How much of your bankroll should be exposed on any single play??

Search

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
3,436
Tokens
I ask because I see a lot of people putting 5 units daily on games.

For me, a 1unit play is 1% of my bankroll, 2 is 2%..etc. A 3 unit play is as high as I normally go, I just have always thought to have good money management one should never risk more than 3% of their bankroll on any single game. I'm not sure if this is a good philosophy, but would like to offer this subject up for debate. Are there situations where it is ok to put 5% of one's bankroll at risk?

Thanks.

SCT :103631605
 

Rx God
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
39,226
Tokens
OK if you are certain a line will move, and you will buy some back for a middle/scalp.

5% routinely is dangerous
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
6,480
Tokens
I ask because I see a lot of people putting 5 units daily on games.

Generally I have no idea what people mean when they say 5 units.

The rest of your post makes perfect sense to me. Playing at normal vig if you can win 54% of your bets you have only just over a 1% advantage and so should not routinely bet more than 1% of your bankroll.
 

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
3,436
Tokens
OK if you are certain a line will move, and you will buy some back for a middle/scalp.

5% routinely is dangerous
Ok, that is what I am thinking. 5% just seems way too much. No disrespect for those who do it, I just see a lot of people playing a lot of units.

Is 3% too much on any one single play?
 

Rx God
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
39,226
Tokens
Ok, that is what I am thinking. 5% just seems way too much. No disrespect for those who do it, I just see a lot of people playing a lot of units.

Is 3% too much on any one single play?

If you lose most of your bank, can it be replenished easily enough ?
 

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
3,436
Tokens
If you lose most of your bank, can it be replenished easily enough ?
It can be replenished, just not overnight. I mean, I am willing to lose my entire bankroll to make the profit I want, I just don't want to be foolish by exposing too much of it on any single game.
 

Rx God
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
39,226
Tokens
Then by betting the higher percentage you can get a quick big gain with higher risk of busting out. Maybe double the bank quick, and keep bets at 3-4% of the initial amount of capital.

If you keep playing 5%, you should hit a bad streak in time that busts you.
 

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
3,436
Tokens
Then by betting the higher percentage you can get a quick big gain with higher risk of busting out. Maybe double the bank quick, and keep bets at 3-4% of the initial amount of capital.

If you keep playing 5%, you should hit a bad streak in time that busts you.
NO, NO. I don't play 5%. 1 unit = 1% for me and so far the biggest play I have had is a 3 unit play = 3%. I'm just asking about the max and how it seems that 5% is too much.
 

Rx God
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
39,226
Tokens
I'm saying you might get away with with 5% for a brief time, but in time it will hurt you. You'd have wild swings.

It comes down your winning percentage.

If you can hit 60% of your bets ( at -110) then bet 10% of BR, but nobody hits 60% long-term.
 

Rx God
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
39,226
Tokens
Here's what 60% can do for you ( by Fezzik).

Do you know what a bettor could make hitting 60 percent of his plays? Let's assume you start with the $1,000 you were planning to buy a couch with. Instead, you decide to take a pot shot with it. You choose to play only one game per day and wager what would normally be an insane 10 percent of your bankroll on each play, laying minus-110.

A little over five years later you wind up with a record of 1,200 wins and 800 losses for a 60 percent record ATS. Guess how much money your $1,000 will have increased? It's not $10,000 and not $50,000. It's an incredible $550 billion. Yes, that’s BILLION. It sounds ridiculous, but believe me, the math completely supports it.

Now, the above analysis doesn’t prove that it cannot be done. However, it surely must place the burden of proof to those claiming they hit 60 percent of their plays. Given the above, how could they not have accumulated a large fortune? You hear the same tired excuses found below.

1) They can hit 60 percent, but are too streaky. In addition, the few bad runs wipe them out. Sorry, I'm not buying it. In the above example, all you need is a record of 1,200 wins and 800 losses. Any order of wins and losses will produce the same final results.

2) They have poor money management. Sorry, again I simply don't accept it. As my numbers show, having an ability to hit at 60 percent is akin to owning a printing press full of money. Even with some lousy money management, you should still make a small fortune (instead of a large fortune).

3) They are critical of my example since they doubt that anyone could bet millions on one game without the line moving. It's a good argument, and I concur. However, this only becomes a problem after one has clearly sailed into easy multimillionaire status.

So the next time a guy tells you he is a 60 percent handicapper, you might want to confirm he is a multimillionaire. If he isn’t, it is likely he either cannot hit 60 percent or is one horrific money manager.

It's interesting that several people offer proof of 60 percent-plus records by pointing at one-year performances in monitored contests. What they miss is that during any small sample size like this, routine variance will result in many contestants hitting 60 percent. Some will be good handicappers and some not so good. However, all will regress to the mean going forward in future years. Flip a coin 100 times and ‘heads’ will come up on 64 occasions, provided you flip enough coins along the way.

Hitting 60 percent is simply not obtainable on any large volume of bets against widely available lines. In fact, I personally feel that the better handicappers and bettors are only able to achieve a long-term win rate that is around 55 percent against market lines.

It sounds depressing, but I've got good news. With just a 53 percent win rate you can make a lot of money on your bets provided you utilize reduced vigorish, rogue lines, free half-point promotions and other betting methods.

I would LOVE to be proven wrong here and have any handicapper or bettor step to the plate and show how he is able to hit 58 to 60 percent over an extended period of time with a large volume of plays. I’m rooting for it to happen. I'm already planning my trip to the airport to pick out my personal Leer Jet!
user_invisible.gif
 

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
2,541
Tokens
Ok, that is what I am thinking. 5% just seems way too much. No disrespect for those who do it, I just see a lot of people playing a lot of units.

Is 3% too much on any one single play?

Lots of units doesn't reflect any percentage of their bankroll when you don't know what is a unit value and its cut out fo their total bankroll.
Say one post 100 units play and unit value is $1 while another posts 1 unit play where his unit value is $100 and each has different bankroll size as well.
For me there are some basic rules to follow such as never risking more than certain percentage of my total bankroll,never chase etc',but as far as to wager size per play it is based on the risk level associated with that event and the probability to win it,i divide the plays into 4-5 different categories of risk/probability and based on that ratio between the risk/reward vs the probability on mind i decide how much to devote tothat play.on very rare occasions i will risk up to 10% of my total bankroll per single event and that probably would happen also only when i play by that point with "house money"(profit).
 

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
3,436
Tokens
Good stuff. I don't claim to hit 60% as 54-55% is my range. I typically have a set unit goal and I think units matter more so than a % or record.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
8,834
Tokens
So the next time a guy tells you he is a 60 percent handicapper, you might want to confirm he is a multimillionaire. If he isn’t, it is likely he either cannot hit 60 percent or is one horrific money manager.

It's interesting that several people offer proof of 60 percent-plus records by pointing at one-year performances in monitored contests. [/IMG]

I have seen and personally followed Scott K hit close to 60% over the last 5 NFL seasons ... and Fezzik disputes this (even though he personally follows Scott K too), so why bother?

... so maybe the people hitting 60% are so selective and make so few plays that they can't accumulate mass fortunes.
 

RX resident ChicAustrian
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
3,954
Tokens
I think it depends on the size of your br. If you only have $100 in your accounts and can replace that easily, then all of it wouldn't be a big deal. If you've got $30,000 that would take years to replace, then more then 3 or 4 % would be awfully stressful...
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
SCT, the confusion is caused simply by blurring the word "Unit" with "percent".

"Unit" for most serious participants is simply a relative measurement.

You've read plenty of my own stuff and I have basically three sizes of real $$ plays

Regular (for me, about 1% of bank)
"Two Doobie (unit)" (1.2x)
"Three Doobie" (1.5x)

Other people, usually those less serious and experienced, lob around the notion of "one unit"/"five unit" and "ten unit" in same posts, implying that they have one play that is literally TEN TIMES BETTER THAN NORMAL

That's easily the silliest exclamation anyone could ever make.

If you have one that is truly TEN TIMES BETTER, you are an idiot to ever waste your time playing your "Regulars", because they are only ONE TENTH as good.

But of course, no play in the world is ever truly worth "Ten Times More"

=====
Let's presume a "regular" for most of us is something that we've capped out at being a decent shot at winning 3 out of 5 (60%).

Now let's say you've found a spot where some extra factors kick in and you really truly think you've got one that's more like a 3 out of 4 (75%).

That's not TEN TIMES, or FIVE TIMES better.

That's about 1.25 better

=====
Now the above doesn't mean there aren't times to be more aggressive and actually put two or three times your normal risk on the table. But it should be VERY measured and unusual if you want to stay in the game.

Consistently exposing 5% of your bank means that a Minus15 streak will break you. (Going 20-35 for instance).

hth
 

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
3,738
Tokens
i agree with barman. no play is that much better and if it is, it should be your only wager. i play strictly one unit.I start my bankroll out at 10,000 and bet 100 on a game and increase it or decrease it to keep my bets at 1% of my bankroll. It takes a long time for me to make anything at 55% which is where i am at this year, but i have not replenished my bankroll in 3 years this way. Everyone has their own way, find what you can live with and stick to it.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
6,480
Tokens
... so maybe the people hitting 60% are so selective and make so few plays that they can't accumulate mass fortunes.

I think so. Several players in the Marty contest are hitting above 60% but at one play per week it takes over 5 years to even get a minimally valid sample size.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,591
Messages
13,452,736
Members
99,423
Latest member
lbplayer
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com