[jolmscheid]

Hi guys...what is the better strategy for someone who wants less risk and less ups and downs? Follow 7-10 proven Cappers / strategies and play all of the plays for 1% each, or play 1-2 top Cappers / strategies and play those plays for 2-3% each?

[jolmscheid]

Thanks in advance for the help...I look forward to different ideas and views on this!

[roasthawg]

Bet one percent for sure... unfortunately you're likely to lose long term regardless as you're likely to find a good capper to follow imo.

[jolmscheid]

Thanks roast...so there is no longterm winning strategy / capper in your opinion?

[roasthawg]

Yes, definitely long term winners... just not likely to give out their picks imho.

[hutennis]

I don't think long term winning strategy and long term winner is the same thing.

In a large enough population, long (assuming we can define long) term winners can be produced by winning strategy alone or by luck alone or by combination of both and with both components weighted differently in combinations.

Giving the huge sports betting population and tiny number of proven long term winners it is virtual certainty that this relatively tiny number can be produced without any substantial help from winning strategy.

If you let 30 mil people to flip coin, about 2000 of them will hit 15 heads (or tails) in a row and thus will feel like a pretty legit and documented long term coin flipping winners.
I'm sure that those 60000 who would hit it 10 times, before making flip #11 would feel pretty good about their coin flopping abilities too.
And 60000 coin flippers can fill a lot of coin flipping forums, you know.

[jolmscheid]

Ok...so if one did indeed have the availability of picking winners long term, which option is better for avoiding variance, large swings, etc

[u21c3f6]

Ok...so if one did indeed have the availability of picking winners long term, which option is better for avoiding variance, large swings, etc

When I look for edges, I almost always find more than one avenue to investigate. I almost always go with the edge that has the higher winning % (usually some type of hedge) even if the EV % is less than another strategy because it will usually have a higher growth rate (Kelly) and less variance (the way I look at it).

If I start a new strategy that is supposed to hit at 65% and I go 1 for 5, I will slow things down until I am sure that my strategy in fact hits at 65% before I resume full operations. The higher the expected win rate allows one to determine if that win rate is close to accurate easier and quicker compared to a lower win rate.

Joe.

[mathdotcom]

Quit gambling