Bankroll

**Johnny 55** · 06-02-10, 09:09 AM

If you use the search feature, all your questions will be answered.

**cala56** · 06-02-10, 09:28 AM

I bet 2% in each game. Try it is the best moneymangement

**byronbb** · 06-03-10, 02:21 AM

After flat betting to win 1% of my roll for the 1st 300 bets or so, while winning, it was a GRIND. So the Kelly Criterion came to the rescue and profit has accelerated nicely. Plus it's way more fun.

**Hybris** · 06-03-10, 05:17 AM

There is no magic number, wont go full Kelly as a beginner since you have to estimate your value...takes som time to learn.

**Sawyer** · 06-03-10, 06:47 AM

I don't suggest Kelly Kamikaze Criterion

**The Investor** · 06-03-10, 08:29 AM

flat bet 2% and readjust as bankroll grows by 25%

1000 bankroll, bet 20

1250 bankroll, bet 25

then proceed forever.

**Wrecktangle** · 06-04-10, 08:05 AM

Seems we get another new thread on this every month or so. If you search back thru the threads you'll see a lot on money management.

Unless you are a Nazi with your records, and do Bayesian stat problems instead of crossword puzzles, you have no business using Full Kelly, or larger fractional Kelly.

I recommend century system, essentially 1% of bankroll. Even if you can pick like JJGold, you will remain in the game most if not all of the season.

**Thremp** · 06-04-10, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Sawyer

I don't suggest Kelly Kamikaze Criterion

This is because you don't understand the implications of it. Or hate money.

**durito** · 06-04-10, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Sawyer

I don't suggest Kelly Kamikaze Criterion

You also don't understand the most basic fundamentals of gambling.

**carlakunt** · 06-04-10, 09:01 AM

1-2% of your bankroll on each game
Kelly is the best

**Thomas_Garber** · 06-04-10, 02:01 PM

From: http://www.bettingresource.com/bettingrisks.html

Sports Betting RisksEvery time a punter places a bet, he stakes a small proportion of his bankroll, the size of which may or may not vary, according to the punter's preferences and judgements about staking. Obviously, the smaller the stake as a proportion of the total bankroll, the less significant the impact after either a win or a loss. In terms of risk management, smaller stakes involve less risk of losing the bankroll entirely. For a punter with an edge over the bookmaker, the chances of ever losing it entirely are diminished. For a punter without one, that misfortune will unfortunately be unavoidable, but it will not come around as quickly. In terms of growing the bankroll, smaller stakes will naturally contribute smaller profits, and growth, if a betting edge is accessible, will take longer.

Put frankly, the larger the size of the betting stakes as a proportion of the bankroll, the greater the chance of "bankruptcy" if things go wrong. Five consecutive losing bets at £20 each, for example, would eradicate a bank of £100. If the stakes had instead been £5, the punter could have afforded another 15 losses before bankruptcy. To most punters, this will seem intuitively obvious, yet it is surprising how many still insist on using stake sizes that a proper risk assessment would consider to be entirely unacceptable.

Despite the greater Vigorish (vig or juice), many punters like to increase the number of selections to a wager, attracted by the higher returns. The chances of winning a double, treble or accumulator bet, however, will always be less than for the individual selections which make them. It is not initially apparent, therefore, whether the longer-term return will be superior to singles, and perhaps more importantly, how the longer-term risks will compare. Much will depend upon the edge that a punter can on average achieve for his selections and the preferred size of his stakes.

Where the punter fails to gain an edge, both singles and doubles lose money, but the doubles will always lose more, since their disadvantage is the square of that for the two singles considered separately. Conversely, the performance of a punter with an edge over the bookmaker will be superior for doubles than for singles. For singles, profit is proportional to the margin of success, and increases linearly as the prediction rate improves. For doubles, however, profit is proportional to the square of prediction success, and consequently increases faster for the same improvement in prediction rate.

Where a punter has considerable confidence that he has achieved an edge over the bookmaker's odds, doubles are theoretically preferable to singles. By the same token, trebles will perform better still, with profit proportional to the cube of prediction success. As a general rule, the size of expected betting return will be proportional to the nth power of the betting edge, where n is the number of selections in an accumulator, assuming that each selection has the same edge.

A punter should be cautious, however, before imagining that there are limitless profits to be won simply by enlarging the accumulator. Firstly, one must ensure that an edge has been secured for every part of the accumulator bet. Where this is not the case, the increased vig will begin to quickly conspire against the punter, eating into the expected return. Secondly, and more significantly, however, at greater odds, each bet is more likely to lose, regardless of the greater available returns. To be able to benefit from these superior returns, a punter must stake the same for his double, treble, or accumulator as he would for a single. The same is true for higher-priced singles - a multiple bet is really just like a single wager at longer odds, although the vig will be larger. The downside to this strategy will be a considerable increase in bankruptcy risk because of the larger and more frequent losing runs.

Clearly, one way to limit risk exposure is to reduce the size of the stakes on multiple bets, or for that matter, on higher priced singles. Unfortunately, this also reduces the potential to gain at the same time. There always exists a trade-off between the impulse to achieve higher profits and the necessity to control risk. Herein lies the essence of gambling. Risk takers will win more in the short term, but must accept the greater prospect of severe misfortune. Risk avoiders must embrace a slower rate of return, but can potentially look forward to a longer betting "career". Whilst there is really no right or wrong way to bet, it may be argued that proactive risk management offers greater long-term security for a fixed odds sports bettor.

**Thomas_Garber** · 06-04-10, 02:02 PM

Also Read these articles:

- Money Managment & Bankroll Management Strategy
- Recommended Sportsbooks
- Sports Betting Scams & Scamdicappers
- Value Betting: Gaining an Edge over the Bookie
- Betting Risks
- The Over-round or Vigorish (vig or juice)

**skrtelfan** · 06-04-10, 07:31 PM

Betting full Kelly is almost certainly reckless, but your risk tolerance should also depend on the size of your bankroll and how replaceable it is.

**Wrecktangle** · 06-05-10, 07:22 AM

Look, Full Kelly is mathematically provable as the optimal way to manage your bankroll. Dr Kelly showed this in the 50s while working for Ma Bell.

Where everyone fails while using it is: understanding the conditional win% even within one sport. This can vary according to part of the season, injuries, management and coaching environment, team rest, weather, etc. If you are using a win% across multiple sports (totals and sides in one sport, is really two sports), you are making a mistake.

I know of no one who stays on top of all this and then gets into the Bayesian aspect of it. Until you do this, you will not know your true win %, and you are setting yourself up for an eventual BR crash. It is perhaps not as bad as the Progressive betting systems, but it can get close.

if you do not keep extremely accurate records, you cannot use Kelly.
If you do not understand your conditionals, you cannot use Kelly.
If you do not understand Bayesian Statistics, you cannot use Kelly.

These three conditional statements rule out 99.99% of all bettors.

So given this, almost everyone is better off using flat betting, or a very small fractional Kelly. Otherwise you risk wiping out the bulk of your BR before the end of the season.

**DRZ** · 06-05-10, 11:39 AM

3-5% each game, increase/decrease bet size as your bankrolls changes

**NYER5680** · 06-05-10, 12:05 PM

As mentioned above use 2%, and work very hard

**cro** · 06-05-10, 12:07 PM

atleast 5-7%
you will get bored and will be sick of the slow ass progress with anything less even if you are good

unless you have a 100k + bankroll then 2% might be more interesting

**Leverage** · 06-07-10, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Wrecktangle

Look, Full Kelly is mathematically provable as the optimal way to manage your bankroll. Dr Kelly showed this in the 50s while working for Ma Bell.

Where everyone fails while using it is: understanding the conditional win% even within one sport. This can vary according to part of the season, injuries, management and coaching environment, team rest, weather, etc. If you are using a win% across multiple sports (totals and sides in one sport, is really two sports), you are making a mistake.

I know of no one who stays on top of all this and then gets into the Bayesian aspect of it. Until you do this, you will not know your true win %, and you are setting yourself up for an eventual BR crash. It is perhaps not as bad as the Progressive betting systems, but it can get close.

if you do not keep extremely accurate records, you cannot use Kelly.
If you do not understand your conditionals, you cannot use Kelly.
If you do not understand Bayesian Statistics, you cannot use Kelly.

These three conditional statements rule out 99.99% of all bettors.

So given this, almost everyone is better off using flat betting, or a very small fractional Kelly. Otherwise you risk wiping out the bulk of your BR before the end of the season.