[Seaweed]

For example

Betting a -1000 alternate line on an under and putting $1,000 to win $100.

Big wager but almost guarantee money?

[trytrytry]

never quite like that no.

but some -1000 or larger lines with another game line in parlays using a good number on the game line to get more risk in action. typically to help with rollovers

[jjgold]

no

betting chalk of any sort is why most guys lose

[BuckyOne]

value is value is value. If it has scientific value and you could bet a 100 of them and come out. Unless it is an exchange pretty hard to get anywhere close to a good scientific price. If somebody has -1000 and 5 places have +1000 on the same game I would nail it and then hold it if the line went up.

[BrickJames]

Please see the "all in on Rhonda Rousey" thread.

[KVB]

For example

Betting a -1000 alternate line on an under and putting $1,000 to win $100.

Big wager but almost guarantee money?

If my realistic, more valid line indicates the favorite should be more than -1000 by an acceptable amount, then yes I would bet it. The discrepancy depends on many factors including the sport, the season, and the overall condition or environment of the marketplace, etc.

Every bet made is an attempt to build up the bankroll, not just heavy favorites.

Winning bettors do so by obtaining value in the marketplace. Some are willing to bet very heavy favorites if the value is there.

Many baseball bettors miss out on some profit every year because they have set themselves arbitray limits to what they will wager on. Some say "I won't bet anything more than -150" or some such nonsense. While they may be paying a higher vigorish for the heavier favorite, winning bettors know there is value in some of those plays.

[CappinTerp]

IMO: That in a singular sporting event(game) there is no such thing as value, cheep things are not cheep and expensive things are not expensive! They are like that for a reason. This remains true in any type of speculation........gl

[BIGDAY]

Open ended mma prop parlays.

[Rich Boy]

You might start out with this strategy then change it up when you get hammered

[Otters27]

Bad idea. I tried this for a few years. Won a lot at first but then lost on all kinds of -1000 and above ML. Even lost a 16500 ML. Lost on Serena Williams, NADAL, Fed ect. Also lost will there be overtime -4000 a few times on some MNF.

[KVB]

One of the problems bettors have here is that they "base" bet. Regardless of price, you should never change your risk. If your units is $100, then bet with $100 every time. It doesn't matter if the price is +101, -115, -250, or -1000.

If value is in the play and you are consistent with your discrepencies, then no play is worth that much more than another.

We see all the time bettors who play a game at +100 in MLB for $100 and then turn around and take a -125 favorite for $125. What that bettor is essentially saying is that one play is worth 25% more risk than another.

If that were true then all the bettor needs to do is bet the better plays...a fortune would be made. But it isn't true. It is more likely, with most handicappers, that the risk is close to the same on each bet.

This is where bettors fail in money management. Changing your bet size will only change your breakeven point and it will cost you. Using Kelly Criterion in sports betting is usually not a very good idea and I could explain why but will hold back here.

Guys, if you learn anything from this post it is that it is better to keep your risk steady as possible and allow the bookmaker's risk to jump around. The books love it when their risk is the same while the bettors' risk is volatile.

Turn the tables with proper money management and your winners will be that much sweeter.

[krs]

Regarding heavy moneyline favorites such as -1000, I always remember someone posting in these threads comparing that to dodging bulldozers to pick up nickels.

[jjgold]

Books laugh at chalk players

Why??

They know they will clean you out

[GunShard]

Anything past -200 becomes too risky.