I'm following a few analysts for my picks and I'm wondering how I should place my bets. Should all my wagers be exactly the same so that I make more on my winning underdogs and not lose money on losing favorites, or should I be aiming for profit consistency so that I always come out with the same amount of money regardless if the pick was a favorite or underdog???
no one answer is the right one here. too many factors....as in how big are the underdogs and how big are the favs?
and more importantly, how often do you win?
if you are going 50-55% winning with -200 favorites....not gonna be pretty.....likewise, going 40% at +200 dogs is gonna be happy days.
no right or wrong here like royal said ability to weight the plays is key....but lets say you are just following one person.......
bet 100 to the price if baseball dog +155 bet 100 to win 155
if its baseball fav -147 bet 147 to win 100.........should keep the swings evened out......now the hard part is picking more winners than losers.............good luck
personally, i have found to be more disipline by basing my wager by the risk. this doesnt mean that all of my plays are the same. but my base play is risking 1% of my bank. sometimes i risk 2% and so on.
dont think there is a right or wrong, but at first i think it helped me lay off of larger favs that didnt didnt desearve to be played.
dont think there is a right or wrong, but at first i think it helped me lay off of larger favs that didnt didnt desearve to be played.
I'm currently following couple of analysts: Winners Inc. William Kidd Ted Covers. I'm not really doing any of my own picks because I don't have a system and it's difficult to judge outcome. I always the stake variable and the profit constant ($30). So some games, for example, will have underdogs and I'll only have to be 22 to win 30. A lot will be favorites and I'll have to bet $44 to win 30. Surely there has to be some data that favors one way of wagering over the other. I guess I'll just have to lookup their past 500 picks and do some of my own research.
If you're talking about money management, and what constitutes a "unit" for betting purposes, here is how a lot of people do it ... assuming a unit is, say, $100 :
1. If you're betting on an underdog, then you bet to WIN a unit .. so if you're betting on a +200 underdog, you're going to risk $50 to win $100.
2. If you're betting on a favourite, you RISK a unit ... so if you're betting on a -300 favourite, you're going to risk $100 to win $33.33.
This technique helps to adjust for the relative risks of your bets, and the probabability of each bet winning.
And as your bankroll changes, your unit sizw will change with it. If your bankroll is $10,000, then yout unit size of $100 is 1% of your bankroll. If you're sucessful, and you increase your bankroll to, say, $12,000, then your unit size should be $120 (1% of $12,000).
-----
In addition, as Royalfan already mentioned, a lot of successful bettors are able to judge the "strength" of each bet that they make, and if they deem a particular bet to be very strong, they will bet more than 1 unit on that particular bet (they may have a ranking system, based on the strength of each bet, and may vary their unit size between, say, 1 and 5 units based on the strength of the particular bet).
Thanks for the advice. I hate sports though. I love gambling (to win obviously--I never play a losing game). Also, I can't make predictions on which team is likely to win. Those assholes that sit around and watch ESPN 6 hours also can't make any accurate predictions. If I find a system, I'll trust it, but I don't have one, so I'll just trust the analysts and look at their record to decide if I should follow them. Judging the strength of a bet isn't that simple, and I doubt any ESPN watchers can tell me otherwise.
I made some calculations. :coke:
I took a sample size of 50 of my most recent bets. Conclusion: Betting for profit consistency pays MORE than betting for stake consistency.
How much more? 79.4% more over a span of 50 bets. (calculated by: Sum of stake / sum of profit)
Things to consider:
-My average line was +109.36 (eu/decimal: 2.0936)
-My win percentage is 58%.
-I assumed all bets were equal and did not weigh matches. Therefore all bets were for equal profit outcome.
I took a sample size of 50 of my most recent bets. Conclusion: Betting for profit consistency pays MORE than betting for stake consistency.
How much more? 79.4% more over a span of 50 bets. (calculated by: Sum of stake / sum of profit)
Things to consider:
-My average line was +109.36 (eu/decimal: 2.0936)
-My win percentage is 58%.
-I assumed all bets were equal and did not weigh matches. Therefore all bets were for equal profit outcome.
New sample has similar conclusion! :coke:
New sample size: 70 bets.
Average line: +103.28 (eu/decimal: 2.03)
Win percentage: 52.17%
Assuming all wagers are equal:
Stake consistency pays: 2.39% (Total Profit / Total Money At Stake)
Profit consistency pays: 4.97% (Total Profit / Total Money At Stake)
New sample size: 70 bets.
Average line: +103.28 (eu/decimal: 2.03)
Win percentage: 52.17%
Assuming all wagers are equal:
Stake consistency pays: 2.39% (Total Profit / Total Money At Stake)
Profit consistency pays: 4.97% (Total Profit / Total Money At Stake)
