use or fair dealing, these are very limited and quite specific exceptions. If you are in any doubt whatsoever, you should always get the permission of the copyright owner. If you are found guilty of copyright infringement or plagiarism you could face legal charges, fines, or in extreme cases even imprisonment.



Where to get permission

It is normal to request permission via the publisher of the work. The publisher will often have a permissions department to deal with such requests, or may use the services of a copyright clearance or licensing service. If the publisher cannot give permission directly, they will certainly know who you should contact, (as they will have obtained permission themselves in order to use the work in the first place).

If for example, the author is personally known to you, it may be possible to obtain permission via a private agreement. In such cases you should ensure you get an agreement in writing to avoid any future disagreements.


NO ONE HAS EVER APPROACHED ME - SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW. YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO POST ANYTHING IN RELATION TO THIS SYSTEM.



I AM NOT HERE TO CAUSE TROUBLE - I AM JUST TRYING TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS, WHICH BY LAW I AM ALLOWED TO DO SO.


IF YOU WERE IN MY POSITION, YOU WOULD FEEL PEAVED.

Not at all, quite the opposite. I'd be flattered that someone liked my work enough to emulate it. Sure, I'd be mad if they got rich and famous off of it but I haven't done that, especially not with this (have you seen the system's record?)

Look at it in this context: when I was in Miami I played trombone (briefly) in a band, 'Against All Authority' We would occasionally cover the J Geils' band song 'Centerfold'. It even appeared on the AAA album 'Destroy What Destroys You.' We had no consent by the J Geils band at the time to cover that song, although I found out in the past couple years that someone from the band heard the cover and were alright with it. Same principle. Noone's profiting off your work, quite the contrary, we appreciate it greatly.

Also, if you'd like the system renamed I'd be happy to do that.

Don't you have something more important to do than scan forums?

If is this such a big issue to you, why has it taken you so long?

Spend your energy on your family, world peace, go volunteer. This is a fruitless enterprise you are undertaking!

I invented the toothbrush, and I give you and every other British person my permission to use one!

I thought Buster invented the toothbrush

No, he invented the internet.

As I said, I am fed up finding this system being copied each and every season on different forums.

Sorry for sounding off with you all yesterday, but it really is annoying finding work that one produces being banded about various sites.

Members here at statfox have helped me along in the past with some great ideas etc, so below is the original version of "THE ULTIMATE UNDERDOG SYSTEM" AND "Under the Gun".

The Underdog system has made over 140 units wagering a fixed 1 unit on every play over the last four years, while the total system (Under the Gun) has not performed over the last three seasons.



THE ULTIMATE UNDERDOG SYSTEM and UNDER THE GUN



The Rules


1) Using early lines (over night) eliminate any games in which the moneyline odds on the underdogs are greater than +150 (and less than +100).

2) Eliminate any games in which the underdogs have lost 3 or more games in a row or the favourites have won 3 or more games in a row.

3) From the games that are left, eliminate any games in which the favoured team’s pitcher is among the Top 20 in the AL or NL in ERA.

AMENDMENT in 2000: replace top 20 in ERA with NPERA (determined by Jeff Sagarin) which are found on USA Today’s Web site.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/


4) AMMENDMENT 1999: Teams start to qualify after pitcher has made 3 starts. Note; If starter is pulled from the bullpen to make start, they must have pitched 15 innings over the previous three weeks.


5) Wager 1 unit on each qualifying play until 20 too 25 units have been won. Increase unit stake by 50% (ie: 1.5 units per play). Increase unit stake by 50% thereafter for each subsequent 20 to 25 units of profit.


FURTHER AMMENDMENT's 2002:

1) DO NOT play during Inter League match-ups.

2) Allow each starter to make one start (pitching 5 innings minimum) after the All-Star break.

3) System ends after teams have passed 145 games played.




UNDER THE GUN


When betting on The Ultimate Underdog System, I incorporate a second set of plays on games in which both pitchers are ranked in the Top 20 in the league - always on the “under” total.


© All rights reserved 1997, 2000, 2002

Registered with the UK Copyright Service (UKCS) 2002.

NOT an exact copy, not an exact formula so copyright does not apply.

Can you claim anyone playing favs or dogs after you published something telling people when to play the fav and when to play the dogs?