Great quote from that link:
"NOTE: According to expert researcher Dr. Nigel E. Turner, Ph.D., Scientist, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health ( ntsci@hotmail.com ), incremental betting is one of the telltale signs of someone with a gambling problem."
You don't say.......
"NOTE: According to expert researcher Dr. Nigel E. Turner, Ph.D., Scientist, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health ( ntsci@hotmail.com ), incremental betting is one of the telltale signs of someone with a gambling problem."
You don't say.......
This is getting silly. How does someone determine if a play is above 52.4 at all?
1. Ideally, one makes their best guess estimate of what the pointspread should be vs. what is out there.
2. (1) needs to incorporate a weighting for what the marketplace is dealing. For example, if your number has USC +5.5, but the market is dealing them +8.5, "5.5" would be a pretty lousy estimate of the true line. "7.5" or something like that would be more likely to be a better estimate (1/3 your number and 2/3 the widely available number). This is going to be a controversial method, and many are going to argue their numbers are better than the marketplace. My response to 99.9% of these players is that they are just wrong, and the market often is incorporating many, many factors that they do not even know about.
3. So you get your best estimate of the true number (USC +7.5). If you get floated a USC +8.5, you look to have about a 54% bet. At -110 you are looking at around a 3% ROI. Kelly would call for a 3% bet. I advocate 1/2 Kelly so a 1.5% bet looks good. At +9, -110 (which I got), it now looks to be around a 56% bet. Kelly would say up to a 7% bet would be called for, 1/2 kelly 3.5%.
Where a lot of square sharps crash and burn is that they are ridiculously arrogant in their models. They are convinced all that matters is their numbers, and what the market is dealing is irrelevant. If they have USC +5.5 they truly believe their number is "right" and everything else is wrong.
But if their numbers really were right they would be sitting on 60% bets night after night. And if that was true, they would become billionaires betting even 1/2 Kelly.
Again, good handicappers typically identify many, many games that look to have 52-53% chances to win vs. widely available lines. These all typically become no bets at -110, but are obviously plays at -100 or with a free 1/2 point. If you were playing at a place with free 1/2 points and no limits, surely even the most math challenged would not advocate you
1. Not bet these games or
2. You bet these games at the same level you are playing those games estimated by you to win at 55%.
Ps. If your model calls for many 60% type bets each night, your model needs SERIOUS adjustments and is g****ly overestimating your edge on these bets.
1. Ideally, one makes their best guess estimate of what the pointspread should be vs. what is out there.
2. (1) needs to incorporate a weighting for what the marketplace is dealing. For example, if your number has USC +5.5, but the market is dealing them +8.5, "5.5" would be a pretty lousy estimate of the true line. "7.5" or something like that would be more likely to be a better estimate (1/3 your number and 2/3 the widely available number). This is going to be a controversial method, and many are going to argue their numbers are better than the marketplace. My response to 99.9% of these players is that they are just wrong, and the market often is incorporating many, many factors that they do not even know about.
3. So you get your best estimate of the true number (USC +7.5). If you get floated a USC +8.5, you look to have about a 54% bet. At -110 you are looking at around a 3% ROI. Kelly would call for a 3% bet. I advocate 1/2 Kelly so a 1.5% bet looks good. At +9, -110 (which I got), it now looks to be around a 56% bet. Kelly would say up to a 7% bet would be called for, 1/2 kelly 3.5%.
Where a lot of square sharps crash and burn is that they are ridiculously arrogant in their models. They are convinced all that matters is their numbers, and what the market is dealing is irrelevant. If they have USC +5.5 they truly believe their number is "right" and everything else is wrong.
But if their numbers really were right they would be sitting on 60% bets night after night. And if that was true, they would become billionaires betting even 1/2 Kelly.
Again, good handicappers typically identify many, many games that look to have 52-53% chances to win vs. widely available lines. These all typically become no bets at -110, but are obviously plays at -100 or with a free 1/2 point. If you were playing at a place with free 1/2 points and no limits, surely even the most math challenged would not advocate you
1. Not bet these games or
2. You bet these games at the same level you are playing those games estimated by you to win at 55%.
Ps. If your model calls for many 60% type bets each night, your model needs SERIOUS adjustments and is g****ly overestimating your edge on these bets.
Fez,
While I agree completely with you that a sharp bettor could do better betting with some unit size variation, I would never say a bettor that liked a game for one unit should triple his bet because he got an extra half point. That is crazy, it adds far too much variation to his betting. The even bigger problem is that you must be correct with your bankroll to do this. Most people have enough trouble staying within a reasonable bankroll system. If you tell them keep 50 units, but they triple their bets those times they get a favorable number, they end up betting over 5% on a play. I know a smart bettor wouldn't do this, but for the vast majority it is a risk. You and some others can and should be betting more "accurately" as you describe, but I would guess most people endanger themselves trying to make this work for themselves.
While I agree completely with you that a sharp bettor could do better betting with some unit size variation, I would never say a bettor that liked a game for one unit should triple his bet because he got an extra half point. That is crazy, it adds far too much variation to his betting. The even bigger problem is that you must be correct with your bankroll to do this. Most people have enough trouble staying within a reasonable bankroll system. If you tell them keep 50 units, but they triple their bets those times they get a favorable number, they end up betting over 5% on a play. I know a smart bettor wouldn't do this, but for the vast majority it is a risk. You and some others can and should be betting more "accurately" as you describe, but I would guess most people endanger themselves trying to make this work for themselves.
If I may, what is so wrong with hitting 53%-58%? If you do this on a consistant bassis you have no logical reason to fluctuate your bet amount. Why in the hell would you play with fire like that? I just don't see the reasoning..
If your not happy with your profits from hitting 53-58% then I would think the simple answer would be to just increase your flat bet amount.
Gambling is just that "to me", a gamble! I don't care if I get 2 points free, those 2 points may help the side I'm on, but they don't gauruntee a win.
If your not happy with your profits from hitting 53-58% then I would think the simple answer would be to just increase your flat bet amount.
Gambling is just that "to me", a gamble! I don't care if I get 2 points free, those 2 points may help the side I'm on, but they don't gauruntee a win.
The big debate is weighting plays. Which one is a 1% vs. a 5%. If you really knew which bets to weigh heavy why would you bet the 1% at all? Of the biggest tout hype scams, the large unit play seems to be most tempting as most people need a large bailout play, 50-100 stars, and have more confidence it is a better play if it has more stars. IMO a bet is a bet. Maybe it is a trend that has hit 80% over its life. The next game, it blows. Good example on Kings last night. Dog covered last 4, with ot in all 4. They get blasted by 17. There is the theory. Of course I tweek it with momentum, mainly my own. If I am rolling, and I am notoriously streaky, I may kick my bets up from 1 to 2,3 units. If i continue winning, up to 5. Soon as I dump, back to base unit. Or take a breather. Out of 25+ years of this I am in 3 modes, hot, cold or choppy. I maximize my winning streaks, i minimize my losing streaks and I grind along during the chop. I mean profits, not the streaks. I also break up accounting, usually into weeks. Winning week I start off next week a bit more aggressive. Losing week, I cut back, on the amount of plays also. This week I got hooked twice and was way off on Sac so I will take the weekend off. Give me a chance to clear my head, especially on hooks. Sorry not so scientific but you better have something to pick up those winners profitability or you can still hit over 52.4 and lose. Oh what a feeling! I use this same method with BJ, and other table games. Wife and I were undefeated in 2003, 7 trips.
Fezzik;
I can totally understand what you're saying and I will agree with you to a certain extent. I for once, manage to grind a buck or two taking exactly offsetting positions in the market simultaneously, but at different prices. I believe arbitraging is the way of the future in the American conception of the sports industry (the Betfair model would be indeed the ultimate progression of a sports exchange)
Now, for somebody who's grinding, the maximization of the profit in any given chance is directly related to risk management. If I find a profitable "middle", I'm always faced with the same question: Am I in the position to risk a greater percentage of my bankroll, so I can make a bigger profit? Sometimes I have taken that risk, sometimes I haven't.
Since arbitraging is theoretically "risk-free", I would believe that using a model similar to the one you proposed could be a factor that would definitely make one's bankroll increase at a exponential rate.
Let me see if I make sense:
A pre-season NFL match between Atlanta & Jacksonville gave us the following market-anomaly between William Hill & Gamebookers:
ATLANTA GAMEBOOKERS 1.85
JACKSONVILLE WILLIAM HILL 2.50
This arbitrage yields a profit of just over 6%, meaning that a correctly structured investment of $1000 would yield $63.22 of risk-free profit regardless of which team won the match.
Now, at this point it's pretty obvious that the bigger the stake, the juicier the comeback. If I had the bankroll to afford a 10 unit play (being my unit 1 dime), I'd be stupid to not wanting to make $630 instead of just $63. Or $6300, if I had the oppeorunity to risk as much as 100K. It's in a scenario like this one, when "flatbetting" makes absolutely no sense.
I agree with you: the most shrewd "gamblers" are risk management masters.
But this only works if you're basing your proposal on a euclidian conception of the maths. What happens when your aprroach starts adding to the formula the many factors "that we might not even know about"? What about the arbitrariness of the quantum maths? What about all the free radicals?
What would be an example? OK, using the example above, let's say I place the first half of my middle at X book and the second half at Y book, for $10,000 each. Next day, I have the incredible fortune of finding out that Y Book is going
up. Was I shrewd by not having foreseen this "unexpected" stiff?
And that's why FLATBETTING is the tool of discipline, it allows the gambler to reduce his exposure and makes risk management easier. Would you agree?
I can totally understand what you're saying and I will agree with you to a certain extent. I for once, manage to grind a buck or two taking exactly offsetting positions in the market simultaneously, but at different prices. I believe arbitraging is the way of the future in the American conception of the sports industry (the Betfair model would be indeed the ultimate progression of a sports exchange)
Now, for somebody who's grinding, the maximization of the profit in any given chance is directly related to risk management. If I find a profitable "middle", I'm always faced with the same question: Am I in the position to risk a greater percentage of my bankroll, so I can make a bigger profit? Sometimes I have taken that risk, sometimes I haven't.
Since arbitraging is theoretically "risk-free", I would believe that using a model similar to the one you proposed could be a factor that would definitely make one's bankroll increase at a exponential rate.
Let me see if I make sense:
A pre-season NFL match between Atlanta & Jacksonville gave us the following market-anomaly between William Hill & Gamebookers:
ATLANTA GAMEBOOKERS 1.85
JACKSONVILLE WILLIAM HILL 2.50
This arbitrage yields a profit of just over 6%, meaning that a correctly structured investment of $1000 would yield $63.22 of risk-free profit regardless of which team won the match.
Now, at this point it's pretty obvious that the bigger the stake, the juicier the comeback. If I had the bankroll to afford a 10 unit play (being my unit 1 dime), I'd be stupid to not wanting to make $630 instead of just $63. Or $6300, if I had the oppeorunity to risk as much as 100K. It's in a scenario like this one, when "flatbetting" makes absolutely no sense.
I agree with you: the most shrewd "gamblers" are risk management masters.
But this only works if you're basing your proposal on a euclidian conception of the maths. What happens when your aprroach starts adding to the formula the many factors "that we might not even know about"? What about the arbitrariness of the quantum maths? What about all the free radicals?
What would be an example? OK, using the example above, let's say I place the first half of my middle at X book and the second half at Y book, for $10,000 each. Next day, I have the incredible fortune of finding out that Y Book is going
up. Was I shrewd by not having foreseen this "unexpected" stiff? And that's why FLATBETTING is the tool of discipline, it allows the gambler to reduce his exposure and makes risk management easier. Would you agree?
What's next I must ask?
When playing 21, should we just flat bet $100 when the true count goes above +2?
It's those big bet variations that cause people to get KILLED in 21 right?
Right, but it's also those big bet variations that help the good players make a ton. And those smaller bets at TCounts of around +3 add up. To say "why bother making smaller bets" is silly. If you have a small edge, make a small wager, and earn a small amount. Why wouldn't you want to do this in any game?
When playing 21, should we just flat bet $100 when the true count goes above +2?
It's those big bet variations that cause people to get KILLED in 21 right?
Right, but it's also those big bet variations that help the good players make a ton. And those smaller bets at TCounts of around +3 add up. To say "why bother making smaller bets" is silly. If you have a small edge, make a small wager, and earn a small amount. Why wouldn't you want to do this in any game?
Interesting posts.
However, there is a HUGE difference between altering bet amounts in BJ based on following the true count and altering bet amounts in sports betting based on percentages one assigns subjectively to the chance of a team covering. 'True count' is based on objective statistics and isn't subject to injuries, poor weather, etc (though it is subject to too much alcohol - lol). I'd be darned interested in knowing if anyone has honestly and accurately tracked this:
Assume you assign a bet a 54% chance of winning before the game. For N number of games which would have fallen into this category of 54%, what was the actual percentage of those kind of bets winning? Meaning, are you that accurate in assigning percentages before the game as borne out by the actual results? If no one tracks this to a degree where they know they are very precise in assigning such probabilities, then using anything other than flat bet amounts (except in unusual circumstances) would seem to me to be unwarranted.
However, there is a HUGE difference between altering bet amounts in BJ based on following the true count and altering bet amounts in sports betting based on percentages one assigns subjectively to the chance of a team covering. 'True count' is based on objective statistics and isn't subject to injuries, poor weather, etc (though it is subject to too much alcohol - lol). I'd be darned interested in knowing if anyone has honestly and accurately tracked this:
Assume you assign a bet a 54% chance of winning before the game. For N number of games which would have fallen into this category of 54%, what was the actual percentage of those kind of bets winning? Meaning, are you that accurate in assigning percentages before the game as borne out by the actual results? If no one tracks this to a degree where they know they are very precise in assigning such probabilities, then using anything other than flat bet amounts (except in unusual circumstances) would seem to me to be unwarranted.
Beginning 21 counters use a simple count that you use to bet size (Ace Five count is the most elementary).
Beginning sports betting bet sizers should likely just jump their bets
1) When they already like a game and
2) Where they have access to a rogue extra 1/2 point vs. what everyone else is dealing.
Neanderthal betting if you ask me. But still more advanced than 99% of what everyone else is using. And it surely will enhance the profits of any decent bettor.
Beginning sports betting bet sizers should likely just jump their bets
1) When they already like a game and
2) Where they have access to a rogue extra 1/2 point vs. what everyone else is dealing.
Neanderthal betting if you ask me. But still more advanced than 99% of what everyone else is using. And it surely will enhance the profits of any decent bettor.
