[TBsp75]

hi, if im hitting 55% of my bets for MLB last season with odds from -110 to +150 (mostly +110).

can some1 please EXPLAIN what kinda betting method i should use to maximise my profit? tyvm.

[mathdotcom]

kelly criterion

[TBsp75]

kelly criterion

according to kelly i'll b betting 11% of my bankroll each bet. wouldnt it b a lil risky?

[mathdotcom]

so you don't want to maximize your profit then

you want to minimize mental anguish and the embarrassment of asking your parents for a loan?

[TBsp75]

i jst think thr still lots argument on kelly i just hear yalls opinion and make smart bets
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...imulation.html

[JimHadley]

according to kelly i'll b betting 11% of my bankroll each bet. wouldnt it b a lil risky?

How did you come up with a figure of 11%? My (very limited) understanding of Kelly criterion is it would be 1-2% of bankroll?

[TBsp75]

How did you come up with a figure of 11%? My (very limited) understanding of Kelly criterion is it would be 1-2% of bankroll?

by kelly calculator using +105 as odds which comes out 12%
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/betting-tools/kelly-calculator/

by formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
+105 = 2.05 decimal odds = 1.05 net odds
(1.05 x 0.55 - 0.45)/1.05 = 0.1214 %

[FourLengthsClear]

How many wagers is the 55% from last year comprised of?
Was that an anomaly compared to previous years?

Mathy is correct that Kelly is the optimal method to maximise bankroll growth but it does mean betting substantial amounts when you calculate a big edge. If you are confident that edge is valid, it should hold no fears. If you have derived that edge from a small sample of past results and have no way to independently calculate an edge for future wagers then Kelly (at least not full Kelly) is not the way to go.

[TBsp75]

How many wagers is the 55% from last year comprised of? Was that an anomaly compared to previous years? Mathy is correct that Kelly is the optimal method to maximise bankroll growth but it does mean betting substantial amounts when you calculate a big edge. If you are confident that edge is valid, it should hold no fears. If you have derived that edge from a small sample of past results and have no way to independently calculate an edge for future wagers then Kelly (at least not full Kelly) is not the way to go.

i only started last season averaging 1-2 picks a day(closer to 2) so i would say 200 something wagers. maybe i should go for another couple season b4 using kelly.

lets say i done couple season and hitting 55%. do i use 55% for every odds as winning %? or i should calculate the winning % for da specific odds? ty.

[FourLengthsClear]

i only started last season averaging 1-2 picks a day(closer to 2) so i would say 200 something wagers. maybe i should go for another couple season b4 using kelly.

lets say i done couple season and hitting 55%. do i use 55% for every odds as winning %? or i should calculate the winning % for da specific odds? ty.

Really depends on how you are deriving your picks.

If you are selecting a play at +100 it obviously means you calculate that the probability of the team winning is more than 50%. Are you taking a finger in the air approach and saying "yeah that looks good" or are you calculating your own percentage for each wager?

200 picks in itself is a very small sample and it would appear that this as well as the average odds you mentioned is an estimate. It would be very ill-advised to think about Kelly unless you have accurate records and a reasonable basis to rule out variance.

[TBsp75]

this is how i pick my wagers. for the last mlb season, everyday id type down all the matches, study them and pick the teams i assume who got the upper hand then id type down all the odds for those matches and bet on all the underdogs which is hitting about 52-54%. if i include all the fav. picks id actually made 2430 picks and hitting close to or a bit higher than 60%(haven't calculate the actual % number yet).

what do you mean by calculating my own percentage for each wager?
tyvm