Bankroll and money line favorites

If you are going to bet heavy favorites, like -450/+300 type favorites, how much of bankroll should be risked on the favorite to win SU?

Normall, I have no problem playing 2% of bankroll on a underdog or -110 wager, but I wonder what really makes sense with heavy favorites. In the above example, you'd be risking 9% of bankroll to win 2%. Because it is a "safer" bet than a normal -110 bet, does it make sense? Or should you risk 2% of bankroll to win .4% of bankroll?

Thanks,
Books Worst Enemy

i recommend betting the same amount on EVERY play, no matter what the
line is....

if your bankroll is $100,000....then risk $1,000 on EACH and EVERY play...

if the game is -110....risk $1,000 to win $909.09

if it's +250....risk $1,000 to win $2,500

if it's -350....risk $1,000 to win $285.71

.....etc. etc. etc.....

people make the mistake of changing their "To Win" amount

their "To Risk" amount should always be the same (if you agree with flat betting, which i strongly advise)

The problem I see with that is, suppose you have a horrid year with underdogs and a great year with favorites.

Because you were always risking the same amount per wager, you lost money. However, if you had simply wagered to win one unit with each wager, you would have won or at least come a lot closer to breaking even.

Suppose your underdogs go 1-5 one week and you lose three units on those plays. Meanwhile, your favorites hit a perfect 6-0 that week, but instead of clearing 6 units, you only win 1.3 units. A week that would have been profitable with a risk on dogs of one unit and a to win on favorites of one unit has been turned into a losing week.


See what I'm saying?

In other words, a "system" that should net 10 units per year with underdogs and 10 units a year with favorites would almost rely entirely on the performance of the dogs if the risk amount is kept the same on all wagers. The money played on favorites wouldn't matter very much unless it was a bad year with a lot of upsets. Your winnings from each favorites would pale in comparison to your winnings from dogs, making them almost not worth betting on.

But at the same time, if you bet on four -400 favorites, you are risking 32% of bankroll at one time. You could get seriously hurt on a single day.

It isn't nearly as easy as just betting -110 sides and hoping to beat 52.5%.

Later,
Books Worst Enemy

that's a flawed example....say, you do the exact opposite....

say, in the short-term you have a losing streak with favorites and a winning streak with underdogs....

if you go 0-6 with heavy favorites and you're risking -240, -300, etc. etc. to win back only 100...and you lose most of them in the short-term..

even if you win your dog plays you're going to be behind...it's going to wipe out all your dog play profits...

if you're having an "entire year" of losing dogs, or favorites, you might want to reconsider your handicapping instead of re-evaluating your money management...

money management is actually the easiest part of gambling...any time you feel you have an edge in your favor on a certain play...whether it be at -110, +250 or -180...bet the same amount (which for me is 1% of my starting bankroll at the beginning of the calendar year...i don't change my bet size ever). it doesn't get any easier than that.

good luck!

i would even go so far as to say that the books WANT you to constantly vary the size of your bets...this is a quicker way to bankruptcy!

notice how WSEX doesn't even allow you to put a "to risk" bet on their website!!! everything is "to win"

and the same with hollywood....the default function is "to win"

you have to click the "buy points" option and then bring up a new field to be able to enter the "to risk"

i've never worked at a book, and know nothing about how they work...

but this just seems to me, to confirm my long-held belief that flat-betting is the way to go

although, i will say, yes, IN THEORY, for experienced gamblers who have thousands of plays under their belt and truly know their long-term win expectations...

it only makes sense for them to risk a little more on the plays they deem to be stronger...

but this technique is very easy to screw up and most people ASSUME they know what their long-term win expectations are but they really don't.

until you have at least a couple THOUSAND plays already, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what your long-term win expectations are. the % variances are too great at anything less than a couple thousand plays, so it's easier to just flat bet everything. less chance of making mistakes.

the higher the ML the more of bankroll you can risk on it

if you have the same % edge on a -9999 fav and a different +9999 dog, you should obviously risk a lot more on the fav than the dog

why?

you have only a 1% chance to lose the first bet if the line is right, less if you are at an advantage

likewise you have a 99% chance to lose your bet on the dog, if the line is right, less if you are at an advantage. But still not much less.

Go by BASE Unit

Basically, it theoritically is the same bet, as long as you use the same BASE UNIT. Meaning, that for a -250, you bet $250 to WIN $100, and for a +250, you bet $100 to win $250, and -110, is $110 to win $100. If this is played out over a period of time, it should break even, or win or lose, and then you will know how you "handicapping" ended up.

Note: Personally, I never lay over -140, and my logical support of this is that I believe often times, sharps "steam" the wrong side, to get a better line with offshore books. I think it makes a lot more sense to "steam" a team from 7 to 10, to be able to bet +300 now, instead of +240. More value and come off less money than laying the wood. Also I inheritently believe the favorites and the overs are slightly higher than they should be in most sports to compensate a little for the public tendancies, so the value you will get would be on dogs and unders (in most cases).


-Bugeater

i wish you guys well in whatever betting strategy you decide to use...

but if you're risking 180 to win 100 on -180 favorites, and risking 100 to win 180 on +180 dogs....

that is a sure way to lose money long-term...

go back through your records (you do keep records of all the bets you've made, correct?) and check through the last couple thousand plays you've had...

take a calculator and pen and paper and figure out what you would have made if you had bet exactly the same amount on each play, no matter what the line was....

it may take an hour or two to figure it all out, but it'll be worth your time, trust me.

although, i'm sure you'll never do it. almost no one will. everyone just wants to hope that the style their using currently is the best approach out there....

but no one actually takes the time to test anything out....