[RITZ]

When you bet the dogs especially in MLB where it's +140 or more do you play your regular unit size say $100 or back down to just bet the amount to win your regular unit amount ($100)?

Example LAD +140 vs Rockies. If you play the Dodgers do you bet ~$70 to win $100 or $100 to win $140?
Likely this has been discussed here before and my apologies if i missed it.

[xyz]

It depends on your bank roll. Read up on Kelly staking. It tells you exactly how much to bet.

[That Foreign Guy]

If not using Kelly then using a bet to win X approach is best.

[dogman]

Ritz, I use a return approach. Take a game where the line is -150/+140. If my return total is ($240) my bets would be as follows- I would bet $144 to win $96 on the -150 fav or if I liked the dog at +140 I would bet $100 to win $140. Both bets have a return total of 240-----144 +96 and 100 +140.

One more example could be if I wagered on a -200 favorite and a wanted a return of $240 ----I would bet $160 to win $80. I think over at Sports Insights they have an article about this way of wagering.I like it better than the standard way of betting of betting to win 1 unit on the fav and risking 1 on the dog. In the return method I am beting more on a favorite than the dog as it should be just not as extreme as in the latter method.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

I'd go with a fixed return approach too - it copes with the swings better.

[jolmscheid]

Ritz, I use a return approach. Take a game where the line is -150/+140. If my return total is ($240) my bets would be as follows- I would bet $144 to win $96 on the -150 fav or if I liked the dog at +140 I would bet $100 to win $140. Both bets have a return total of 240-----144 +96 and 100 +140.

One more example could be if I wagered on a -200 favorite and a wanted a return of $240 ----I would bet $160 to win $80. I think over at Sports Insights they have an article about this way of wagering.I like it better than the standard way of betting of betting to win 1 unit on the fav and risking 1 on the dog. In the return method I am beting more on a favorite than the dog as it should be just not as extreme as in the latter method.

Can you explain this a little more? I am not understanding what you mean by your "return total"...

Thanks!

[uva3021]

If not using Kelly then using a bet to win X approach is best.

yeah for dogs this is a good idea

[JVP3122]

Can you explain this a little more? I am not understanding what you mean by your "return total"...

Thanks!

It essentially means that if the bet wins that's what he comes out with. Whether the bet is a favorite or an underdog, a win would return him the same amount.

[Sawyer]

When you bet the dogs especially in MLB where it's +140 or more do you play your regular unit size say $100 or back down to just bet the amount to win your regular unit amount ($100)?

Example LAD +140 vs Rockies. If you play the Dodgers do you bet ~$70 to win $100 or $100 to win $140?
Likely this has been discussed here before and my apologies if i missed it.

Why back down? Use your regular unit size. If odds are +140, bet 100 and win 140. That's the beauty of betting on dogs..

[Inspirited]

Yeah, I'd bet the full 100 myself. I subscribe to sawyer's school of flat betting right now. I can't quantify my edge in MLB to use kelly. Earlier this year I went over my underdog bets and checked how I would have done betting to win a flat unit rather than betting a flat unit and it did not do nearly as well because I was doing poorly on small dogs and pretty good on larger dogs.

[RITZ]

Why back down? Use your regular unit size. If odds are +140, bet 100 and win 140. That's the beauty of betting on dogs..

That's kind of how i see it to take advantage and off-set when you play mlb favorites. But the risk reward on betting those dogs under my regular sized unit is also good advice!
HEY ALL GREAT INPUT! thanks

[Inspirited]

Here's an article that mentions the "balanced" approach. I'm going to look and see how I would have done this season betting this way.

http://sportsinsights.com/sports-bet...-bet-size.aspx

[uva3021]

Here's an article that mentions the "balanced" approach. I'm going to look and see how I would have done this season betting this way.

http://sportsinsights.com/sports-bet...-bet-size.aspx

could run a simulator including bet to return x, bet to win x, bet x, kelly

[Inspirited]

Here's how the betting styles did with the bets I've placed this season. I've discovered that I am now officially losing on dogs(+100 or greater) this season. This month has been terrible for dogs. I'm down 8 units on dogs this month! I'm struggling in the +110 to +130 region in particular.

Flat Betting $100 per bet
+1613
-50 on dogs
Flat Winning To win $100; average bet ended up being $110
+2616
-265 on dogs
Balanced with bet + to win = 200; average bet ended up being $102
+1919
-200 on dogs

-Betting to win a flat amount was superior to the other two approaches in terms of units won. I have not checked the variance and the max downswing yet. That would be interesting information to know.

-Even if I raised my flat bet to the average of $110 per game I'd only be at +1781.

-Dog performance was inferior with the flat winning and balanced strategies. This is because it requires that you bet more on smaller dogs and I've done poor the +110 -> +130 region.

[RITZ]

Nice analysis of the stats,Inspirited! Will be interesting to see if others have similar results to draw some general conclusions to the question on how much to play on dogs.

[Inspirited]

I tried to do kelly, but I don't know my edge. I don't know my edge because I don't come up with my own lines to compare to the books lines. Edge also changes depending on each game.

It's entirely possible that I have no edge and will end up back to break-even this year. I'm just waiting for that to happen like it did last year. I survived 2 months longer this year though so far, so we'll see.

I have a ROI of 2.5% this season overall using flat betting. I attempted to use that as my edge on each game. With full kelly I'd be down -2028 based on a $10,000 BR. That is an average bet of 5.23% game. This is cleary over-betting. I didn't try simultaneous kelly, but with .35 kelly I'd be +1263 with average bet of 1.83% per game.

I'm -853 on dogs this way. With no edge on dogs I wouldn't even be kelly betting them in the first place. I wouldn't bet them using flat betting or flat winning either if I knew. I'd also be betting more because my ROI, which I used as my edge for this test, would be higher. Of course, I'm also thinking that it makes no sense to use my flat betting ROI for edge here! It's too bad that I kan't get an akkurate kelly kamikazee kriterion komparison.

My biggest downswing this year flat betting was an extended -1800 drop over a long period. My biggest downswing this year using flat winning would have been -1900 over a shorter period. It made a relatively quick recovery.

At flat betting $100 per game or 1% on a $10000 BR I'd have lost 18% of my initial BR over that period. I'd have lost 54% of my BR by betting 3% per game. If I was more risky in this situation I'd be up +4839 betting 3% or $300 a game. In the flat winning case I could do something similar and probably be up even more.

This has been a very interesting day. I am legitimately considering using the flat winning betting style. If I am stubborn I could always bet the full $100 on dogs. I hope the good dog times come back next month.

[u21c3f6]

I don't understand the following:

If you flat wager $100 to win on dogs you are -50. But when you wager to win $100 on dogs you are -265. However, if you are wagering to win $100 on dogs you should be wagering less than $100 and should lose less not more than flat wagering $100 on dogs.

Joe.

[jolmscheid]

So betting TO WIN a certain amount no matter what the juice is, is the best way to go about it? So whether the line is -150 or +150, one should be betting TO WIN the same amount based on your results?

Thanks

[Inspirited]

I don't understand the following:

If you flat wager $100 to win on dogs you are -50. But when you wager to win $100 on dogs you are -265. However, if you are wagering to win $100 on dogs you should be wagering less than $100 and should lose less not more than flat wagering $100 on dogs.

Joe.

I think it has to do with the types of dogs I am winning and losing on. I'm doing pretty bad on dogs in the +110 to +130 range.

On a +120 line I'd be betting $83 to win $100. On a +160 line I'd be betting $62.5 to win $100. If I have a rough time with small dogs I'm going to lose more.

[Inspirited]

Here Master Ganchrow writes about Fixed-Profit Staking.

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...our-stand.html

[RITZ]

Thanks Inspirited for going up to Mount Sinai and bringing this down to us from Ganchrow-"If lowering the variance of your bankroll's growth is of great concern to you (and it certainly should be) and you frequently find yourself betting across a wide variety of money lines, then you might want to consider moving away from fixed unit staking towards a "fixed-profit" staking plan. Fixed-profits staking refers to betting to win a constant amount on all bets. So in other words, if a fixed-profits staker were to bet 1 unit at a line of +100, he would be betting 1.1 units on a money line of -110, and ½ of a unit on a a money line of +200.

Joseph Buchdahl in Fixed Odds Sports Betting: Statistical Forecasting and Risk Management demonstrates how a bettor engaging in fixed-profits staking can reduce both his standard deviation and his risk-of-ruin versus a flat bettor with the same average bet size.

(Fixed-profits staking, btw, is actually implicit in Kelly betting.)

[jolmscheid]

Thanks Inspirited for going up to Mount Sinai and bringing this down to us from Ganchrow-"If lowering the variance of your bankroll's growth is of great concern to you (and it certainly should be) and you frequently find yourself betting across a wide variety of money lines, then you might want to consider moving away from fixed unit staking towards a "fixed-profit" staking plan. Fixed-profits staking refers to betting to win a constant amount on all bets. So in other words, if a fixed-profits staker were to bet 1 unit at a line of +100, he would be betting 1.1 units on a money line of -110, and ½ of a unit on a a money line of +200.

Joseph Buchdahl in Fixed Odds Sports Betting: Statistical Forecasting and Risk Management demonstrates how a bettor engaging in fixed-profits staking can reduce both his standard deviation and his risk-of-ruin versus a flat bettor with the same average bet size.

(Fixed-profits staking, btw, is actually implicit in Kelly betting.)

Perfect...thank you for the info...that is good to know...betting TO WIN a given amount on all bets sounds good to me, especially if it can help to lower some of the variance..

[RITZ]

Using this dog betting discussion today for baseball all the away.

[dogman]

I am going to go with the bet to win approach starting today. I have used the balanced way of betting the last couple of years. Before that I did use a way of wagering that I saw in "Gambling for a Living" book by Sklansky that said in each of your individual bets be the size such if you win you will have increased your BR to about 3%.

That approach is the same as the bet to win way that Ganchow has preferred in his article

[dogman]

Coudn't pull the trigger today, played my "balanced approach". again. UVA mentioned running simulations with the different wagering methods mentioned. UVA. you out there.

[uva3021]

i posted a Kelly, flat, and to win sim about 6 months ago that was pretty good, the kelly edge was randomized, just do a search

i didn't include bet to return x because i had never heard of such approach, but it sounds interesting

[jolmscheid]

I think there was already a simulation run on this thread recently that showed that betting "to win" a certain amount on every play regardless of juice was the best way to go...

[Inspirited]

I decided to see what was up with a successful pure dog system like Sawyer's NHL Iron Dogs. I gathered the results from when the thread started until March 16.

Flat betting $100 per game produced a profit of +2337.
Betting to win $100 per game produced a profit of +1938. The average bet was $74.
In order to get an average bet of $100 with fixed-profit wagering I had to up the bet to win to $135 per game.
Betting to win $135 per game produced a profit of +2617.
With the same average bet fixed-profit wagering outperformed flat betting using this particular set of bets.

[dogman]

Inspitited, great work. The two approaches I like are the Betting to win a certain amount(bet to win $100 no matter the dog or favorite bet) and the betting to win the same RETURN on all bets, such as beting to return $200 such as if the line is -140 you would bet $116.67 to win $83.33 or if you liked the dog(+140) one would bet $83.33 to win $116.67. I would like to see those compared with betting on favorites and dogs.

Last night was the first time I went with the Betting to win approach as I played 7 games which included LAA-250 and Milw-210 and TB-170. In this way of betting I was risking alot more money than the "return' approach but I would win more. The return method on a -250 fav would be betting $142.86 to win $57.14 instead of risking $250 to win $100. Risk less but win less which means less variance than the betting to win method.

I am not sure which approach is better. For a winning player I would say the "bet to win" way is probably better but probably has more ups and downs on your bankroll than the "return"way.

[RITZ]

Bet to win that amount approach on small sample has been good this week. Smaller risk for equal reward.
Nice work Inspiriter on this analysis. Top Shelf stuff!

[jolmscheid]

So I am kind of confused here...I though Ganchrow said that the 'TO WIN' way had less variance on one's plays....or was he talking about the 'Set Return' way of betting?? Thanks for the help guys...

[dogman]

Gancrow I believe didn't test the bet to RETURN way so not sure what would have less variance but pretty sure it would be the return method. In that method you are betting less money on the favorites but the payback would be less. Taking the 3 games I mentioned in an earlier post if all 3 lost I would of lost some good money BUT if they all win I win more with the bet to win method as I am risking more to win more.

Between both methods it looks to me that you will win more(assuming you have an edge) with the bet to win method but the bet to return method is probably safer but overall profit would be less.

[dogman]

I know a very old post but does anyone remember a fixed return calculator that was put out what maybe was another forum. You could just plug in the odds and it would tell you how much to bet on the dog or favorite to get the same return..

[inmyownzone]

me personally, I play my typical unit(s) I like the long term approach

[danshan11]

I still like
bet X.XX to win 1 on faves and bet .X to win 1 on dogs.

I like to have more money on things more likely to win