I was afraid of (and did anticipate) this kind of response. Two quick points before continuing with the numbers: 1.) that would be "Monday morning quarterbacking" knowing that your "action" plays would have hit 54%. Just like someone else said earlier in this thread, "of course, when it hits, you wish you hit the max on it." 2.) I have to do this but to nitpick a little bit, it is *not* "same money risked". If all plays were risked at 5.5 units to win the 5 unit for each play, that is much much more impact to your bankroll than spreading out.
The numbers, continued:
5 units; "best" 100 plays
3 units; "normal" 200 plays
1 unit; "action" 300 plays
Total: 336-264 56% after 600 plays
Certainly, after 600 plays with a record of 336-264, flat-betting those for 5 units each play would have netted: +228 units, considerably more than +148.6 units in the 1-3-5 unit example above.
Still, that's ALL HINDSIGHT. Can you honestly say that all plays truly has no difference in edge before placing the bets? I believe that's what some are trying to emphasize here, though.
Anyway, let's say you do flat-bet risking 2.2% of your bankroll (taking into consideration of the usual -110 juice) and the bet "to win 2% of your BR" is also equivalent to your 5 units plays. That would mean you have a 250 unit bankroll.
per play
risk 2.2% to win 2% of BR =
risk 5.5 units to win 5 units
bankroll: 5 units at 2% of BR =
250 units at 100% of BR
Now, one apparent disadvantage of flat-betting is that if you always bet the same amount --the top pick; i.e. a 5-unit play--, even during a 56% winning clip in 600 plays (336-264 record), you could possibly go through some losing streaks of easily 8 or more straight losses, maybe even going 2-13 in a set of 15 plays.
Let's say you do go through a 2-13 funk to start before reaching the respectable record of 336-264:
You had risked 5.5 units to win 5 units ON EVERY PLAY, which translates to -61.5 units loss of your 250 units bankroll!! By that point, your bankroll is now only less than 190 units left.
It certainly becomes hard to justify continuing risking 5.5 units even if you end up with that long-term record of 336-264.
To each his own, I guess.
* CalvinTy
Calvin.. you wrote:
and then wrote:
Do you see the contradiction in those two statements? The first statement is telling me there's no way of knowing what rate you're big plays are going to hit at and then the second is telling me you have more of an edge on some bets then others.
You guys are killing me. :lol:
and then wrote:
Do you see the contradiction in those two statements? The first statement is telling me there's no way of knowing what rate you're big plays are going to hit at and then the second is telling me you have more of an edge on some bets then others.
You guys are killing me. :lol:
No, it was proven mathematically. Kelly Criterion etc..
I will agree that it only works if you can mathematically justify your edge as an overlay, rather than "liking a play".
In 90% of stuff I bet, I do know (within a certain error margin) what my edge on the bet is. On some stuff I have a 5% edge, others a 10%, others 30% or more. The higher stuff obviously isn't mainstream American sports.
Oh, I see how I wasn't clear.
When I said:
That was in reference to how EVEN the action plays could hit close to the same percentage as the BEST plays (and certainly in the short run, we have seen cappers here hit lower units at a higher percentage instead). The minute you know that your action plays wins, we wish we could have put more units on it. That doesn't mean we don't see bigger edges in our best plays. That is the bottom line.
After all, a parallel to line shopping... if you already like a +200 underdog as you see them winning 45% of the time (instead of the "implied 33%" in the +200 odds), but one or two books that you have funded only offer +180...
...then your edge did reduce somewhat (rather than a full 12% edge, which is extreme to begin with). Why risk 5 units on the same play when the edge has changed? I guess, Tony, you would have just blindly bet $500 to win $900 at +180 anyway instead of reducing to 3 units in your mind. Same goes for a hoops favorite who shot-rocketed from -2.5 to -5.5 when a key player from another team is hurt. You still risk the same 5 units exactly regardless at -2.5 and -5.5 (after you believe that the favorite was going to win by 8-10 points)??
I think we all have differing opinions that simply cannot be easily addressed anyway, though.
* CalvinTy
Last edited:
Without reading this thread, talking about the brighter players, I can tell you that you simply do not have a clue to maximize your profits if you are not betting some events much larger than others. An example would be my college season thread. Those are just the best plays I make that I post(straight wagers only, make much more on the creative wagers). Does that mean that I don't have an edge on the non posted plays that I am playing smaller? Ofcourse not. Let common sense be the guide. Bigger the edge, bigger the play.
Now the less sharp you are the closer you should be to flat wagers, as you probably don't actually have the edge that you think. And losing players should actually be inverting my theory and playing less on games they like the most as they will most likely lose less this way.
Now the less sharp you are the closer you should be to flat wagers, as you probably don't actually have the edge that you think. And losing players should actually be inverting my theory and playing less on games they like the most as they will most likely lose less this way.
Iceman is not talking about handicapping......
he is talking about getting a (+3) instead of (+2) for 1 unit plays and getting (+4) instead of (+2) for 2 unit plays and possibly (+5) instead of a (+2) for his rare 3 unit play.....
his statements have nothing to do with handicapping......
you guys are talking about 2 completely different things....
he is talking about getting a (+3) instead of (+2) for 1 unit plays and getting (+4) instead of (+2) for 2 unit plays and possibly (+5) instead of a (+2) for his rare 3 unit play.....
his statements have nothing to do with handicapping......
you guys are talking about 2 completely different things....
Outstanding thread. Not much of one to post, but enjoy reading. Enjoy the action, and tag along many different cappers/posters on the forum.
Question to you all as far as managing your bank roll and betting units.
After reading through this thread, I was wondering does anyone set a goal ?
As in, lets say I make my goal to equal $ 50 dollars per night/1500 per month/18K per year.
Do you think this system would work ?
I know some people play a small card depending on the amount of games that they find appealing and others seem to increase their odds by betting more games. What has worked well ? You may or should I say should increase your odds with the amount of games played. This would benefit the fact of flat betting. Others may chose to bet fewer games, may benefit from larger wagers. Either way, everyone wants to win. During football season, I was betting many games with the same dollar amount, ended up losing. That made me think, that I needed to assess my money management. So I took a break and didn't start back up until the Superbowl.
I've thought about a system while reading the forum and wanted some feedback if anyone has tried it and do you think it would work.
Depending on the size of your bank roll, and how much you are willing to risk.
In a way it could be looked at as flat betting or systematic increases.
Example: Not taking into cosideration of juice.
bet 100 lose. Next bet 100 win (now even), if you lose, the next bet would be 200. This would bring you back to even or increase 100 in order to make up for the 100 inf you would of won. Next bet Staying with you initial flat bet an only increasing the amount to bring you back to even on your next winner.
Things to worry about, but in my opinion not likely. No one is going to miss everygame they pick. This is based on only betting one game/half and not wagering until you know whether or not you have won or loss. If your on a hot streak you won't win as much if you varied you plays based on huge/medium/small plays, but should minimize your losses.
Appreciate any feedback on whether or not you think this would work ?
Question to you all as far as managing your bank roll and betting units.
After reading through this thread, I was wondering does anyone set a goal ?
As in, lets say I make my goal to equal $ 50 dollars per night/1500 per month/18K per year.
Do you think this system would work ?
I know some people play a small card depending on the amount of games that they find appealing and others seem to increase their odds by betting more games. What has worked well ? You may or should I say should increase your odds with the amount of games played. This would benefit the fact of flat betting. Others may chose to bet fewer games, may benefit from larger wagers. Either way, everyone wants to win. During football season, I was betting many games with the same dollar amount, ended up losing. That made me think, that I needed to assess my money management. So I took a break and didn't start back up until the Superbowl.
I've thought about a system while reading the forum and wanted some feedback if anyone has tried it and do you think it would work.
Depending on the size of your bank roll, and how much you are willing to risk.
In a way it could be looked at as flat betting or systematic increases.
Example: Not taking into cosideration of juice.
bet 100 lose. Next bet 100 win (now even), if you lose, the next bet would be 200. This would bring you back to even or increase 100 in order to make up for the 100 inf you would of won. Next bet Staying with you initial flat bet an only increasing the amount to bring you back to even on your next winner.
Things to worry about, but in my opinion not likely. No one is going to miss everygame they pick. This is based on only betting one game/half and not wagering until you know whether or not you have won or loss. If your on a hot streak you won't win as much if you varied you plays based on huge/medium/small plays, but should minimize your losses.
Appreciate any feedback on whether or not you think this would work ?
I am a flat bettor also.
My bets only vary in size if I'm scalping (but then I'm not really betting anymore) or if my bankroll increases/decreases significantly. My flat bet amount also varies by sport or event. I'll bet $100 on each NFL bet all season long, for example, but only $50 on each NCAAB game. It's a confidence-level thing. But within each sport, the bets are always the same.
My bets only vary in size if I'm scalping (but then I'm not really betting anymore) or if my bankroll increases/decreases significantly. My flat bet amount also varies by sport or event. I'll bet $100 on each NFL bet all season long, for example, but only $50 on each NCAAB game. It's a confidence-level thing. But within each sport, the bets are always the same.
Exactly, royalfan.
SSI, yes, we are talking about 2 different things as Iceman (seeking rogue lines) and Fat Tony (flat-betting) has brought to the table here.
Again, to reiterate using my other example earlier:
If Iceman sees a +180 baseball underdog showing at MOST books and observing it IS DROPPING (to +175 or +170).... but one or two slow books still hanging +200. That's Iceman's edge that he pounds for an unit or so. He does this across the board.
As royalfan, Santo, and others are trying to emphasize how there are differing edges when a sharp capper sees a game with his/her opinion & mathematical/statistics/trends supporting a potential big edge... i.e. determining that the capper believes the baseball underdog actually has a 45% chance of winning the game outright... of course the +200 odds (and as well as weaker +180 odds) tells the capper that he should choose this team. That's the capper's edge and selects SOME games only based on what his/her perceived edge tells him/her.
Both type of edges work just as well for any person depending on style. As for flat-betting, it seems to be best held to be done by newbies, people re-building bankrolls, or those with less-disciplined money management skills. JMHO.
* CalvinTy
That is so ridiculous. If I play one to two games a night for $1,500 a game (Where I feel have a definite edge), I'm a newbie or rebuilding a bankroll or I'm less disciplined? How do you make those three association with flat betting?
You're killing me. :lolBIG:
But a handicapper can use both. In baseball I come up with my own numbers and compare them to the actual number. If I feel i have a 20-35 cent edge it is a one unit play. 35-50 cent edge it is for 2 units and 50 cent or above I play it for 3 units. As the season progresses and I feel better about my numbers I change my units to 2,3 and 5 units.
Why should I leave winnings on games I feel I have a 30 cent edge? It is all about quantity with my systems. The more games I bet the more the percentages take effect. Less games can cause more deviance in these numbers as one upset can screw a smaller sample size more than a larger sample size.
havent read thru all of this but i figure i'm in the minority here .
i do my homework and all my picks feel the same to me.
so i would play them all for the same.
and the amount i wager would be in relation to my bankroll .
2 % per play .
if i'm winning , the 2 % ends up being for more , if i'm losing it is for less.
i do my homework and all my picks feel the same to me.
so i would play them all for the same.
and the amount i wager would be in relation to my bankroll .
2 % per play .
if i'm winning , the 2 % ends up being for more , if i'm losing it is for less.
