Betting Allocation Question

**tofuman** · 01-24-10, 08:18 PM

depends on spread.. but using the kelly criterion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion) will tell you the optimal betting size (over the long run) given your bankroll.
option 1:
assume -110, hitting 58% win rate average, then optimal betting size is ~12% of your bankroll per game..
option 2:
assume -110, hitting 75%, then kelly criterion says bet ~48% of your bankroll per game!!

**LT Profits** · 01-24-10, 08:37 PM

It doesn't matter because the first option is virtually impossible and the second option has no margin for error.

**mintybetmachine** · 01-24-10, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

It doesn't matter because the first option is virtually impossible and the second option has no margin for error.

good one

**mintybetmachine** · 01-24-10, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by dodger33

Lets say in next years nfl season someone had the following possibilites. What percent would they allocate to each game in both of the options below so that it would yield maximum profit. Would it be a hybrid of betting between the two or just concentrate all of their money on option 2.

Option 1 betting every game in the regular season,256 of them, hitting 58%. or
Option 2 playing only 22 games hitting at 75%.

if this is actually possible then look at it this way:

option 1: 256 - 58% ~ 148-108 = 14800-11880 = 2920
option 2: let's use 17 game for simplicity 17 - 75% ~ 13 - 4 = 860 29% of option 1 BUT you are only betting on 1 game a week so you can bet 15 times more, that gets you 4.44 times more money than option 1

again this is hypothetical, quite impossible in real life

if you are going to do this hopefully you got a good reason for hitting such a high %

**dodger33** · 01-25-10, 03:07 AM

lt thanks for the great insight you are always full of good reason and knowledge. I wasn't asking for smart ass remarks, but of course i am going to get them. This is strictly a math question, probable or improbable i am just looking for an answer. thanks to all that have replied.

**LT Profits** · 01-25-10, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by dodger33

lt thanks for the great insight you are always full of good reason and knowledge. I wasn't asking for smart ass remarks, but of course i am going to get them. This is strictly a math question, probable or improbable i am just looking for an answer. thanks to all that have replied.

I am not sure if you are being sincere or not, but if you found something that has hit 58%, it has to be data-mined as the best handicappers in the world that play volume are very happy with 54-55%, and anything above that is not sustainable long term.

As for option 2, if you can pinpoint something that has produced so few plays, either A) your sample size is too small or B) even if it is legitimate, there will be a lot of volatility from year-to-year.

All of that said, if the options you presented are"real", option 2 has the much higher expected growth long term using Kelly, but because of the low volume, there will be years when you lose your ass (just as there will be years when you go 20-2).

**u21c3f6** · 01-25-10, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by dodger33

Lets say in next years nfl season someone had the following possibilites. What percent would they allocate to each game in both of the options below so that it would yield maximum profit. Would it be a hybrid of betting between the two or just concentrate all of their money on option 2.

Option 1 betting every game in the regular season,256 of them, hitting 58%. or
Option 2 playing only 22 games hitting at 75%.

I assume that the 22 games in Option 2 are part of the 256 games in Option 1. If so, given your numbers I would adjust Option 1 by taking out the 22 wagers resulting in 234 at approx 56%. Then I would wager on both options using the appropriate wager size.

Joe.

**Busterflywheel** · 01-25-10, 08:13 AM

I like the Larger option..Simply because hitting 75% and 58% is a huge difference..and if you can it the higher mark of the two you should be doing this professionally.

**dodger33** · 01-25-10, 03:51 PM

I understand that this could have been a fluke and I will come nowhere near this next year, but thinking optimistically I am just trying to plan for next year. Sad thing is because this was the first year of my system I didn’t even make any money on these ridiculous numbers. I kept thinking it was going to regress to 50% but it got better throughout the year. The option 2 numbers were not included in that 58%. Maybe I need to include in the calculation the higher possible volatility of option 2.