Anyone play with a personal rule of never betting over a 115 fav?

[The General]

Just curious if this is good strategy to help a newer guy do better. I have a list of do's and dont's. Is it a good rule to not play over a certain vig amount strictly? Maybe some of us will not lay any vig!

Comments

[DannyMay]

My opinion is that it isnt good strategy to blindly lay off any play about a certain level. It all depends on the value in that play. I mean if I am playing a round with Tiger Woods and you can get Tiger Woods at -500 its still a great bet.

[Darryl Parsons]

My rule is that the bigger a fav it is, the bigger the difference has to be between what I think the proper odds are and what they really are. For example, if I think a team should be at -200, then I will bet it if it is -150 or better. If I think it should be at -150 I'll bet it if it's -125 or better. If I think it should be even money, then I'll bet it if it's +105 or better.

I think this kind of sliding scale approach makes more sense than a hard and fast rule like the one you mention.

[MadCapper]

Bases?

My rule in bases is never to bet anything more than a -160 favorite.

-MC

[sick gambler]

NO

That is a myth.. You can find value on a -260 sometimes, too.. If a line is off, it's off. Don't make a difference how much you're laying.

[sick gambler]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadCapper:
Bases?

My rule in bases is never to bet anything more than a -160 favorite.

-MC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mad, how can you say that? What if Pedro is pitching at home and the line is so waaaay off and instead of -230, for some reason, the linesmakers make it -165, you're not going to lay it because it's over -160? http://therxforum.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Fishhead]

Very hard to find decent value when betting into 30 cent lines and above.....but like SG said.....it is possible.

[Chadster]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sick gambler:
NO

That is a myth.. You can find value on a -260 sometimes, too.. If a line is off, it's off. Don't make a difference how much you're laying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the preacher spoke and the congregation listened.

[MadCapper]

Sick -

That can be a mistake...or they can know something we don't.

I stay awayhttp://therx.infopop.cc/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-MC

[sick gambler]

Mad, listen well. The reason why it don't matter what you're laying is because if you find a game that you handicapped and see it has a better than 62% chance of winning, and you are laying -160, then it's worth it to lay it. If you find a game that according to you, will win 75% of the time, and you are laying -260, play it.. You will end up a winner. The juice has NOTHING to do with winning or losing, it's all in the value.

Would you lay -2200 on an NBA game. Probably not right? But what if that game happens to be the Lakers at home and they are a 23.5 point favorite and all they have to do is win outright and not cover. Wouldn't laying 2200 become a good bet because they will win outright a good 96% of the time, which would show a profit.

Remember, what you lay or take has nothing to do with being a good bet or not. If that line is off according to your numbers, then bet it...

[The General]

If I were to be really discipline about my betting to the degree I expected to really make a difference financially, I would never lay over 110 on an ATS bet.

[Chadster]

More good points

[Fishhead]

SICK IS EXACTLY RIGHT. WOULD YOU LAY -1300 with Pedro over your little league team?? OF COURSE!!

[The General]

Laying a big NBA ML is never a good bet IMO.

[MadCapper]

SICK - I hear you. Then again, the Lakers did lose to the Cavs last year. Line was -1400 I think.

Thats 1400 down the drain just to win 100.

-MC

[Fishhead]

HINT- NEVER bet a fav in the NFL and you are INSTANTLY gauranteed in lowering your vig from -110 to -105. Many amatuers do not know this.

[MadCapper]

Strutt....little league yes...

Any Major League team...no!

-MC

[sick gambler]

Ok, somehow I get the feeling Jay Leno is being a little sarcastic with me now.. http://therxforum.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Yes mad, they might have lost, but they will win 19 out of 20 times, which would show you a profit. That happened to have been the 1 time they didn't cover.

Fish, good example of Pedro. That's why it is silly when people say they won't lay over -160 no matter who's playing.

And Jay Leno, once again, stop mocking me you bastard.. http://theprescription.infopop.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[jwunderdog]

"Just curious if this is good strategy to help a newer guy do better.", Key phrase "newer guy", I assume that to mean someone who is still trying to figure out the difference between being on the value side of a bet and winning a bet.In my opinion you will find value more often in games at -150 or better then Vice-versa.-115 if you are talking about ML betting is eliminating a pretty large pool.You can get in a hell of a lot of trouble faster betting -200 then -110.

[Fishhead]

jw- congrats on your new avatar.....may be the #1 avatar at the RX now. Good get!!

[MadCapper]

Sick - Lets take a look.

- Lakers -2200 against worst team in league

- You take Lakers -2200 to win 100.

- You lose.

- You are down 2200 now.

- You make the same bet another 20 times and win everytime.

- You are still down 200.

That's why there is no point in taking that chance.

-MC

[Fishhead]

MADCAPPER- IF THEY WIN 24 OUT OF 25 IT IS A GOOD BET!!!! PLEASE LISTEN TO SICK AND ME.

[sick gambler]

Mad,

I told you that you would only bet the Lakers -2200 if your stats say that they should win 96% and higher. If not, you don't bet it. Now if they lose the first game, yes, you are down 2200.. But now, according to your numbers, they should win 96 of the next 99.. And when they do, you will be up +800 dollars, instead of the current 2200 that you are down.

[MadCapper]

Sick -

Yes, but you also have to take ionto consideration that for that bet you had to have a decent size bank roll. Because if all you have is 2 dimes, then you are done after that bet.

Anyway, we can argue bout this for years. I am just saying. I would stay away from anything over -160.

-MC

[jwunderdog]

Thanks, Strut888 I think RObFunk found that for me. Now if only one of you Mods could fix the spelling of Consistent.

[sick gambler]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadCapper:
Sick -

Yes, but you also have to take ionto consideration that for that bet you had to have a decent size bank roll. Because if all you have is 2 dimes, then you are done after that bet.
-MC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. Bankroll was NEVER mentioned in this thread once. That is a whole new ballgame. But then again, if you have a 2 dime bankroll, you would not be playing 100 to lay over 2 dimes. You can still lay the 2200, but instead of winning 100, you can maybe bet to win 20 to lose 440 instead.

[The General]

There you go jwunderdog.

I would not suggest to any new player to be laying much vig. 110 is hard enough to beat, let alone 111 or more.

[Fishhead]

Sick and myself will be conducting a Seminar at the Ossifollo Indian Casino on the Osage Indian Reservation in the eastern Providence of Manitoba December 23rd of this year. Hope you can make it.

ps- The price is $500 per head....buffet included.

[sick gambler]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The General:
There you go jwunderdog.

I would not suggest to any new player to be laying much vig. 110 is hard enough to beat, let alone 111 or more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

_______

Geez General, then why the hell do you even ask us if you knew the answer to it already. So you're going against me and fish here. Do you hear that fish? This kid is going against our opinion.. General, keep betting only -110's and don't bet teams that are only laying 135 with teams at home who have 59-22 records, as in my Spos this year. My spos were 59-22 at home Genny, and guess what, they're were laying an avg of 130 a game as a favorite. But no, that was not smart right, because it was over -110.

I can't believe you wasted my time for the last 20 minutes answering you and giving you my advice, then you go against me. http://therxforum.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://therxforum.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

YOU BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.therx.com/forum/grem/applaudit.gif

[The General]

LOL.

Good info SG. Thanks for the participation. Of course I already had an opinion. I was born in the dark, but not last night http://therxforum.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I do see your point about the ML, but that's some tracking to do there over several seasons. I track every Team in the NBA ATS (sides & totals) every season on a spreadsheet. I do not track ML's though.

[THE SHRINK]

This thread is quite telling of some poster's lack of expertise when betting on sports...

Rather than pointing out some of the distorted thinking, I can say that Sick Gambler and Strutt are 2 people who people should pay very close attention to if they want to improve their chances of winning in the long run... http://therxforum.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

THE SHRINK

[Fishhead]

Sick- The General is a good guy...take it easy. Actually, what the General is promoting is not such terrible advice.

[jwunderdog]

Sick, what kind of analogy is that, so what if the Expos were 59-22 at home. That is after the fact, meaningless #. Tell me what their record is going to be next year and it may mean something. That would be like me saying I should have faded det. every game because now that I know they only will win 25% of their games it's a money maker. http://therxforum.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[sick gambler]

JWUNDERDOG

I TOTALLY AGREE. IT'S AFTER THE FACT, AND I AM NOT STUPID. THAT'S LIKE SOMEONE SAID THIS WEEK THAT BETTING FAV'S IN THE NFL ARE A GOOD BET BECAUSE THEY WENT 14-1 THIS PAST WEEK. I KNOW.. IT'S AFTER THE FACT.

BUT THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE HERE IS BETTING -170'S ARE NOT STUPID. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY -170'S I'VE PLAYED IN MY CAREER THAT WERE GREAT VALUE WITH THE ACE OF THE STAFF AT HOME AND THE SCORE WOULD BE 6-0 FINAL AND PITCHER PITCHES A 2 HIT SHUTOUT AND I GET AN EASY WIN. I AM JUST SAYIN THAT LAYING 170 IS NOT DUMB, LIKE PEOPLE MIGHT THINK. YOU LAY MORE JUICE, BUT YOU WIN MORE GAMES, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO LAYING 110 AND WINNING LESS GAMES.. THERE'S NO DISADVANTAGE LAYING 170, AND I AM SURE YOU AGREE WITH ME.

[The General]

Nobody here is stupid. The question was in regards to a new player.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Just curious if this is good strategy to help a newer guy do better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The new player would be hard pressed to understand what all is being discussed here anyway with the ML's.

I suggest to friends not to play the heavy vig. I think that is solid advice to your average bettor. Not for your average Rx poster maybe http://therxforum.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Fishhead]

Your on your own from this point Slick....very tired on this end. Good luck.

[jwunderdog]

Sick, I never posted there is no value in big favorites, but it is harder to find because of the extra vig that goes with it, plus in a lot of cases the books push the # up because of the publics bias on favorites. That is all I was trying to convey.

[sick gambler]

AND HERE'S ANOTHER REASON WHY BETTING -180/+160 IS BETTER THAN -110/-110. THE HOLD IS MORE FAVORABLE FOR THE BETTOR AT -180, THAN IT IS AT -110..

DON'T FORGET THAT, GENERAL... AND MADCAPPER... http://www.therx.com/forum/grem/1036316054.gif

[valdosta]

There's nothing wrong playing goood, solid favorites BUT there does become a point when the reward just isn't worth the risk.

[dngu047]

"I never posted there is no value in big favorites, but it is harder to find because of the extra vig that goes with it"

There is no extra vig in playing big favourites. If you play randomly into a -110/-110 line, then in the long run you will lose 4.8% of your turnover. If you play randomly into a -200/+180 line, even if every bet is on the -200 favourite, then over the long run you will only lose 2.4% of your turnover.

The only factor that affects your profits is the probability of the event occurring compared to the line that you bet at. Dogs, favourites...it doesn't matter.

[Pancho Sanza]

I lay between -200 and -300 all the time on Pinnacles Alt run lines.

Had the mariners +1.5 -270 and the dodgers +1.5 -260 yesterday.

Also got the mariners +1.5 -249 today. http://therxforum.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I'm actually way ahead this year playing these.

If it wasn't for these I'd be in the poor house http://www.therx.com/forum/grem/1053174822.gifbecuase the moneyline and regular run line bets have not done well for me this year. http://www.therx.com/forum/grem/marsububu.gif

[valueman]

Agree with darryl parsons - its not how short the odds are its the difference between the real odds and the odds on offer that determines value. knowing the 'real" odds is a skill like any other and requires dedication, intelligence and constant reassessment. i would say however for horse racing there is an inherant risk that your horse has a bad one so I don't beleive in playing too short on the ponies.

[Patrick McIrish]

To limit yourself based on not playing over a certain price is foolish. A bankroll concern is another matter, play for 1, 1.5 or 2% of your BR each play and never risk more than 8% in any one day. That will keep you in the game.

As far as value it does not come with a max price.

[krackman]

If I am pure gambling I will not lay more then 140 on a baseball side. However! In the old days there would be a lot of opportunities like the following. You bet 5k on a game -200 and then were able to take +210. Being there where no -200's available that was the strong side and I would leave an extra dime on the -200 side giving me a more then 2-1 fav at a -160. Man, do I miss the pokers hitting the screen.

[randyrohm]

The modern player handicaps the number, not the game.

[viggme]

Big difference between a newbie playing big ML favs playing 40 to 50 games a year at 4% to 10% even 100% of their bankroll, to a pro/semi-pro looking to make 9,000 bets over a 5 year span at 0.5% to 2% of bankroll.

[acw]

sick,

Assuming that you can get on unlimited with the books and there is no problem of moving your liquidity, which percentage of your bank-roll will you put on a -2000 that you think should be -4000?
And how much will you put on a -2000 that you think should be -20000?

[Muddy]

Lets say Anaheim is playing Phily, you get good value on Anaheim -130, the consensus is around -142, so you bet anaheim -130
Later you have a chance to take Phily +1.5 -144, the consensus is around -156, would you bet phily +1.5 -144 knowing the only way for you to make a profit is for the angels to win by one run?

[sick gambler]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by acw:
sick,

Assuming that you can get on unlimited with the books and there is no problem of moving your liquidity, which percentage of your bank-roll will you put on a -2000 that you think should be -4000?
And how much will you put on a -2000 that you think should be -20000?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No matter how good a price I'm getting, NO WAY will I risk that much on a -2000. I know that even though my odds are great that I will win that bet, anything can happen on that one specific game, cause it's ONLY 1 game.. Why risk losing 3 games in a row at -2200 and end your career by being greedy. No matter what you bet or how good a price is, you should NEVER risk more than your 1-1.5% of your bankroll..

Scorpion,,

Of course.. Play that middle and hope it lands on 1. If you got both prices at a good price, then play it.. You will end up a winner at the end if you do this.

[jjgold]

I will go up to about -150

[peskypup]

I make good money betting -200 shots, sometimes up to -400 but very rarely more than this.

My tips on this are:

1. You must be very confident on your pick the worse the odds you are getting. Perhaps obvious, but in practice this means that on a -400 shot evertyhing that could be in your favour is in your favour.

2. Bet them early, ideally on opening. Lines generally improve on the dogs as the squares come in to back the favs on prices they should not be taking. very often i will have taken -150 and the line closes at -200, I got decent value at -150 but would not have taken the bet at -200.

3. This in turn means you have to be quick out of the blocks with your capping on the favs, I always take the favs first. With my dog bets, i am much more easy going since I know the best price will probably be shortly before game time.

[Darryl Parsons]

sick,

While I agree that one needs to be more careful about betting favs than dogs, the notion that you are putting more at risk is fallacious...to illustrate, consider the following two betting propositions:

A) bet $900 on a line of -900
B) bet $500 on an even money line

Assume both are fair propositions ie. that A) has a 90% chance of success and B) has a 50% chance. I say you are taking a greater risk if you choose B) than A), despite A) having the larger bet amount.

A well-known formula for the binomial distribution says that if you have n trials with a probability p of success, then the standard deviation is given by sqrt(n*p*(1-p))

So if you place the bet 100 times, the standard deviation of proposition A) is sqrt(100*.9*.1) = sqrt(9) = 3
And for B) the s.d. is sqrt(100*.5*.5) = sqrt (25) = 5

This means that after 100 plays, your 95% confidence limits for propostion A) (which is plus or minus 2 s.d.'s from the mean) is 84 to 96 wins, which translates to plus or minus $6,000. While for B) these are 40 to 60 wins, or plus or minus $10,000.

Therefore, you are taking a 1.667 times greater risk with B) than with A)

Another way to look at it is to see what happens if you have bad luck to the tune of a 1000:1 shot coming in against you in your first sequence of bets. With A) this translates to 3 losses in a row which will cost you 3 bets or $2,700. With B) this would be about 10 losses in a row (a 1024:1 shot which is not exactly 1000, but close enough) which would cost you $5,000

Of course if your chance of winning is not really 90% in the first case, the numbers change dramatically, so the idea of being careful with favs is still a valid one.

[The General]

For the new bettor, there is no way I recommend a -200 play unless..

A. I know the outcome
B. Am paying him back if it loses

When I started betting offshore, i wish someone would have told me to stay away from the high vig.

Good feedback

[daringly]

For a new bettor, I'd say don't make any bets until you've researched, done your homework, and are no longer a new bettor http://therx.infopop.cc/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I wouldn't automatically pass on a play regardless of the odds... But at the more extreme odds, it becomes more difficult to get a reasonable return on your risk.

If "my" line has a team as a -300 favorite, that amounts to winning 75% of the time. If I'm looking for a line off by "5%", or winning 70% of the time, I need a line of -233.

Now if my fair line is for a +100 team, a fair line is winning 50% of the time. To make that play with the same edge, I'd need a line of about +112.

There are advantages to be had at the extremes, but you have to be careful... 20 cents off at +300 is not the same as 20 cents at +100.

[lakerfan]

I think Generals point for new bettors is extremely helpful.

If you are a good capper and have been playing for a while that is a different situation. But you already know that. http://therx.infopop.cc/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[dimeplayersonly]

never lay more than -150...........IMO


but then again i am not a gambler.................

[wilheim]

..