I like flat betting, varying your bets dont really make sense unless your just looking for action.
If you bet say 1-3 units per game and your up money on all 1 unit, 2 unit and 3 unit games its just aswell to bet 3 units on all games.
And if you down on say 1 unit plays whats the point of betting unless you're just in it for the action.
If you bet say 1-3 units per game and your up money on all 1 unit, 2 unit and 3 unit games its just aswell to bet 3 units on all games.
And if you down on say 1 unit plays whats the point of betting unless you're just in it for the action.
I think the only benifit of varying your bet size is when your on a hot streak you can bet more per game and when your on a cold streak you can bet less per game.
Then again if your a flat bettor you can just bet more or less games depending if your on a hot or cold streak.
I think varying your bet size leads to chasing for most people
Then again if your a flat bettor you can just bet more or less games depending if your on a hot or cold streak.
I think varying your bet size leads to chasing for most people
I have to respectively disagree with your post. All the successful long term handicappers that I know have a flat betting system or hybrid flat betting system that takes into account the nominal fluctuations that ones portfolio experiences (i.e. different types of % of bankroll betting systems that take full advantage of phenomena of compounding).
Simply put, if you have an edge or expected positive marginal return, there is no reason to add unnecessary bankroll variance that has the propensity to exhaust rather than enhance a given handicappers edge. The problem with such Kelly Criterion approaches, as that even when one has an edge, the majority of “edge” handicappers fail to accurately quantify the edge they have on a consistent basis. With the remaining few percentile in which the Kelly criterion was designated for, most can not justify the expected increase of return, as the increase of risk (standard deviation, shortfall risk, preexisting ones bankroll) that accompanies it outweighs it. There are a few that can actually quantify their edge consistently enough to warrant an fluctuation in bet size, but it is a small minority of “edge” cappers, and they are still vulnerable in deciphering and quantifying the appropriate disparity of bet sizes given a particular marginal increase in the expected chance of winning. There have been several Monte Carlo simulations done on this topic that pretty much have shown given a large iteration size, that Kelly Criterion is only monetarily prudent a small percent of the time.
Then there are those people that vary their bet size from 10 to 20 times as much. I don’t need to waste my time in attacking such an approach, as one should know by now how irresponsible such an approach it is.
Simply put, for “edge” bettors essentially have taken the coin flipping aspect out of handicapping. Fluctuations in bet size more times than not puts it right back in. My advice is to run some test on a hybrid % of bankroll method. The power of compounding is astonishing and the most overlooked think in any form of investment. Even with a small edge, a grind it out approach that takes advantage of this asset can generate VERY rewarding returns.
Simply put, if you have an edge or expected positive marginal return, there is no reason to add unnecessary bankroll variance that has the propensity to exhaust rather than enhance a given handicappers edge. The problem with such Kelly Criterion approaches, as that even when one has an edge, the majority of “edge” handicappers fail to accurately quantify the edge they have on a consistent basis. With the remaining few percentile in which the Kelly criterion was designated for, most can not justify the expected increase of return, as the increase of risk (standard deviation, shortfall risk, preexisting ones bankroll) that accompanies it outweighs it. There are a few that can actually quantify their edge consistently enough to warrant an fluctuation in bet size, but it is a small minority of “edge” cappers, and they are still vulnerable in deciphering and quantifying the appropriate disparity of bet sizes given a particular marginal increase in the expected chance of winning. There have been several Monte Carlo simulations done on this topic that pretty much have shown given a large iteration size, that Kelly Criterion is only monetarily prudent a small percent of the time.
Then there are those people that vary their bet size from 10 to 20 times as much. I don’t need to waste my time in attacking such an approach, as one should know by now how irresponsible such an approach it is.
Simply put, for “edge” bettors essentially have taken the coin flipping aspect out of handicapping. Fluctuations in bet size more times than not puts it right back in. My advice is to run some test on a hybrid % of bankroll method. The power of compounding is astonishing and the most overlooked think in any form of investment. Even with a small edge, a grind it out approach that takes advantage of this asset can generate VERY rewarding returns.
Once again your showing your short term inexperience and giving a long term view. Betting has to be regulated for the long haul and giving carte blanche views on how to approach this is a joke. Anyone with a clue about betting soon realises that flat betting is the stable and increases in stakes can only be justified in certain fields depending on previous profits in a port folio of sports. Your constant jumping to conclusions, asking bazaar questions, clueless opinions and dwelling in all categories related to getting rich quick give me the impression your nothing more than a Wanker. :drink:
Alright, here I am. I do range my bets, but *nearly* NOTHING to do with because "I believe that play is stronger/better than that other play".
I follow a money management system, and of course, it has some kind of martingaling in it for it to be efficient, blah blah.. not going into details in this thread but basically, obviously when I plug in the new bets with results, then I have several numbers in my Excel spreadsheet that I follow in order to bet the next day...so I'm conscious of umm levels of bets (like a range, if you will) and sure, I'd put some stronger lean on plays that I have received/observed by putting this pick in the higher bet amount than the other bet amounts available to me.
In any case, through the spreadsheet, I know I lose many bets just like everyone else and I don't want to flat-bet at -110 because I'd be required to win 53% or more, right... but I profit in the thousands over a long haul while limiting my highest bet in the $300 range.
I am not sure if I answered anything new... except to say that my ranged bets has nearly nothing to do with whether Play of the Week actually was a great play as opposed to that Total of the Month that failed miserably. This is where I agree with you, vanzack, about earlier post 100% where you said, "after years of statistical tracking I hit my "great" plays at about the same percentage as my "good" plays". This is PRECISELY why I do not flat-bet INSTEAD of agreeing to flat-betting as you would expect me & others to now "join in the flat-bet crowd", but no...
A play wins when it shouldn't; a play loses when it shouldn't. With that in mind, you are basically requiring yourself to defeat the vig for every flat-bet you make. No thanks.
I would vary the bets and just use any kind of good quality money management system where the number outputs DICTATES your betting amounts, but leaving the choice of which bet amount to plug your "great play" into.
I babble so I'm stopping now.
* CalvinTy
Last edited:
Everyone I know who does this successfully measures his edge and bets accrodingly.
Sorry but I promise you are in the minority on this one. If you dont believe feel free to look at other forums and see what they all say. Just wondering what you are basing your opinion on, not coming down on, you just curious.
Situations where I am getting Clemson -4.5 in womens NCAA and not betting more on a line that is established -5.5/-6 is just plain stupid.
I guess it comes down to how you detemine how big your edge is. I compare my line to the consensus line and Pinnys numbers and go from there and it has worked.
So if I am understanding you because for some reason you think I am clueless, if you find a bet you percieve to have a bigger edge on, for whatever your reasons are for that bigger edge, than you are saying you don't bet more. Okay.
As for my so called get rich quick schemes which have been all about starting a business, stocks, or real estate questions, as those are what most poor people particapte in. I can see where you think I am trying to not work for anything and make a quick buck. I dont want to learn about any of this I would rather just go to work everyday and never aspire for anything else in life. I apologize if I offended you. I guess I could just sit around and have no goals, thoughts or dreams and drink my life away and be all real wanker like you said. Maybe I will give that a try.:drink: . If I could only find a mentor for that:think2:
i have a question for you on money management. currently i just bet the same $$ on every game (1 unit). sometimes i have a 2 unit play if i love a game, but i know it's probably bad discipline.
what are your thoughts on adjusting bet sizes based on bankroll size? say i pick 2% per play, my bets will rise and fall based on how i am doing. is it that simple? long term, is this a more profitable method than just sticking to the same $100 bet every game?
what are your thoughts on adjusting bet sizes based on bankroll size? say i pick 2% per play, my bets will rise and fall based on how i am doing. is it that simple? long term, is this a more profitable method than just sticking to the same $100 bet every game?
To answer the question before: "If you're winning on your big and little plays, why don't you just bet your little plays as big as your big plays?"
Because your perceived edge on them is not the same. Plus, when you MADE the bets, you didn't KNOW that you were going to win them. If you did, well then duh: you'd max out the wagers on them, but you didn't.
Perhaps the smaller bet has larger volatility and so you want to limit your exposure? Perhaps the smaller bet you think has a smaller chance of winning than your larger bet? But in all this, YOU STILL THINK YOU'RE GOING TO WIN ENOUGH TO MORE THAN COVER THE TIMES THAT YOU LOSE.
As long as you have an edge, the notion is to bet it. To vary your bets is to increase your wagers when you think your edge is larger (your chances of winning go up). That makes sense, right?
That's why you don't just increase your wagers to the same big size. Ideally, you want to be winning your big plays, winning your medium plays, and winning your little plays. But If you quantify your edge correctly, you'll be winning more often and for larger amounts on your big plays.
Because your perceived edge on them is not the same. Plus, when you MADE the bets, you didn't KNOW that you were going to win them. If you did, well then duh: you'd max out the wagers on them, but you didn't.
Perhaps the smaller bet has larger volatility and so you want to limit your exposure? Perhaps the smaller bet you think has a smaller chance of winning than your larger bet? But in all this, YOU STILL THINK YOU'RE GOING TO WIN ENOUGH TO MORE THAN COVER THE TIMES THAT YOU LOSE.
As long as you have an edge, the notion is to bet it. To vary your bets is to increase your wagers when you think your edge is larger (your chances of winning go up). That makes sense, right?
That's why you don't just increase your wagers to the same big size. Ideally, you want to be winning your big plays, winning your medium plays, and winning your little plays. But If you quantify your edge correctly, you'll be winning more often and for larger amounts on your big plays.
hey ice i remember you saying that you dont watch many of the games and pretty much basically play steam plays in hoopsa and focus on getting the better number. do you vary your unit size in hoops also or just in football. i am also wondering how you did in the tournament and conf. tourneys with the method you use. i remember i played some steam last year at this time and got destroyed. how has it been working out for you?
FYI....Read a lot of literature that said bet no more than 5% of your bankroll on one play.
Now, I varied my bets in football. 3,4, or 5 unit plays......I've had 4 out of 5 great seasons using my own system.
In hoops, I have been all over the place trying to find something that works consistently and have struggled. Started out flat betting, but that was very not worth it to me.....raised my units though & lost my ass. So, flat betting is a better way to control your bankroll I suppose unles you adjust your unit amounts after each winning or losing week, then staggered wagering should be no problem. I think either way though the key is DISCIPLNE!!!
I have friends who bet $50 on one game then hit another for $300 and one for $120,etc.....talk about setting themselves up to fail.
Now, I varied my bets in football. 3,4, or 5 unit plays......I've had 4 out of 5 great seasons using my own system.
In hoops, I have been all over the place trying to find something that works consistently and have struggled. Started out flat betting, but that was very not worth it to me.....raised my units though & lost my ass. So, flat betting is a better way to control your bankroll I suppose unles you adjust your unit amounts after each winning or losing week, then staggered wagering should be no problem. I think either way though the key is DISCIPLNE!!!
I have friends who bet $50 on one game then hit another for $300 and one for $120,etc.....talk about setting themselves up to fail.
