Which method is better and why??

[Duby]

Been asking myself this question for many years. Which method is better?

1- risk 1x on everything?

2- to win 1x on everything?

3- to win 1x on fav and risk 1x on dogs?

Cheers

[evo34]

Have your risk+win amount always equal 2.

[Waterstpub87]

If you have no edge, and are losing the vig, risking 1x with be better if you bet more money line favorites, cause you will bet less

If you bet money line dogs, bet 1x to win will cause you to be less

options 3 is neutral

No best way, it is all about how much you are going to wager in dollars.

If you have an edge, you should wager a variable amount based on your edge.

[jtoler]

Neither.

[evo34]

Why you should make risk+win = 2 for all bets if you wish to flat bet (equalize risk):

http://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=27&sub=887250&page=1

If someone has an issue with the actual math in that thread, please elaborate. I assumed the OP was asking what method is better if one wants to equalize risk among all his wagers.

[TheMoneyShot]

The truth of the matter is... your regular wager should be to RISK on everything. Not to win.

-300 To risk $50

+150 To risk $50

+100 To risk $50

It should be done this way... but very few people stick to it.

[Optional]

3- to win 1x on fav and risk 1x on dogs?

This idea is a 'PT Barnum special' the books have pulled on Americans.

Risking more on a favorite than a dog regardless of edge makes zero sense and is an almost automatic road to ruin.

If you were betting in decimal odds the idea would never come into your head...

[dhristov211]

This idea is a 'PT Barnum special' the books have pulled on Americans.

Risking more on a favorite than a dog regardless of edge makes zero sense and is an almost automatic road to ruin.

If you were betting in decimal odds the idea would never come into your head...

really?? but favorite is usually more vig and you win with favorite more

[Cookie Monster]

If you do not have a good estimate of the bet edge, you should bet exactly zero. Double that if you really like the side.

[bozeman]

Number 3 is a failure recipe, cause favs are usually overrated as more people back them, so in a long run as they lose u lose more than you would collect from your dogs.

[a4u2fear]

I've been killing it with option 1 in all year contest, up 27 units

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Number 3 is a failure recipe, cause favs are usually overrated as more people back them, so in a long run as they lose u lose more than you would collect from your dogs.

Other way around - most of the juice is on the underdogs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favourite-longshot_bias

[Optional]

really?? but favorite is usually more vig and you win with favorite more

Just because a team is a -200 fave does not mean your bet is 2x more likely to win and deserves double your base risk amount on it.

The favorite is usually going to be closer to true value than the dog. But if you consistently bet at odds that are worse than the true value, and increase your risk amount blindly without assessing how much value is in those odds, the math will kill you over the long haul.

[a4u2fear]

I've been killing it with option 1 in all year contest, up 27 units

When you see how silly it is to bet 1 to win .46 you are forced into finding the good dogs and value.

[bozeman]

I agree with optional more than with this short wikipedia article with limited science to it favs are wagered way more than dogs u cant doubt that bro so the odds on them are lower than they ought to be. I ve been at a bookie shop and i have seen a betting pattern of an average joe 100-1 type of bets are not underdogs, but dark horses, we r talking about 2 equal teams, with underdog being say plus 125 or 150, people are loss avert, so they perceive a fav stronger but realistically in most leagues if a dog is under plus 150 it is a same level team with slightly better stats and say home field advantage, so not really a fav

[bozeman]

Anyways i d like to add that it aint so much about odds but abiut betting stuff that is not in the line, ei bad lines cause no matter if u choose 1,2 or 3, if u dont find bad lines, u r no better than buying a lottery ticket

[evo34]

This idea is a 'PT Barnum special' the books have pulled on Americans.

Risking more on a favorite than a dog regardless of edge makes zero sense and is an almost automatic road to ruin.

If you were betting in decimal odds the idea would never come into your head...

So you think if you have two independent bets, each with identical positive edge, but one at +1000 and one at -1000, you should risk $100 to win $1,000 on the former and risk $100 to win $10 on the latter?

Please read the link I posted above, and then explain your reasoning.

[evo34]

"The favorite is usually going to be closer to true value than the dog."

@Optional Why does you theory not check out empirically? If favorites were indeed closer to true value, betting then blindly on the money line should incur a smaller pct. loss per bet than betting blindly on the dog money lines.

Over the last 10 NFL reg. seasons, for example, moneyline favorites have produced -3.6% whereas dogs have produced -0.9%. I'm using Pinnacle closers.

[Optional]

So you think if you have two independent bets, each with identical positive edge, but one at +1000 and one at -1000, you should risk $100 to win $1,000 on the former and risk $100 to win $10 on the latter?

Please read the link I posted above, and then explain your reasoning.

Yes I think if the edge is identical the risk should be identical.

Reasoning... I subscribe to the Kelly Criterion way of thinking.

"The favorite is usually going to be closer to true value than the dog."

@Optional Why does you theory not check out empirically? If favorites were indeed closer to true value, betting then blindly on the money line should incur a smaller pct. loss per bet than betting blindly on the dog money lines.

Over the last 10 NFL reg. seasons, for example, moneyline favorites have produced -3.6% whereas dogs have produced -0.9%. I'm using Pinnacle closers.

There is always an exception to the rule but I think what I said is generally true. But honestly it's not something I think is important (was just trying to throw a bone to the guy I was replying to by that comment) so don't really know for sure, just intuitively thought was correct. Do you think the dogs are generally closer to true odds than faves?

[tsty]

If you do not have a good estimate of the bet edge, you should bet exactly zero. Double that if you really like the side.

is there a way to calculate how much I should bet depending on the edge I have?

for example if im making .25 on every dollar I bet how much should i bet?

[HeeeHAWWWW]

.....short wikipedia article with limited science to it

There's a pile of research on this going back decades, it's pretty well-known. Just google favourite-longshot bias.

For example, here's results from football: http://university.pyckio.com/en/odds...longshot-bias/

Tennis: http://www.football-data.co.uk/blog/...ias_tennis.php

Horses: https://www.sbo.net/horse-racing/fav...longshot-bias/

[u21c3f6]

Yes I think if the edge is identical the risk should be identical.

Reasoning... I subscribe to the Kelly Criterion way of thinking.

Optional, that is not Kelly. Kelly is edge divided by odds. So if you have a 10% edge on a 2-1 shot (+200) you would wager 5% (10/2) of your bankroll and if you have a 10% edge on a 1-1 shot (+100) you would wager 10% (10/1) of your bankroll or twice as much compared to the 2-1 shot. That is Kelly.

Joe.

[Optional]

Optional, that is not Kelly. Kelly is edge divided by odds. So if you have a 10% edge on a 2-1 shot (+200) you would wager 5% (10/2) of your bankroll and if you have a 10% edge on a 1-1 shot (+100) you would wager 10% (10/1) of your bankroll or twice as much compared to the 2-1 shot. That is Kelly.

Joe.

You're right Joe.

[Gaze73]

Optional, that is not Kelly. Kelly is edge divided by odds. So if you have a 10% edge on a 2-1 shot (+200) you would wager 5% (10/2) of your bankroll and if you have a 10% edge on a 1-1 shot (+100) you would wager 10% (10/1) of your bankroll or twice as much compared to the 2-1 shot. That is Kelly.

Joe.

This Kelly example of yours is pure gambling. If you have a 10% edge on a +100 line, your win rate is 55%, slightly better than coinflip, which means you can easily go on like a 3-10 run and your bankroll is ******.

[evo34]

Yes I think if the edge is identical the risk should be identical.

Reasoning... I subscribe to the Kelly Criterion way of thinking.



There is always an exception to the rule but I think what I said is generally true. But honestly it's not something I think is important (was just trying to throw a bone to the guy I was replying to by that comment) so don't really know for sure, just intuitively thought was correct. Do you think the dogs are generally closer to true odds than faves?

I tend not to generalize about knowing which side is more juiced than the other, as that can change from year to year and sport to sport. That said, I think some individual books do juice one side more the other on a fairly consistent basis. Playing 5 Dimes NBA reduced juice moneyline dogs blindly, for example, will probably only have a tiny negative expectancy.

Back to the OP's question: there is no way that risking $100 on 10-1 bets and $100 on 1-10 bets make the bets equal in terms of bankroll impact. Frankly, that makes me wonder if you even know what are doing in general. The risk $100 to win $10 will be meaningless relative to the outcome of the 10-1 bet. It's interesting that no one wants to do any math on this, or even try to intelligently rebut the thread I posted.

In any case, I have no reason to fight to get people to think like me. Merely posting to share info. I'm very happy to continue to equalize the impact of of all my identical-edge bets, regardless of odds.

[evo34]

If you do not have a good estimate of the bet edge, you should bet exactly zero. Double that if you really like the side.

So if I am sure my edge is between 1% and 8%, I should sit on my hands?

[Optional]

I tend not to generalize about knowing which side is more juiced than the other, as that can change from year to year and sport to sport. That said, I think some individual books do juice one side more the other on a fairly consistent basis. Playing 5 Dimes NBA reduced juice moneyline dogs blindly, for example, will probably only have a tiny negative expectancy.

Back to the OP's question: there is no way that risking $100 on 10-1 bets and $100 on 1-10 bets make the bets equal in terms of bankroll impact. Frankly, that makes me wonder if you even know what are doing in general. The risk $100 to win $10 will be meaningless relative to the outcome of the 10-1 bet. It's interesting that no one wants to do any math on this, or even try to intelligently rebut the thread I posted.

In any case, I have no reason to fight to get people to think like me. Merely posting to share info. I'm very happy to continue to equalize the impact of of all my identical-edge bets, regardless of odds.

I over simplified my reply to you and it came out incorrectly. I wasn't trying to get into kelly but rather trying to make the point that increasing your bet size without regard to edge is not a good idea.

[Miz]

If you're just betting for fun, pick whatever you want and enjoy the games.

If you're betting to win in the long term it is different. Without knowing your edge, or having a good idea roughly what it is, the correct amount to risk is 0. If you have come up with a winning model and can compute your edge (which is likely if you came up with a winning model), then some form of kelly is appropriate. I typically do a pretty aggressive kelly, contrary to what a lot of folks suggest. I'm usually 0.5 to 0.75 kelly.

[king7811]

A risk is always present in my opinion, but I'm not an expert

[cincy]

Your bet size should depend on your edge for that game not the 3 options at the beginning of the thread. Plus it is possible some books could review your account more closely if you go on a win streak and are always betting strange amounts rather than traditional square type bets to win exactly $100 or $200.

[ICE-BLOOD]

Risk 1x on everything is a good way to play

A -140 favorite is 140 for 100

a +110 dog is 100 for 110

If a play is a little stronger make it 1.5

Also always play only between 5-10% of your bankroll

Using this method will keep you in the game

Also when you calculate your win % you will see if your bankroll is growing and you are making the right plays

[omedo]

So if I am sure my edge is between 1% and 8%, I should sit on my hands?

I would assume that if you have confidence that your edge is 1%+, no matter the plus range, Cookie Monster would agree that you have an "good estimate" of your edge.

Back to the OP's question: there is no way that risking $100 on 10-1 bets and $100 on 1-10 bets make the bets equal in terms of bankroll impact. Frankly, that makes me wonder if you even know what are doing in general. The risk $100 to win $10 will be meaningless relative to the outcome of the 10-1 bet. It's interesting that no one wants to do any math on this, or even try to intelligently rebut the thread I posted.

In any case, I have no reason to fight to get people to think like me. Merely posting to share info. I'm very happy to continue to equalize the impact of of all my identical-edge bets, regardless of odds.

But this discussion allready had place in this thread FLAT BETTING : When to recalculate your bet size as your bankroll changes ? pag3.

But i'm more than happy to revive this discussion cause i see where you want to say.

Let's take this 2 examples, 2 types of bettors, both winning bettors.

Bettor bigdogchaser, only bets on huge dog.
Bettor hugefav, only bet on large favorites.

It's clearly diferente for them to bet each 1unit. Considering an Bankroll of 100.
bigdogchaser could even go bankrupt and hugefav is leting away so much value on his freaking huge Bankroll.

But the point of KVB is a very solid one.

If you dont know the precise Edge on your bets, you can change your beackeven point.
I dont know either if KVB thinks that every bettor should bet on the 2.00 rang odds. Then flat betting its even more a sound strategy.

I'm by no means the best expert on this matter and still with many questions regarding this subject.

[BoKnowsBest]

Just because a team is a -200 fave does not mean your bet is 2x more likely to win and deserves double your base risk amount on it.

The favorite is usually going to be closer to true value than the dog. But if you consistently bet at odds that are worse than the true value, and increase your risk amount blindly without assessing how much value is in those odds, the math will kill you over the long haul.

agree

[Gaze73]

Flat betting is the best. You bet $100 on a +300 dog who wins and 100 on a -300 fav who loses and you're up $200. Bust most people would risk $300 on the fav because "it can't possibly lose" and then they break even on those two bets.