All this talk about how many bets one should make a day to maximize profit is rather academic, as it is not contingent on the number of bets per day, rather whether or not someone has an edge on the games they bet.
<o
> </o
>
The reality is (as harsh as it may sound) is that over 95% of people on these forums (or outside these forums) lack any edge over the market that would allow them to overcome the vig. The effects of betting one game per day vs. many games per day is that is increase the daily variance of ones bankroll (and if the picker bets the same amount per game) reduces the nominal negative expected return of their bankroll, thus increases the probability that ones bankroll may increase in the
short term (and give the
appearance that this one game a day system is working). So a case can be made for these recreational bettors to bet less games, increase the duration for risk of ruin to come to fruition, and allow more days to bet and bet entertained.
<o
> </o
>
For the few that actually have an edge over the market place, the obvious answer is to bet as many games in which one can quantify an edge. Whether it is one or ten per day is contingent on the handicappers ability to quantify that edge, their margin of safety they want to implement, as well as the broader markets pricing efficiency (the more efficient the market, the less games an advantage gambler will be able to find an edge in). For these handicappers who should bet every game they have an edge in, the likelihood of the marginal quantified edge decreasing is high, thus the more games bet will
reduce the ROI of their bankroll, but
increase bankroll growth, the latter variable the more important one.
<o
> </o
>
All this “system” talk and placing bets predicated on chronology is nonsense.<o
></o
>
ffice
