....
damn, 2 out of 10 seems pretty low to me
I'll admit that I don't but you also can't argue with success (I am in my 4th winning year out of 4 so far). I think some plays are better perceived value which is why everyone ends up not being able to stick to the same amount. That and lack of discipline, which can crush any gambler.
damn, 2 out of 10 seems pretty low to me
I'll admit that I don't but you also can't argue with success (I am in my 4th winning year out of 4 so far). I think some plays are better perceived value which is why everyone ends up not being able to stick to the same amount. That and lack of discipline, which can crush any gambler.
Its because I work and can't run around to get action down...
I bet the same because I am and will always stay a handicapper. I know I give up some edge sticking purely to making picks and backing just those, but its time value of money when you have a job that pays well. If I was a full-timer like you best believe I would be working the circuit and getting those soft numbers that I still spot and play on occasion. Finding middles and outlaw lines is certainly a good angle on the game, but it doesn't come without a time commitment and cost.
I bet the same because I am and will always stay a handicapper. I know I give up some edge sticking purely to making picks and backing just those, but its time value of money when you have a job that pays well. If I was a full-timer like you best believe I would be working the circuit and getting those soft numbers that I still spot and play on occasion. Finding middles and outlaw lines is certainly a good angle on the game, but it doesn't come without a time commitment and cost.
Start backing up the truck in the best situations
And we might lose 3 excellent articles every week.
Seriously, every one of the best betting pros I knows varies his bets considerably, employing at least some correlation to an attempted Kelly bet structure.
Some of the very best handicappers are clueless to this concept, however. Solid betting and solid handicaping often have little correlation!
And we might lose 3 excellent articles every week.
Seriously, every one of the best betting pros I knows varies his bets considerably, employing at least some correlation to an attempted Kelly bet structure.
Some of the very best handicappers are clueless to this concept, however. Solid betting and solid handicaping often have little correlation!
Kelly says "bet proportional to your edge"
This will grow your bankroll faster than any other method, and will theoretically make it impossible to go bankrupt.
To summarize
1) Estimate your probablity of winning a certain bet (Caveat, 99.9% of bettors suck at this)
2) Bet size based on your edge in 1.
Example, you have a 53.4% bet at -110. You know you need 52.4% to break even vs. -110 vig, so you have a bet that is 1% above breakeven, meaning you have about a 2% edge. Bet 2% of bankroll when playing full Kelly/
A lot of bettors do idiotic things like saying "I expect to win 58% of my bets regardless of the line available, etc.". Time does not permit me to spend the dozens of pages I could ripping this all to shreds.
This will grow your bankroll faster than any other method, and will theoretically make it impossible to go bankrupt.
To summarize
1) Estimate your probablity of winning a certain bet (Caveat, 99.9% of bettors suck at this)
2) Bet size based on your edge in 1.
Example, you have a 53.4% bet at -110. You know you need 52.4% to break even vs. -110 vig, so you have a bet that is 1% above breakeven, meaning you have about a 2% edge. Bet 2% of bankroll when playing full Kelly/
A lot of bettors do idiotic things like saying "I expect to win 58% of my bets regardless of the line available, etc.". Time does not permit me to spend the dozens of pages I could ripping this all to shreds.
I gotta agree with Fezz here, I can't precisely mathematically absolutely determine my edge ( on a sports bet) like I could, in theory with a computer analyzing the remaining cards left in a single deck BJ game.
To me Fezz, will bet anything if he has a perceived advantage. 3 points off in hoops qualifies easily, a scalp in anything you can bet on.
The guy is smart enough to nail this stuff easy, for a small edge for himself !
Is he a tout, I'll leave that unanswered !, answer is obvious.
Follow a great tout, you only get the leftovers, maybe enough to win !
This Fezzik guy is smart enough to win and market himself. He'd rape an average dummy on a bad prop, Hell he will hit 55 % , he ain't bad !
To me Fezz, will bet anything if he has a perceived advantage. 3 points off in hoops qualifies easily, a scalp in anything you can bet on.
The guy is smart enough to nail this stuff easy, for a small edge for himself !
Is he a tout, I'll leave that unanswered !, answer is obvious.
Follow a great tout, you only get the leftovers, maybe enough to win !
This Fezzik guy is smart enough to win and market himself. He'd rape an average dummy on a bad prop, Hell he will hit 55 % , he ain't bad !
It would stand to reason that only guys who are not capping their own games and are just "following a system" would be the ones who bet the same on every game, primarily because they can't (or don't want to) spend the time needed to discern how much to put on each play.
IMO, the only thing worse than chasing losses is not having the onions to up your wager (within reason) on a game where there is great value. In Blackjack, when you have 11 and the dealer is showing a 6, do you not double down EVERY TIME????!!!!
IMO, the only thing worse than chasing losses is not having the onions to up your wager (within reason) on a game where there is great value. In Blackjack, when you have 11 and the dealer is showing a 6, do you not double down EVERY TIME????!!!!
