Big believer in varying your bet size over flat betting

[Iceman]

Figured that it is time to bring up the age old question on here between varying your bet size versus flat betting.

I have come full circle on this but am 100% convinced there is only 1 way to go about betting. If you are new to betting, with a small bankroll and unproven as a winner than flat bet for the time being until your bankroll, confidence and results are at a certain standard.

This is where I have changed. Have really made alot more money since the beginning of 2007 varying my bet size. I cannot stress enough how this paid off for me the past few months. I think if you want to take your betting to a new level you have to do this. I did it successfully in football but have never been able to do it with hoops to just recently.

Anyone that is winning and flat betting is only costing themselves money in the long run if you can determine your edge on a bet (to an extent that is). Has paid off for me and cannot stress enough for others who are trying to improve their bottom line. Don't get frustated if you have a 3-2 nite and lose money as it will happen but looking at it longterm you should make alot more money if you are winning.

 

[everythingthatsgreen]

I vary my bet size but didn't want to throw that into the other thread about professional gambling, it didn't need that added to it..

I have a decent gut feeling imo and it tells me what to bet. In CFB I went 8-5 in bowl season... 4 of my losses were for $150 on games I just played to play like Rice/Troy..I like to think of these games as action plays. I made it out of bowl season +$1810.. If I flat betted the result wouldn't have been nearly the same.. I think I was actually on a run of 18-3-1 on bets of $300 or more. I didn't have nearly close to the same success w/ my $150 bets.. Not even close.

I have had the same success w/ March Madness as well. Its a gut feeling about the game, thats the only way to explain it. Of course the downfall is that no matter how sure you are about a game a loss to one of your bigger bets could set you back a lot.

 

[Iceman]

would only vary unit size 1-3 units, maybe 5 max.

good point that I forgot to add. I only go 1-3 units myself.

 

[Journeyman]

Depends on how recreational you are I think...put it this way most people would be better off betting the same on every game, almost no one days anyway.

 

[gynecologist]

I've never understood flat betting myself.

 

[Iceman]

Depends on how recreational you are I think...put it this way most people would be better off betting the same on every game, almost no one days anyway.

100% agree. This post was more for the player who is at a certain level (winning) and looking to take it up a notch.

 

[Doug]

You almost have to vary sizes, esp. if you average over $500 a play. Many times you can only get like $220 at SIA on the good line, or there is only a certain amount at Matchbook, or only part of your offer gets taken.

Other times you might lead for much more, planning a buyback.

 

[everythingthatsgreen]

For CFB I bet $150 -200 on action plays, these are your average MAC games on tuesday night that I try not to bet but fall into the trap. Sometimes games that I felt comfortable w/ @ $150 but not enough to put $300 on.

My usual play were around $300-$350 except for games which I classified as Plays of The Week. I ended up 5-1 on these and these are for about double my normal play.

 

[vanzack]

I flat bet.

The reason I flat bet is because I do not have an accurate way of determining stronger plays from others. That doesnt mean before the game that I dont feel better about some than others, it means that after years of statistical tracking I hit my "great" plays at about the same percentage as my "good" plays. So for me, if it qualifies as a play, I bet it for equal amounts no matter how much I like it.

People get in trouble with this. They tend to way overbet "great" plays and way underbet "good" plays. Some play 2 to 5 times the amount on a great play than a good play, when in fact they have no statistical basis for betting more.

If somehow you can quantify that your great plays hit at 60%, and your good plays hit at 56%, then it would be prudent to scale your bets accordingly. But I have yet to see this, and as a matter of fact quite often see the exact opposite - people that have no idea if their great plays hit better than their good plays but put relatively way too much money on these plays.

People who make money gambling are people that can have rational reasons for every decision they make. There is a direct linear relationship here. The more rationality in decisions, the more chance for profitability. I challenge anyone not flat betting to ask themselves "do I really know what is the difference in historical success on my great plays vs my good plays? And if so, are my bet amounts in correllation with those historical results (or am i putting way too much on my great, and not enough on my good)?

This concept is almost universally misunderstood amongst gamblers.

 

[everythingthatsgreen]

Van, your thoughts are needed in the "is it possible to make a living gambling" thread as I think you could add to this debate.

 

[Doug]

You might be willing to bet a bit more if the line you get is great. Say you play 500 a game, you might be willing to go 700 if you get +105 ( Matchbook) instead of -105 or -110 elsewhere. Maybe the play itself is no stronger, but the line makes it worthy of more of a bet.

 

[FatTony]

I've never understood flat betting myself.

I don't understand betting different amounts. If you like a game "a little bit", you shouldn't be betting it.

Doesn't it make sense to just play the games you love?

 

[betedgeonly]

I've never understood flat betting myself.

betting the same amount every game.

 

[betedgeonly]

For CFB I bet $150 -200 on action plays, these are your average MAC games on tuesday night that I try not to bet but fall into the trap. Sometimes games that I felt comfortable w/ @ $150 but not enough to put $300 on.

My usual play were around $300-$350 except for games which I classified as Plays of The Week. I ended up 5-1 on these and these are for about double my normal play.

why even waste your money on the "gut feeling" games? dos'nt make sense. if you would not play those you would be much farther ahead according to what you are saying.

 

[everythingthatsgreen]

Because I don't do this for a living and it didn't occur to me until the end of the season how bad I really did on those games. It is something I would like to improve on no doubt. Its the degenerate in me..

 

[FatTony]

why even waste your money on the "gut feeling" games? dos'nt make sense. if you would not play those you would be much farther ahead according to what you are saying.

Or just even look at it from this standpoint. If the games you played "less" on nets a positive record, you cost yourself money by not playing them as much as the other ones. If those games were losing propositions, you shouldn't have been playing them at all.

Sports betting should be "in for a penny, in for a pound".

 

[vanzack]

Van, your thoughts are needed in the "is it possible to make a living gambling" thread as I think you could add to this debate.

I read the thread but there isnt really a debate.

Yes its possible to make a living gambling. There are over 300,000 professional gamblers that file as a professional with the IRS. Your exposure is limited to message boards and your friends.

I assure you that there are thousands that make their living this way.

:toast:

 

[gynecologist]

I don't understand betting different amounts. If you like a game "a little bit", you shouldn't be betting it.

Doesn't it make sense to just play the games you love?

Well guess we are different no problem with that.

So you like every play exactly the same? There is never a play that looks really good and merits an extra unit or such?

A lot of successful people bet with different unit sizes and their big unit plays hit at a higher %.

 

[everythingthatsgreen]

VAN --- I was saying that it is possible.

 

[vanzack]

I flat bet.

The reason I flat bet is because I do not have an accurate way of determining stronger plays from others. That doesnt mean before the game that I dont feel better about some than others, it means that after years of statistical tracking I hit my "great" plays at about the same percentage as my "good" plays. So for me, if it qualifies as a play, I bet it for equal amounts no matter how much I like it.

People get in trouble with this. They tend to way overbet "great" plays and way underbet "good" plays. Some play 2 to 5 times the amount on a great play than a good play, when in fact they have no statistical basis for betting more.

If somehow you can quantify that your great plays hit at 60%, and your good plays hit at 56%, then it would be prudent to scale your bets accordingly. But I have yet to see this, and as a matter of fact quite often see the exact opposite - people that have no idea if their great plays hit better than their good plays but put relatively way too much money on these plays.

People who make money gambling are people that can have rational reasons for every decision they make. There is a direct linear relationship here. The more rationality in decisions, the more chance for profitability. I challenge anyone not flat betting to ask themselves "do I really know what is the difference in historical success on my great plays vs my good plays? And if so, are my bet amounts in correllation with those historical results (or am i putting way too much on my great, and not enough on my good)?

This concept is almost universally misunderstood amongst gamblers.

I still would like to hear someone who doesnt flat bet (like Iceman) to answer the question I posed above.

:toast: