FLAT BETTING : When to recalculate your bet size as your bankroll changes ?

**Ra77er** · 10-26-14, 10:09 AM

Mods have done a much better job here. I need to return to player's talk with the other hamburgers asap.

**iparout** · 10-26-14, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Ra77er

Personal strategy

Assume initial bankroll is 5000
2% = 100 per play

The only time I would recalculate my bet size is when I'm UP 25% of my bankroll...so once I hit 6250 I would then up my flat betting to 125 per play.

If you dip under your initial bankroll like lets say your at 4100 or 82 per play....then if you readjust your bet size from 100 per play then your breakeven point goes up.....translation you have to kickass and chew bubble gum just to get back to your initial bankroll of 5000. Basically keep it at 100 and only adjust at winning intervals.

That's just my thoughts on it. There are dozens of articles floating around about bankroll management on the web. Could provide some links if need be.

Just to add some more clarity....if you adjust your bet size to 125 after getting your bankroll to 6250...you would always bet 125 regardless of bankroll unless you grow it by X percentage again. Hope that helps

Not adjusting bet size when your bank decreases is a very good way to go bankrupt !! It happened to me.

I was putting 2% of my roll on each bet. After the first two consecutive losing months, my bank had shrunk by about 50% so by not adjusting my stakes (i.e. still risking 2% of my initial bankroll per bet), I went into the third month betting about 4.5% of my roll per bet. When the third month started with a downswing as well, I almost lost my entire roll (keep in mind that I may have 30 simultaneous bets on a Saturday, so betting 4.5% on each one of them required more than my entire bankroll !!). Thank God I realized it and lowered my stakes.. Guess what, of course... My first day with lower stakes was a huge success and I would have won much more had I insisted on using the earlier (higher) stakes. Murphy's law..

Changing bet sizes according to when your roll increases or decreases by a certain amount is another way to go. I am just wondering what is the best strategy to follow, statistically-wise. Which method will minimize my loses when on a downswing but will ensure that I will profit enough when on an upswing..

**Ra77er** · 10-26-14, 10:51 AM

Harry Bigwinie would be my mafia name.

**Ra77er** · 10-26-14, 11:12 AM

Feel free to delete my posts in the entire thinktank mods

**iparout** · 10-26-14, 11:46 AM

Good thing about my method is that I make my selections based ONLY on mathematical criteria using a formula I personally improvised, i.e. I have zero personal interference, thus I am not in danger of making stupid selections when on tilt... I have a yield of about 3-4% after 2600 bets so I guess my system has an edge. What I am searching for is a money management system that will maximize my winnings without risking of going bankrupt !!

**Ra77er** · 10-26-14, 11:50 AM

Shameless SBR tool plug

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/betting-tools/kelly-calculator/

**iparout** · 10-26-14, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Ra77er

Okay so now your saying you can quantify your edge so perhaps using Kelly betting is what you should be looking into. Simultaneous betting using Kelly is also out there.

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/bett...ly-calculator/

I am not sure I can quantify my edge per bet. I haven't backtested my system based on that so I don't believe Kelly is a good choice for me.

Here are the stats of my system's results so far :

2646 bets
Won-Lost-Void : 1248-1373-25
Hitrate : 47.62%
Average odds : 2.18
Yield : 3.8%

I am just not sure which bankroll management to use to maximize my winnings...

**Ra77er** · 10-26-14, 12:19 PM

Okay so if you are unsure if you have an edge, you cannot sustain your bankroll betting 2% of it based on your handicapping methods, and you do not want to go bankrupt. If you find this mythical creature I would love to hear about it

**iparout** · 10-26-14, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Ra77er

Okay so if you are unsure if you have an edge, you cannot sustain your bankroll betting 2% of it based on your handicapping methods, and you do not want to go bankrupt. If you find this mythical creature I would love to hear about it

Lol... I know I have an edge, which is about 3-4% overall using my flat stake betting for ALL 2600 bets... I cannot quantify my edge on each bet, though. A rough estimate would be that it's is also 3-4% per bet.

**Ra77er** · 10-26-14, 12:34 PM

A good place to start is to compare you plays to the closing line.

**iparout** · 10-26-14, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Ra77er

A good place to start is to compare you plays to the closing line.

That is the irony. Most of the odds I get are lower than the closing lines. I know that beating the closing line is a crucial point in successful betting and long term profit, however I must be the exception... What can I say.. +3% after 2600 bets can't just be good variance.

**LT Profits** · 10-26-14, 01:09 PM

Getting back to your original question, bankroll % should be recalculated daily. Technically it should be calculated after every bet, but I realize that may not be practical. But basing on beginning bankroll each morning is close enough.

**Ra77er** · 10-26-14, 01:31 PM

Def whoppner

**downsouth** · 10-26-14, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

Getting back to your original question, bankroll % should be recalculated daily. Technically it should be calculated after every bet, but I realize that may not be practical. But basing on beginning bankroll each morning is close enough.

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner. If you have decided 2% of your bankroll is the number you roll with it should be calculated every day and adjusted as needed.

**faststeady** · 10-26-14, 10:09 PM

run a test over your data as if you were betting to win 5 units on each bet based on the odds you actually bet on.

if you get this or better result, do that and adjust bank frequently. this would flatten out your peaks and troughs

I assume you are limited by where you can bet otherwise , work out why you're constantly betting into drifting lines

**BTL** · 10-27-14, 01:47 PM

I think you should be more conservative. If in fact, you are as good as you think, you will make a fortune. You should jump increase your betting size to 2% after you have doubled your money. Otherwise, you should consider your success a good run of luck and bet 1%.

Again, if your system works, you have no risk in being conservative as you are guaranteed to make your fortune in sports gambling behind the undeniable advantage of compounded growth.

If you aren't, you are going bust. Stretch it out a little.

If you have a 47% win rate after 2600 bets, I think we can officially declare that you need a new model. It's tough to come to grips with. But the probabilities here are pretty small.

**antonyp22** · 10-27-14, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by iparout

That is the irony. Most of the odds I get are lower than the closing lines. I know that beating the closing line is a crucial point in successful betting and long term profit, however I must be the exception... What can I say.. +3% after 2600 bets can't just be good variance.

You're not the exception, you will lose. What sort of markets are you betting into?

**iparout** · 10-28-14, 05:48 AM

I am betting on overs/unders 2.5 only (in soccer). Betting on the underdog result, though, i.e. odds >2.00

I will post an xls of my previous 2600 bets to see for yourelf.

**BTL** · 10-28-14, 08:55 AM

Beating the closing line is largely a way to judge short-term performance. It is also a theory. When theory meets reality, reality always wins. Over time there is no better indication of betting performance than the results. After 2600 bets, luck is less of a factor. With a 47% win rate, you've been unlucky as you should be at about 50%. But I think you can come to the conclusion that you aren't going to win doing what you are doing.

Truth is, every bettor is probably +EV to a small degree.

**LT Profits** · 10-28-14, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by BTL

I think you should be more conservative. If in fact, you are as good as you think, you will make a fortune. You should jump increase your betting size to 2% after you have doubled your money. Otherwise, you should consider your success a good run of luck and bet 1%.

Again, if your system works, you have no risk in being conservative as you are guaranteed to make your fortune in sports gambling behind the undeniable advantage of compounded growth.

If you aren't, you are going bust. Stretch it out a little.

If you have a 47% win rate after 2600 bets, I think we can officially declare that you need a new model. It's tough to come to grips with. But the probabilities here are pretty small.

You are 100% wrong here, he is hitting 47.62% at an average price of +118, ergo the positive ROI. That is actually very good after 2600 trials, it appears he is making +EV bets.

**BTL** · 10-28-14, 09:09 AM

According to math and probability, what are the chances he is going to win going forward?

Being +EV is similar to FIP in baseball. It can be a good indication of the luck of a pitcher. AFter a certain period of time, you don't need it because ERA tells you what you need to know. After 2600 bets, you don't really need to judge your results by +EV.

**LT Profits** · 10-28-14, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by BTL

According to math and probability, what are the chances he is going to win going forward?

Being +EV is similar to FIP in baseball. It can be a good indication of the luck of a pitcher. AFter a certain period of time, you don't need it because ERA tells you what you need to know. After 2600 bets, you don't really need to judge your results by +EV.

But ROI is a MUCH better indicator than straight win%.

**BTL** · 10-28-14, 09:19 AM

OK, he can go for it then. But anyone that can develop a math model should be able to calculate probability. Theories are very cherished and they die hard. But they ain't going to win you any money.

**LT Profits** · 10-28-14, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by BTL

According to math and probability, what are the chances he is going to win going forward?

Being +EV is similar to FIP in baseball. It can be a good indication of the luck of a pitcher. AFter a certain period of time, you don't need it because ERA tells you what you need to know. After 2600 bets, you don't really need to judge your results by +EV.

And going off on a tangent, you are wrong about ERA too, FIP and/or xFIP are more predictive than ERA. ERA is the stat with luck involved because it includes factors beyond the pitcher's control.

**BTL** · 10-28-14, 09:22 AM

Not in the longer term. That's not what Tom Tango says.

**LT Profits** · 10-28-14, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by BTL

Not in the longer term. That's not what Tom Tango says.

Agree to disagree.

**iparout** · 10-28-14, 11:56 AM

Completely disagree with you, BTL.

Originally posted by LT Profits

But ROI is a MUCH better indicator than straight win%.

My thoughts exactly. Hitrate has nothing to do with how successful a punter is. It all depends on the odds he is hitting.

If I somehow manage to have a hitrate of 33% with odds of 3.00 or higher, I will definitely be a long-term winner.
On the contrary, if I have a hitrate of 60% by betting on favorites with odds of 1.50, I will be losing money in the long run. This is the reason why a punter needs to have accounts on several bookies. Getting the best available odds is of crucial importance, equally important with carefully choosing your bets.

It's all about the ROI. Hitrate has nothing to do with success.

**BTL** · 10-28-14, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by iparout

It's all about the ROI. Hitrate has nothing to do with success.

That is completely absurd. ROI is return on investment and yours is negative. This whole business about ROI on CLV is lunacy after 2,600 bets. But good luck to you. You are going to need it.

**iparout** · 10-28-14, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by BTL

That is completely absurd. ROI is return on investment and yours is negative. This whole business about ROI on CLV is lunacy after 2,600 bets. But good luck to you. You are going to need it.

Care to explain how ROI is negative for a punter who has PROFITS from betting ? Are you sure you know what you are talking about ? Guess not...

**BTL** · 10-28-14, 12:53 PM

I might not. I thought I read that you had lost most of your bankroll with your recent downturn. Might have misread that. But I'm not going to re-read it. I'll bow out now as I know you've got your answer. Good luck with it all.

**LT Profits** · 10-28-14, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by BTL

That is completely absurd. ROI is return on investment and yours is negative. This whole business about ROI on CLV is lunacy after 2,600 bets. But good luck to you. You are going to need it.

In my response, I was talking about raw ROI and not ROI on CLV. To put it even more simplistically, the break-even point on a +118 is 45.9%, so 47.6% after 2600 plays is actually impressive and shows that the OP's model is working.

**iparout** · 10-28-14, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

In my response, I was talking about raw ROI and not ROI on CLV. To put it even more simplistically, the break-even point on a +118 is 45.9%, so 47.6% after 2600 plays is actually impressive and shows that the OP's model is working.

I have also come to the conclusion that my model is working. However I am searching for a money management system to make the most out of it. Backtesting those 2600 bets showed that my ROI was higher when I re-adjusted my stakes once every month (at the beginning of the month) rather than every day. Which is kinda weird, though, however much more convenient... Trying to get the excel and will come back here and share it with you...

BTW, after betting every single day for the last 15 months, I have come to figure out how important every 1% is, when it comes to hitrate... Seemed not much of a difference at first, but a hitrate of 45% is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT compared to a hitrate of 48% ! Although only 3%, it can make you or break you...

**BTL** · 10-28-14, 01:31 PM

I have to admit that I did not pay too much attention to the odds. As an American I don't have any interest in soccer and completely unfamiliar with the betting so I pretty much passed that over. If he is betting odds that will allow you to win with a sub .500 hit rate, he may very well have a good model. If he has lost over 2,600 bets though, I think he is sunk and will sink further over time. That ain't gonna work even with some positive CLV. I've got positive CLV.

**LT Profits** · 10-28-14, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by BTL

I have to admit that I did not pay too much attention to the odds. As an American I don't have any interest in soccer and completely unfamiliar with the betting so I pretty much passed that over. If he is betting odds that will allow you to win with a sub .500 hit rate, he may very well have a good model. If he has lost over 2,600 bets though, I think he is sunk and will sink further over time. That ain't gonna work even with some positive CLV. I've got positive CLV.

But he has NOT lost. And as an American, do you never model Money Lines, especially for MLB and NHL? If the projected odds the model spits out are better than the implied odds of the actual line, you strike. Thus you will have many underdogs and win % becomes basically meaningless as long as you show a profit.