I've been betting for a number of years now, and one issue I continue to wonder about is whether or not one should wager the same amount on each play? I know that most people who post their plays have them rated anywhere from 1 to 10 to even 100 stars/units (depending on the hype factor). Certainly, we all have strong opinions on certain games, but are most of us really that good at weighting our picks? I mean if we're just as good or better at winning 1* picks over 5* picks then IMO there is no point in having a highly rated play. Hope this isn't a stupid question. Just wondering what other people think.
Not stupid at all. In fact one of the most asked questions EVER on here and to me it never gets old.
I have changed my opinion of this alot of times but here is my latest answer:lolBIG: : If you are new to gambling or even going to a new level of seriousness than I say you should keep the same size wagers 90% of the time. It makes everything alot more smooth.
If you have been doing this for along time and have enjoyed some success at this than I think you should be expierenced enough to know when you have the best of it to turn it up a notch and bet more. Not alot more but enough to take the bet to a new level.
I am a big believer in having a 200 unit or so bankroll and betting a half a unit (.5%) a game when starting out. It will LESSEN the stress involved. The famous line holds true, if you are sweating out the games than you probably betting too much.
I have changed my opinion of this alot of times but here is my latest answer:lolBIG: : If you are new to gambling or even going to a new level of seriousness than I say you should keep the same size wagers 90% of the time. It makes everything alot more smooth.
If you have been doing this for along time and have enjoyed some success at this than I think you should be expierenced enough to know when you have the best of it to turn it up a notch and bet more. Not alot more but enough to take the bet to a new level.
I am a big believer in having a 200 unit or so bankroll and betting a half a unit (.5%) a game when starting out. It will LESSEN the stress involved. The famous line holds true, if you are sweating out the games than you probably betting too much.
No ! But don't vary too much, either.
Lets say there is a hockey game, you like the dog at about +110, but it's a close call for you to pass or play this one, you normally bet $500 or so.
Then you go to Mansion, they have it +118, but only for $264.
Why not just take the +118 for $264, and leave the +110 alone ?
Lets say there is a hockey game, you like the dog at about +110, but it's a close call for you to pass or play this one, you normally bet $500 or so.
Then you go to Mansion, they have it +118, but only for $264.
Why not just take the +118 for $264, and leave the +110 alone ?
http://www.probabilitytheory.info/topics/how_much_should_stake.htm
That would be full kelly, which probably isn't reccomended.
I don't follow it strictly, I flat bet sports like NFL, NCAA, NBA, NCAAB etc, because I have no way to accurately determine my edge on those, mainly following other guys, line moves etc...
On sports where I do have modelled %'s and thus can caluclate my edge, I bet according to it, with a kelly fraction set to minimise RoR.
That would be full kelly, which probably isn't reccomended.
I don't follow it strictly, I flat bet sports like NFL, NCAA, NBA, NCAAB etc, because I have no way to accurately determine my edge on those, mainly following other guys, line moves etc...
On sports where I do have modelled %'s and thus can caluclate my edge, I bet according to it, with a kelly fraction set to minimise RoR.
Yeah have read the whole Kelly thing a few times. Just was wondering if you bet FULL Kelly as I always heard thaat was a little risky.
Once read Fezzik say that he just estimates win pct above 52.5% and advises that as his Kelly method. So my 54% example(54%-52.5%) would be 1.5% which is closer to half kelly, maybe it's the simpler way to figure out half Kelly.
Once read Fezzik say that he just estimates win pct above 52.5% and advises that as his Kelly method. So my 54% example(54%-52.5%) would be 1.5% which is closer to half kelly, maybe it's the simpler way to figure out half Kelly.
santo hit the hail on the head...
on saturdays ill bet college football games and they will be small bets say
$25's...then along comes a movie bet (like this weeks borat) and ill bet 40-50X more on that....why is that?
feel my edge and information on the event is FAR SUPERIOR than any football game on the board....
on saturdays ill bet college football games and they will be small bets say
$25's...then along comes a movie bet (like this weeks borat) and ill bet 40-50X more on that....why is that?
feel my edge and information on the event is FAR SUPERIOR than any football game on the board....
HuskerFan1 said:
It doesn't have to be that you have more information on this movie than you do a football game, you have to figure that you have more information that the other people betting on that movie prop have. There is a big difference. Some prop bets have mostly bettors that also have a lot of info.
so less risk = larger % of bankroll invested in it?
Never thought of it like that, my investment portfolio is only 8-10% bonds (low risk) I should sell off my high risk stocks and put it all in CD's and bonds.???
I'm joking of course... i guess i just try to wager on 'best of breed' type matchups, and then at the right price and then it's always the same amount.
I don't consider futures and props the same animal... also theres a whole lot more to consider hedging, scalping...
anyway I just look for matchups I feel comfortable wagering "x" amount of dollars, I found that if I set 'x' too low I bet more games and loose
and if I set 'x' too high I bet way less games but win more often. I think that is what royal was getting at.I don't believe in streaks. Just a factor of variance, the P of you winning the next hand in blackjack is identical to the last. No way should you increase bet on a hot streak, only if the odds of the game have changed (i.e. you're card counting).
I wouldn't be playing blackjack in the first place though, it's -EV without card counting and from all accounts that's more difficult than ever (though not something I've done, I do know the theory).
I wouldn't be playing blackjack in the first place though, it's -EV without card counting and from all accounts that's more difficult than ever (though not something I've done, I do know the theory).
