Let us beat that old horse, staking method!

[Optional]

first off I am not mad at all, LOL just how I talk I guess sorry if you got that impression, was not my intent at all
second off soft sports yes tons of them I mean tons of them but the margin is so high beating them is just as hard if not harder but we are talking about staking method in this thread not market effeciency.

I am saying using a model to stake is a mistake, I am in no way trying to combine the 2.

Personally, I have tried developing my own model, specifically for NASCAR head to head betting. It proved successful but after a year or so I realized it was a damn job it took so much work. I've never wanted an extra job, I enjoy both gambling and sports and combining them makes both things better for me.

So whilst I agree that it's not worth spending the time on building and maintaining a good model, unless you want a second job or need to make gambling into a reliable income or just like that sort of challenge, it definitely can be done.

[danshan11]

you are talking abstracts and novelties, I am talking good pure for a feed the kids pay the rent major sport model and staking method. I personally feel any of those weird sports like live tennis and handball are too vigged to beat, I dont care what model you come up with BUT if you can great but for this argument on staking I am focusing on the big dogs ie MLB etc etc

[semibluff]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[danshan11]

the truth really is this in my humble opinion
1 people learn they got to beat the line and they cant
so they say ok I am sharper than the books, line means nothing and they STILL lose
so they turn to staking and say Ok I am really good at this but I am still losing it must be my staking method

if someone has to tell you martingale is dumb this game is not for you PERIOD!
flat betting, fixed profit betting, and kelly staking all work and I am sure there is advantages to all of them.

I really believe honestly the absolute staking method would be an algo that analyzes the history of your bets including time placed, sport, fave dog, and more and using your history it kicks out a % you should bet based on that history and that would be the absolute best method period.

I dont have exact data but when I do slight dogs on MLB totals at night after first pitch last game, when limits go up, my CLV skyrockets on those and so obviously I would want to have more staked on those games and last minute changes I catch before the line does right before tee time are gonna have way less CLV value and I should bet less, Of course everyone know I value wins and losses at near zero value, all that matters to me is line value so of course my staking method would be based on line value NEVER EVER wins and losses or perceived edge

[tsty]

split persona ?

[danshan11]

@tsy who are you talking to and referencing what to say split persona?

[HeeeHAWWWW]

And on average 5%/(odds-1) will beat flat betting by about 10%.

Yeah, at this selection of odds (ie -200 to +200). If you bet longer odds than that, the gap increases really rapidly - for example, -400 to +400, variable staking is almost 2x more at the median.

[danshan11]

heehaw in english my fixed profit staking method is the best in typical -200 +200 odds scenario???

[HeeeHAWWWW]

heehaw in english my fixed profit staking method is the best in typical -200 +200 odds scenario???

Dunno exactly, I'd have to rewrite the script a bit, but looks like it'll be similar-ish to variable staking. Betting less at long odds is always going to be a good idea.

[danshan11]

well I took 971 bets I had on one sheet I bet them on the sheet with my fixed profit method and
net +22.24 units
and with fixed staking 16.65 units
and with betting the closing line as my fixed profit bet I would have had 27.73

[danshan11]

i forgot the most important one
using my model line I would be at 13.41

not exactly exactly sure on this one because I was missing some old model numbers but very close to that for sure

[Optional]

Yeah, at this selection of odds (ie -200 to +200). If you bet longer odds than that, the gap increases really rapidly - for example, -400 to +400, variable staking is almost 2x more at the median.

Ah, I overlooked that bit.

If it's not too much trouble, could you run it again at -110/+110 please?

[oilcountry99]

To bad all the people with knowledge in here couldn't focus their energy on creating a predictor to beat the books. Instead it's all the same stuff rehashed over and over and over again. Oh and of course everyone is always a self proclaimed winner and to afraid to share so we can all benefit. Something productive will never get accomplished in these forums. Think about it....combine all the so called brain power you guys could crush it! I wish I was smart.

[danshan11]

that is the whole goal without dumb bets there is no market edge. The sharps need nerfs and squares to get their edges.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

If it's not too much trouble, could you run it again at -110/+110 please?

Variable5% and Flat% near identical (0.3% difference). That intuitively makes sense - the flat does badly whenever it goes over evens, because you're betting a larger amount than the Kelly formula dictates, and that means lower bankroll growth. Bet at +110, not a big deal. Bet at +300 ........ ouch.

[danshan11]

betting high amounts on big dogs is a big mistake, you will take a bath and need a hefty hefty bankroll to ride that train. That is the reason I tell people all the time DO NOT BET 1% because you dont know what they are betting on
if they bet +120 to -120 sure bet 1% but if they bet 1% on lottery tickets they are down river with no paddle! DO NOT TELL PEOPLE 1% !!!

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Dan, I think so. Tying out some of the notes above...

I do think the Stanford Wong Gross Return method is solid. Following my example above:

*Risk 200 to win 100 on the -200 Fav, so Gross Return would be 300.
*Risk 100 to win 200 on the +200 Fav, so Gross Return would also be 300.

I do think the -200 Fav is roughly twice as good as the +200 Fav, b/c of variance considerations.

[danshan11]

Dan, I think so. Tying out some of the notes above...

I do think the Stanford Wong Gross Return method is solid. Following my example above:

*Risk 200 to win 100 on the -200 Fav, so Gross Return would be 300.
*Risk 100 to win 200 on the +200 Fav, so Gross Return would also be 300.

I do think the -200 Fav is roughly twice as good as the +200 Fav, b/c of variance considerations.

is the Stanford Wong what I do?
I bet 1.xx to win 1 on faves and bet .XX to win 1 on dogs
I am always betting to win 1% of my bankroll which in essence causes the following

below from Joseph B
"Might be reasonable. Then, if you're expectancy is 1.02, you can expect your bankroll to grow 0.0002 each bet. For Kelly, there is a nice little formula for bank growth expectancy in my first book:F(n) = [(e - 1)^2 / (o - 1)] + 1where n is the nth bet, e = edge, o = odds"

[danshan11]

me and him kinda agree on the lack of use of Kelly in sports betting, he agrees you must know your edge to use kelly and he also agrees kelly is not super effecient in doing that.
if you are a very unique and talented individual with a huge sample size and consistency with your edge over 1000s of bets , basically you KNOW the the closing line before it closes YES USE KELLY if you are not use my fixed profit method, I call it mine but it is not I give credit to it to DRH who got it from someone here at SBR and that is how I got it from him.

[danshan11]

but for 99.99% of the world Joseph B says use fixed profit it is the best method. Since I am a Nerf it is the perfect method for me!

[oilcountry99]

is the Stanford Wong what I do?
I bet 1.xx to win 1 on faves and bet .XX to win 1 on dogs
I am always betting to win 1% of my bankroll which in essence causes the following

below from Joseph B
"Might be reasonable. Then, if you're expectancy is 1.02, you can expect your bankroll to grow 0.0002 each bet. For Kelly, there is a nice little formula for bank growth expectancy in my first book:F(n) = [(e - 1)^2 / (o - 1)] + 1where n is the nth bet, e = edge, o = odds"

Once again, Stanford Wong is NOT what you do....we’ve been over this and you said you understood.

[danshan11]

oilcountry go take a nap dude, you are way too sensitive and if you want to cut down the chit chat get off the forum go to a mime class. damn dude take it easy!

[danshan11]

Once again, Stanford Wong is NOT what you do....we’ve been over this and you said you understood.

yes I just read that book and I do exactly what Ferguson says in his book, bet to win 1 unit

[danshan11]

How the Terms Affect Bet SizeIt’s not your bet size that should be held constant; it’s the dollar amount of your win.For all bets you find that you think give you your MinEdge, your optimal bet size is whatever you must bet in order to achieve your MinWin.If your MinWin is $100 and the terms are the standard -110, then bet $110 to try to win $100.If your MinWin is $100 and the terms are -160, then bet $160 to try to win $100.If your MinWin is $100 and the terms are +125, then bet $80 to try to win $100.If your MinWin is $100 and the odds are 20:1, then bet $5 to try to win $100

[oilcountry99]

oilcountry go take a nap dude, you are way too sensitive and if you want to cut down the chit chat get off the forum go to a mime class. damn dude take it easy!

Get off the forum and go get a life

[danshan11]

why are you even talking to me dude? if you dont want to discuss this then move on, dont worry about what I do in my life. I want to discuss Sports betting 24 7 if you dont go to mime class or maybe a library where nobody bothers you. this is a forum a place on the internet where people can leave messages or discuss particular subjects with other people at the same time

a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

[oilcountry99]

I apologize DUDE! I thought Sanford strategy was the same as vanzacks. I enjoy reading and educating myself in the field of sports wagering and handicapping as well. All the best to you in your endevours

[danshan11]

Great I wish you the best and never hesitate to ask me or tell me anything, I am inexperienced have zero skills and just want to learn as much as I can. Thanks for your responses and time!

[tsty]

stanford wong lol

i would be a billionaire if i got to bet in his times