 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Can a chase ever work?
It seems that some people say a chase is a surefire disaster and if you give it time youll go broke, others swear by it (mostly JM related) and say if done right, you can make money.
So is a chase a good idea, or just a way to learn to move on to something else?
|
|
Chasing will never do as well as proper flat-betting in the long term. If you play with an advantage, chase systems can win... but not as much as betting the right fixed amount.
Given infinity time and infinity money, a chase system will work. Neither of those you have, therefore you will go broke.
Back then a chase system that worked well for me playing at Bodog was.
Deposit $650 at bodog, get +10% cash bonus.
Bet a game for $715, while arbing at pinny. If lose redeposit and get another 10%
If win bet $1300, while arbing at pinny. If lose redeposit and get another 10%
If win bet $2600, while arbing at pinny. If lose redeposit and get another 10% Would have completed the 3x rollover.
If win withdrawal to netteller and redeposit next day to get 10% cash bonus.
Worked well for a whole 2 weeks. Till the stupid law pass, and pinny left the states, net teller held our funds. And bodog, ended the 10% cash bonus.
This is not true.Originally Posted by blix177
Just basing what I said from this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)
And infinite betting limits too. Which you don't have either.
Pretty well established Martingale doesn't work
Chasing works when there is pussy involved, not gambling.
Chasing absolutely works a lot better than flat betting if you know what you are doing and apply the money management technique that compliments each specific type of chase the best. It often takes a ton of research to find the right scenarios for chase betting as well as establishing a proportionate chase length to the winning percentage and amount of plays.
I wish there were a "cool-off" feature, so I could ban someone from Think Tank for a week when they post something like this.
Do you have any non-data mined research showing a chase will work better than betting proportional to your edge?
I'm going to admit that i'm a bit of a chaser myself, when I started I bought a few systems and ebooks and my first go at things was a simple martingale chase which I used along with tout free picks, it started ok but it didn't take too long before I was forced to make bets bigger than what I could mentally cope with, so I would always bottle it when the progression got too high which mean't I was down a fair bit, I then tried labrouchere along with other systems from ebooks like bookie buster, same thing happened, the ebook would have systems like 33% system where you only need to win that amount for it to work, sounded good but the truth is the system was really 33% over a very small sample rate, as time went on I began tracking picks and trying new systems and I tested system after system with the sample data I had tracked and there was always a breaking point where it would goup.
I have personally tracked daily picks (1 pick a day) where touts would go 9 strait days without getting a win, occasionally it would go to 8 or 9 in a row, fairly often 5-6 losses and very often 3-4 losing days in a row, these numbers will crush you using an aggressive chase.
What I do see after tracking picks long enough is that the best picks hit about 53% over a year, the worst maybe 46%.
I do still chase a bit here and there, but my bets may increase after a month, usually increased gradually per month, so that over a longer term you can clear a profit at a lower than 50% strike rate, it needs alot of patience though.
I am aware that this is no doubt an inefficient way of doing things but at least im learning new things on the way, until im good enough to cap myself with confidence this is the way I play.
I will say this, every aggressive chase system i've used has failed eventually, I often see new systems about and try and run simulations over the course of 1000 bets at about 48% strike rate to see how they hold up, some hold up but the roi over a fairly long period will be quite low, anything that does produce good profits always seems to bankrupt you before it can recover from losses at some point.
My advice if your gonna chase is set aside a portion of your bankroll, maybe 10% to use on a chase system at least then if it goes to shit you can try again, this has kept me in the game on more than a few occasions.
Also if anyone wants some tout free pick results im happy to send them over so you can test your methods with some real performance and see how back and forth it can be on a month to month basis.
justin the cool-off is it that the word "chase" keeps your money safe
flat betting is the way too go, chase system will basicaly detroy your bankroll, you dont want to be hitting 54% (or higher) in a season and been broke.
Another bad thing with chase betting you dont know if you are getting value or getting lucky.
I compare chase system to roulettes=for losers only
Last edited by Ruifgalmeida; 02-19-10 at 08:19 PM.
no !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you have a strategy that works for you it can be profitable no matter what it is if you know what you are doing. if you don't flippin win and/or have a plan it doesn't matter anyway. i incorporate "chases" into my betting in many ways and sometimes it is to bet against it or to keep from a bet. you cannot eliminate anything from your arsenal.
I think a chase will ALWAYS works if ALL the bets you make are plus EV.
I also think you will drive yourself crazy using it, and hit limits that make it unpractical very quickly.
If you do the math, you are going to get the same probability of units won/loss long term between straight wagers and chases. If you have filters that can make the plays deeper into the chase slightly stronger, apply a money management technique that compliments the systems specifics and the size of your bankroll, you can make chases more profitable than playing the same wagers straight in certain situations. I play both straight wagers and chases. Both have their place, depends on a lot of specifics. I hate blind chases like Morrison's that rely solely on past trends to continue, my chases I come up with are more complex and have more substance behind them.
Chasing is a poor approach to gambling. If you have an advantage, why not let that advantage play out? Why limit your advantage by insisting that it has to win at least once in the next four, five, or six games? (if you don't want to put a limit on the number of games, good luck). Chasing is living on borrowed time. People get a false sense of security from the fact that it may 'work' for a period of time that they consider reliable. They forget that it's only a matter of time before they run into a worst case scenario, where the chase loses a few times in short succession.
If a system is worth betting on, you don't need to chase. If it's not worth betting on, why chase? And if you want to increase profit by risking larger amounts, turn up your Kelly fraction a notch.
Last edited by Dark Horse; 02-20-10 at 12:51 AM.
so do you endorse "proper flat-betting" and use that method yourself in your daily wagering, or are you just making an example of why chasing sucks? i'm not a think tanker, so that's probably a dumb question. i just see elsewhere in the forum it's very rare to see a flat bettor.
I think there are quite a few of us here who flat bet. We are pretty quiet about it though, as the Kelly and 1/2 Kelly people sometimes push their systems on us with a religious-like fervor. Wrecktangle made quite a good case for not using Kelly a few months back, was a good thread.i just see elsewhere in the forum it's very rare to see a flat bettor.
I have investigated a lot of these chase systems, but I only dabbled with Labrouchere briefly, so I will speak to that one only (things like straight Martingale systems to me should need no examination because of the crazy risk involved.)
It seems to me that the biggest problem with chasing is that it gives a false sense of security, and that can lead to some very unwise wagers. Chasing is one thing, but most of these systems put a bug in your ear that leads you to chase bad games, because in the back of your mind you are thinking, "If I lose, I'll just make it up next game," so you end up taking on action that you otherwise wouldn't touch, and this leads to losing your edge and a much greater chance of prolonged losing streaks and slumps.
People don't realize how quickly losses can compound and leave you in a world of hurt. In Labrouchere, for instance, if you start off with a small number in your cancellation series, you think that your bet will only increase by a small amount at worse each round, because if you aren't winning you have a string of your initial small numbers (usually half a unit) at the front. But the problem actually comes when you follow up a losing streak with a winning streak and eliminate all of those small numbers, leaving you with nothing but fat numbers that were added to your line during the losing streak. Suddenly the only numbers in your series are 6x your base unit, and you are really in a pickle as just a few losses can break the system.
In the end, I say if you want to try some sort of cancellation system, go for it, but set up some concrete rules at the beginning. For example:
1. Never let a series get longer than 10 numbers. If you get to the point where you am supposed to add an 11th number, tear up the sheet and start over.
2. Only play games that you would have action on if you weren't using any system at all.
3. Never assume you will win your next bet. In fact, assume a losing streak is around the corner.
4. Set a maximum number that you will not exceed. If the system calls for you to put that number down, split it in half and write down two numbers.
Most importantly, if you try something like this, start off VERY small (like $5 or $10, max) until you modify the system into something that is safe and works for you. I ended up running 3 series simultaneously with 2 bets running on each series, and not using the first and last numbers on the line (going against what the system calls for). Doing it that way and following the rules above protected me from some horrible slumps, but in the long run I didn't see any real benefit to it. The risks and temptations to go crazy outweighed everything else. If returned to my old flat-betting ways.
This is one of the biggest thing going against a chase system I think. Suppose you average say 60% average win on -110 lines. If you use a flat bet, you can bet max limit each time.
But if you use a 3 team chase system your only betting 1/8th max limit, a 4 team chase your betting 1/16th max limit. Basically your throwing money away because your not betting max limit considering your pretty high in +EV.
No. It will ALWAYS fail actually. It is a simple matter of time before you amass the requisite losing streak.
Last edited by Thremp; 02-20-10 at 02:48 AM. Reason: fail = trail every other way of wagering known to man
This is gambling, sometimes nothing works, nothing. If the flat doesn't, but you had some luck with the chase you fall into the gamblers fallacy, and you think the chase works but actually it doesn't.
I'm convinced that most, if not all sports betting situations are drawn from distributions that are flatter than a Gaussian or "bell shaped curve," i.e. thicker tails. This has resulted in overly long sets of real-time bets that have resulted in both long strings of winners and losers. The long strings of losers will kill chase methods. BTW, this comes from over 400 real-time samples over the last year and a half in my work.
So, I'm 99.44% sure they do not work.
As long as you "know" your risk/reward, Kelly is mathematically proven to be the optimal wager for bankroll growth. Of course "knowing" your risk/reward can be challenging and like any other tool, if used incorrectly it can have disasterous results. I use half-Kelly for two reasons, one, I don't like the larger fluctuations that Kelly produces and two, then I don't have to worry about "knowing" my exact risk/reward and possibly overbet.
I also use Kelly as a tool to determine which risk/reward set-ups have the most promise. As an extreme example which should be obvious without the need of Kelly, which set-up would you want to pursue, one that had a 15% advantage at 100-1 odds or one that had a 7% advantage at 1-1 odds? My answer is: if you don't know the answer, then I highly recommend that you learn the concept of Kelly regardless if you actually use it to wager or not.
That wasn't too pushy was it?
Joe.
Funny thing is, this thread should have died after Justin's first response since it is the simple truth.
I chase everyday, it is fantastic, John Morrison is the prophet.
Dr. Averill Law, a biggie in the Monte Carlo world, has a method to test whether chasing can work:
1. divide your BR into 3 parts. Using BR 1, start chasing making sure you start with bets small enough (even if it is $1 per) where you can go thru multiple reps of losing (I'd like 10x, but you may only get 6x or 7x with the BR you have).
2. Start chasing with BR1.
3. Once you exhaust BR1, repeat with BR 2.
4. Once you exhaust BR 2, repeat with BR 3.
5. If you exhaust BR 3, you can be pretty sure it doesn't work.
6. If it works, BR 1, 2, or 3 should have you living in Beverly Hills driving a Ferrari and hanging with Tiger's cast offs.
7. Report back, or better yet, PM me as we don't want all these other nerdy Tank slugs to know and I'll buy a house close to you in "the Hills".
What if you ran all 3 at the same time?
it doesn't work. UNLESS the following situation applies:
1. you want a buck for a soda
2. you have $100000
3. you MUST acquire a free $1 for the soda
4. place the $1 bet and chase until you win
5. you have an extremely small chance of losing. if you keep trying for that $1 though eventually you'll lose the $100000 chasing the 1
moral of the story: if you hit over 55 percent flat bet/kelly and you win. chase and you either win smaller amounts or lose
if you hit under 52 percent you'll probably lose regardless of the "system"
Let's say you can hit 60% winners at +100. Whether you flat bet or vary your bet size, you should, over time, come out to making 10% of whatever you bet, no?
I figure I'll bet 10 $100 bets, win six, get back $1100. So I have made $100 and risked $1000.
"Chasing" to me is just a fancy way of saying "varying bet size". I suppose you end up having more on a winning bet and less on a losing bet on the average with a chase, but to me this is not compensated by the possible risk if the "unthinkable" happens and I lose 20 games in a row.
Joe, I understand the concept of Kelly to the extent that the bigger my edge, the higher percentage of my bankroll I can safely risk. I don't think I am very good at calculating my edge. Indeed, some days it seems like I have no edge at all. The game changes, numbers change. Rules change. Lots of stuff going on in the betting jungle.
Guess you guys are smoking me out. I was reaching to try to apply some amount of scientific method to a system that I have pretty much proven (to myself at least) is inherently broken. See my post on sports distributions; i.e. the fat tailed distributions will "getcha." If you don't believe it, work it out for yourself, or don't but it is way too much to post.
I know some of you think this Morrison cat is the second coming, but a lot of his plays are going off at -EV according to my modeling, and it may well be due to all the lemmings following this guy around and the market reacting. Ultimately chasing, even fractionally, -EV situations will come to a bad end and as has been pointed out you pile larger and larger bets to get back $1 or some other small wager.
Word.
Justin7 gave do5000 2 SBR Point(s) for this post.
Reply With Quote
