Wagering more $MONEY$ on one game then the next, and what the Pro`s say..

Does anyone think this is wise? (betting more on one game then another)

I have read a few books on Sports Gambling...and it seems the general rule is to keep all wagers at the same unit value....but almost everyone who bets seems to go against this ....myself included...what do you guys think?

1%-2% ?

always bet the same amount unless your local has stale lines and a game has moved 5 pts then unload eg.rap-4.....move to -8 love those games keep them coming thanks TMAC...

.....basically info is key

I agree...always wager the same amount though I don't follow the rule....

advantages to flat betting (which i use).
advantages to unit betting (which ted uses).

advantages and disadvantes to both, nothing worse than winning a $100 bet and losing the $500 (except losing both).. mentally this is tough for me..

jman, play 120 games per month at $200 per game, laying the standard (-1.10).. go 70-50 (roughly 57%) and clear $3000 per month.. and if you cant hit 57% consistently then find someone who can and play theirs.. this is what im doing and $3000 per month steadily is a nice side income for me..

For a truly serious bettor, flat betting is an obviously inferior method.

The first step in any betting process should be to guestimate the prob. of success of a bet. If the probability of a -110 bet exceeds 52.4% it has positive expecation. So in order to bet profitably, period, one needs to be doing some some of estimate of the prob. of victory.

Now given this, how in the world can someone wager the same on bets estimated to be 53.5% vs. 56% top wagers?

Show me a flat bettor, I'll show you a guy that simply isn't a strong bettor. Strong bettors find weak lines/strong plays at times that simply have obscene value. An example would be Jets minus Pennington under 9 season wins. What idiot would say "1 unit please" to this bet if he had the chance to bet it?

Fezzik, your Pennington example is fine, but obvioulsy is the type of thing that occurs very infrequently. imo. These days the type of value you are talking about is very rare on a day to day basis when discussing the big 4 betting sports, foots, hoops, bases, and ice. However with the competitive nature of offshore gambling these days the type of value you mention is more apt to appear in more obscure areas like tennis, golf, auto racing, and even movie gr osses and awards, etc.


wil.

exactly, for the guys on the day to day grind, flat betting is the way to go (for most).. with the offshore like it is, people do not sit and wait,, 120 plays per month is 4 per day, and if the guy can see value-- then he will have no trouble hitting 57%.. i for one, consider myself a strong bettor and disagree with fezzik, however i flat bet 90% of the time, leaving the other 10% for plays like fezzik mentioned because thats about as often as they show.. most thought Maryland -2 tonight had value, along with sac +4, dont look like it at the moment..

i know you are not supposed to do it, but i always do it anyway.

I bet flat in almost every circumstance. If I have a given play that fits more than one of my criteria for making a bet, I might put two units instead of one on it -- e.g. in the NBA I have two seperate sets of criteria for +10 or higher ATS dogs (currently 2-0, +2 units this season) and for ATS dogs that are +100 or better payout (currently 5-3-1, +2.04 units this season.) If a given play happened to fit both sets of criteria I might stick two units on it instead of one.

Another instance would be where I am hedging; e.g. I play one unit on the dog ML and to win two units ATS or on the under (2-0, +3.80 and 1-1, +0.5 respectively in the NBA this season.)

But as far as one play being my ten-star lock GOY sort of thing, I think it's all nonsense.


Phaedrus

Bettting flat is the equivalent of "ready,fire, aim".

You like USC over Stanford. The line is 8 to 8.5. You like USC +8.5, and figure it to be a 54% type play. You bet your 1 unit bet.

For the life of me, I'm constantly amazed that someone who suddenly got floated a +9 at SIA (or +8.5 at a free 1/2 point shop) wouldn't realize this was worthy of a chunk bet.

The flat bettor mentality crashes and burns when you bring the math in. If you were going to bet Stanford at 8.5, CLEARLY your ROI has just increased by around 4% when getting a rogue line of 9. If you want to call yourself a sharp bettor, AND bet the same on the game, you are delusional.

You may be a sharp handicapper. But you most certainly are NOT a sharp bettor. Don't confuse being a winning player with being a truly sharp bettor. Plenty of subpar bettors are strong enough to win at this provided they have sufficient skills to play a decent betting game.

your right if you have the time to do that.. do the simple math here, 120 plays per month, win 70 and lose 50 (57% winners), bet $200 per game. profit is clear $3000 laying the (-1.10 juice).. if you cant hit 57% then you dont need to be handicapping.. not starting a fight here, just stating plain facts.

For the vast majority of sports bettors (over 97% in my guesstimation) flat betting is the way to go.

For the true professionals, few and far between, varying one bet size according to value/edge greatly enhances profitability.

The vast majority either loses, breaks even, or does a tad better than break even. If these are your true results, then flat betting not only gives you the best bang for your buck, but allows you to stay in action.

Personally, about 80% of my wagers are based on a flat % of bankroll, moving up or down tied to my results. However, about 15% of my wagers are 2x plays, and 5% can be as high as 2.5 to 5 X unit plays. (if I have 2 5X plays a year that is a lot but I keep an open mind and if I perceive the edge to be high enough to warrant the risk, I will fire away).

Just one punter’s opinion

95-99% of decent bettors would do better if they bet triple on the games that they liked AND where they got a clear extra 1/2 point rogue line that was not available anywhere else.

Would you bet more if given -103 on a game you liked? Surely, all but the most math challenged would say "yes". Getting an extra 1/2 point is worth about the same.

I'm convinced this flat betting nonsense is a sitution where some "expert" years and years ago talked about the dangers of tiered betting, and it became a "given" without anyone even questioning the underlying mathematics.

Were the bettors crash and burn is that they weight their plays based solely on how strong they feel it is on a handicapped basis, and most struggle to handicap well. But they ignore the influence reduced vig and rogue lines have when looking to bet size properly.

I flat bet. Maybe I'm not sharp enough to tell an extra strong play from a strong one (I don't be any that I don't think I have a 55% expectation on). Sure, I feel stronger about some than others, but I've seen plenty of those 60-65 percent plays lose, too.

And, brother, the Kelly Criterion scares the heck out of me. I've heard plenty of people advise it, but I've simulated it (at a 57% winning expectation and it only took 66 plays to lose 35% of my bankroll. That's with a constant 57% winner rate. You can do it with two decks of cards and about 45 minutes of time. Kelly relies on accurately fortelling your winning percentage. Sorry if I strayed off-topic.

Don't blame Kelly.

Kelly is not the fall guy here. It's people with ridiculously optimistic assumptions about their win rates vs. Widely available lines.

I've met guys that have made millions sports betting. NONE of them has ever been able to generate any large volume of 56% plus bets vs. widely available lines.

ALL of them have been able to find numerous 56% plus bets seemingly each day vs. rogue lines/promos/props/etc.

And they back up the truck on these plays, and get the loot.

In case anyone missed it:

The Kelly Criterion is a complex math treatise first presented by a Bell Telephone engineer. Several years ago, it was adapted to sports wagering by a respected Las Vegas writer, computer analyst and handicapper, Huey Mahl. At that time, he was one of the chief advocates of using optimal betting methodsspecifically the Kelly Criterion in sports wagering.
This method presents a formula to determine what proportion of your bankroll to wager (risk) on each game in order to realize the maximum possible profit with the smallest probability of loss. This formula holds regardless of the order or sequence of wins and losses (with certain limitations). The Kelly Criterion is a method to help you compound a greater amount of interest on your bankroll than the "simple" interest gained by using a flat bet method.
In using this method to determine a proper wagering amount, you must first have the confidence that you can beat the pointspread at a reasonable winning percentage. If this reasonable winning percentage is 60% winners (tough, but achievable), the Kelly Criterion is calculated thusly:
60% (winners) minus 1.1 x 40, or 60 minus 44=16.
The number gives us the "Kelly Advantage," or optimum betting amount for maximizing return. You apply this betting % to your bankroll to determine the amount of your wager; if your bankroll is $3,000, your wager would be .16 x $3000, which equals $480 (this includes the vigorish, so your actual expected return on a winning wager would be .91 x $480, or $436.80).





In short the "Kelly Advantage," a formula used to derive the optimal interest from your bankroll.
Keep in mind that to make the "Kelly Advantage" work, it requires that you project a reasonable % of winners. Please, be realistic projecting anything above 60% winners and calculating it into your "Kelly Advantage" is inviting disaster. With the Kelly Method, you're able to take advantage of winning streaks by betting more. When you're on a losing streak (as everybody will be on occasion), following the Kelly System automatically reduces the $ amount of your wager.
True, there are negative aspects of the Kelly Criterion. Since all of your wagers are based on a set % of your bankroll, you are, in effect, always losing your biggest wager and winning your smallest. Many handicappers are not enthralled with the time involved in calculating the "Kelly Advantage." If you're on a hot streak and play an inordinate number of games on one days, you're risking a large % of your bankroll at one time. A higher winning % is required to break even.
There are, however, benefits to be derived from this system. By hitting your estimated or higher winning %, your bankroll will grow geometrically as opposed to arithmetically in straight flat betting. This "compound interest" will manifest itself in a relatively short period of time. Also, it automatically sizes your bet when trying to catch up and reduces the wagers when ahead.


wil.

Fezzik makes inarguable mathematic points, but I still believe that flat betting is the way to go in practice. All of that math is under the assumption that you have an accurate gauge of your play percentages. Most people don't.

I believe flat betting guards against the one thing that is most dangerous to gamblers: human nature. When you lose you want to make it all back right away and if you allow yourself to make "lock" plays at relatively large amounts then one day these plays are likely to drift into the realm of make-up bets.

Also, it depends on what type of player you are. If you bet 1% of your bankroll on normal plays, then hammering a play for 5% once in a while is probably OK. If you play every play at 4% regardless, then you probably want to keep it flat.

I'll agree that the average bettor should be flat betting since the average bettor loses, and playing 1 unit on all bets is far superior to risking 2,3,5 units etc.

If you are going to lose, minimize the losing.

So for 99% of bettors, flat betting is optimal. However, for the advantage players (1%), the majority will do much better with any sort of logicial tiered betting system.