Talking about past events would be pointless, as I could pull any game out of my ass. Talking about future events isn't going to happen, not my information to give away, and such sports aren't in action today anyway. There are 55% plays, 53% plays etc out there, but again, not my information to give away.
It works, I make profit. If you can't accept that, then you're blinder than I thought, as I had you down as fairly intelligent until now.
I can promise you if you get a line that is the eqivalent to a -130 (which wins 56.5%) and YOU PAY (this is the key) -110 for it that it will win more than a line that is -120 (which wins at 54.5%).
I am not speaking for everyone here but this is how I quantify my edge and it works.
Passing on situations like my above example and not betting a little more on it is plain not smart. I dont care how you look at them and if you have to right it down twice when the bet is 2 units on an event but it has to be taken advantage of because plays like the above will hit around their true moneyline pct over time.
The problem is most players look at the short term when doing this. I am talking about thousands of bets. I am betting around 1,200-1,500 units a month (98% of them are 1 and 2 units each). Remember if every play supposedly has an edge than it is smarter to bet all of them.
Perhaps this will help.
Scotland are a 73.3% chance to beat Georgia at the weekend.
England are a 57.3% chance to beat Israel on Saturday.
In this example, to avoid using other's info, I've based those %'s on current market odds.
Now let's say ScandinaviaBook.com offers me evens on both teams. Do you think I should bet the same on England as I do on Scotland, because both are +EV? Should I not bet more on Scotland?
In practice, I either get those %'s from my own computer models, those of others, or other sources, compare against the current market price, and bet accordingly.
Scotland are a 73.3% chance to beat Georgia at the weekend.
England are a 57.3% chance to beat Israel on Saturday.
In this example, to avoid using other's info, I've based those %'s on current market odds.
Now let's say ScandinaviaBook.com offers me evens on both teams. Do you think I should bet the same on England as I do on Scotland, because both are +EV? Should I not bet more on Scotland?
In practice, I either get those %'s from my own computer models, those of others, or other sources, compare against the current market price, and bet accordingly.
For me it is not at all scientific. It is indeed feel and gut instincts and often times is determined by what I am limited to, due to book maxes and or much less available funds overseas these days and no quick way to move money. In a perfect word, though with no limits and ability to get down when I want, it always simply came down to feel for me.
With others have chimed in with their opinions while I was offline, I could have just let this thread speak for itself. Though, I did want to respond to your question.
You actually was making an assumption where none exists. Just because I mentioned 3 things doesn't mean that you must have been 1 of those 3. Evidently, you aren't one of the 3 descriptions I mentioned that would benefit "the most" from flat-betting. Reasons I mentioned those 3 associations from the tip of my fingers when I typed earlier this afternoon:
1.) newbies: they do not necessarily have the skill or experience yet to identify how to determine edges & apply properly to their betting patterns
2.) rebuilding bankrolls: for instance, many of us do take out portions of our sports betting BR for one reason or other... in your mention of $1.5k bets, say, you end up only have $10K left at all books combined as you already recently "withdrew $20K or whatever". You wouldn't have the room to make $500 (action plays), $1K (normal plays), or $1.5K bets (best plays) realistically to really vary your bets properly. This is where 2% of current bankroll would be best applied as practiced by many here since you can go through losing/winning streaks before you can jump up to bigger bets.
3.) less-disciplined bettors: it says for itself if some people find themselves easily going on tilt after losing 8 straight nickel bets... then making several multiple dime bets in a row after that, regardless of results, then they would appear to benefit best from grinding out flat-betting.
In your case, Tony, you mentioned an example of 1 or 2 games where you found definitive edges to wager a potential $1,500 each game. Rather than miring into "difference-between-70%-to-80%", which is besides the point, I ask one question once again:
When you find definite edges on 2 games that you WANT to bet on a small card for the day, can you say with strong belief that each game's perceived edge by YOU are exactly the same for every game that you bet $1.5k on?
You would have to admit that after only 10 or 20 bets of all at the same amount (whether it is $1.5k or whatever else), even before the game has started, you would have had various degrees of confidence on those games, right?
Now, why lump them all together in one same wager amount? That is what the AMOUNT of edge comes in as mentioned by several here. That's why I believe in the varying bets scheme (as well as following a strict money management system).
P.S. I definitely have said my piece.
* CalvinTy
As an example, I have a hockey model, I plug in the inputs (e.g. GF, GA) and get an answer in the form of a probability. Such as: probability of under 6 = 55%, or P(PHIL +1.5) = 60% I then convert the best M/L that I can get into an equivalent implied probability. For example, for the total bet, the book is offering a line of 6 -110..this implies a 50% probability of occurence (=100M/L wihtout the VIG). I now know, and can quantify my edge, and bet accordingly. And, I can assure you that I vary my bet in proportion to my edge. Not doing so, would be leaving money on the table.
