Now I get it! I was thinking if, for example, you are laying -115 that you were counting on playing to win 1 unit, and if you lose would count it as -1.15 units. Instead you are counting 1 unit as the total risk and taking the lay out of the winnings. Probably more responsible because you are only exposing the 1 unit to loss in your record keeping. This also would lower your unit grand total, obviously, as opposed to making the plays to win 1 unit. Bubba, I'm even more impressed!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mos eyesly:
Now I get it! I was thinking if, for example, you are laying -115 that you were counting on playing to win 1 unit, and if you lose would count it as -1.15 units. Instead you are counting 1 unit as the total risk and taking the lay out of the winnings. Probably more responsible because you are only exposing the 1 unit to loss in your record keeping. This also would lower your unit grand total, obviously, as opposed to making the plays to win 1 unit. Bubba, I'm even more impressed!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IMO, don't play into the bookmakers' cauldron.
Risking 150 to win 100 over the
longrun =
Standardizing your baseball payroll by just risking the 100 to win a smaller payout, &/or concentrating on good values between +150 to
-120s =
Now I get it! I was thinking if, for example, you are laying -115 that you were counting on playing to win 1 unit, and if you lose would count it as -1.15 units. Instead you are counting 1 unit as the total risk and taking the lay out of the winnings. Probably more responsible because you are only exposing the 1 unit to loss in your record keeping. This also would lower your unit grand total, obviously, as opposed to making the plays to win 1 unit. Bubba, I'm even more impressed!
IMO, don't play into the bookmakers' cauldron.
Risking 150 to win 100 over the
longrun =
Standardizing your baseball payroll by just risking the 100 to win a smaller payout, &/or concentrating on good values between +150 to
-120s =
