Why do so many sites online advocate flat betting?

[Grind-It-Out]

Its you that's delusional flatbet and raise stakes according to the circumstances not some mathematical jest from some egghead half a century ago. I love you people who quote garbage from people who never had a cent on a game. "people who cant quantify their edge" as if you can.

1) I never said I could quantify my edge.
2) If you think math is a jest, you're set to lead a sad life of irrationality.

"flatbet and raise stakes according to the circumstances" - you mean circumstances that would give you a better chance of winning? So clearly you have some method of determining that your edge is greater than normal in certain circumstances. In that case, apology accepted. If that's not the case, then you're raising stakes just for shits and giggles, which makes you an idiot.

[BChrisB]

If I understand the whole point behind counting cards in BJ it's so that you get your money in when the probabilities are in your favor. So, if the count was not in your favor, ideally you would not bet at all because the house would have an edge over you, but if the count is in your favor you should have an edge over the house. It's not the betting system that allows you to win in BJ, it's when you bet. I've never played live BJ, so I don't know how you handle all this at the table.

When flat betting in sports, you are not betting every event. You are only betting on events where you believe you have an edge, where the "count" is in your favor, where you have +EV opportunities. If you do truely have the edge you think you have, you should end up a winner over the long term.

Thus, I do not think you have proved that flat betting is a losing strategy in general.

I've never once read any literature on card counting where the bet isn't increased when the count is in your favor. Why would sports betting be any different?

[Stocks]

Your example of comparing card counting and blackjack to sports betting would only be relevent if you had to bet every game but you dont in sports you can only bet when theres a game you like and you think you have an edge on.

As far as flat betting and kelly goes it seems like Kelly is only good if you can accurately predict your edge and I'm guessing 99.99% of people can not so why bother. The more I read about the math and what not about sports betting the more I realize that the best approach is the simplest approach.

[Inspirited]

I've never once read any literature on card counting where the bet isn't increased when the count is in your favor. Why would sports betting be any different?

In sports betting you do increase your bet when the "count" is in your favor. You bet something >0. When the "count" is not in your favor, you bet 0, which is equivalent to not betting.

[Wrecktangle]

In that case, why not advocate betting the book's minimum, if one must bet at all? The optimal bet size if one is a losing bettor is $0, but if one must bet, the second most optimal bet size is the minimum.

I agree with betting the minimum.

My entire point is: use your bankroll to enjoy the entire season. A little money on the game makes it more enjoyable so manage your BR to have fun the entire season, or multi-season if you follow more than one sport.

I'll make one other point on Blackjack and Kelly. You can exactly calculate your edge in card counting given you know what cards have been played. You cannot know this in sports betting, you will always have an estimate of your capability, and unless your are strictly following your win% you won't know what it is. Remember, people habitually overestimate their win%.

[Jive]

There is a big difference here. When playing BJ and counting cards, you can know for 100% certainty that you have an edge. You can see what cards are in your hand, and you can know exactly what cards are left in the deck... and thus you know when the odds are in your favor. Regardless of what anyone tells you, there is no way to *KNOW* you have an edge in sports, let alone the size of your edge. There are just too many variables, there are no set number of cards to count, there is no way to say "in this situation, team B will cover 57% of the time." You can do all those things when playing cards, down to the exact percentage. In sports, people are making their best determination at what their "edge" is, but it is far from exact, because never are two situations identical. How do you account for crappy referees, in game adjustments to the game plan, players who get sick the morning of a game, wind blowing field goals all over the place, in game injuries, a team making 3 errors in one inning, an unheard of player coming thru in an emergency fill in roll, or a coach having a brain fart? How do you even put a % on the chance of any of these situations arising?

Unlike blakcjack, nobody can tell you what their real edge is going into a game. It is all perceived edge, or expected edge. There are too many darn variables in sports, because it is played by a bunch of humans who are prone to err, managed by a bunch of humans that are bent towards mistakes, and officiated by a bunch of humans who constantly goof, not to mention have agendas.

Sports betting and static betting (such as on 21) are entirely different animals.

Edit: Sorry, I see Wreck pretty much said it already. Somehow I missed your last paragraph, buddy.

[PRC]

I just don't understand it. I google this stuff all the time and yet so many people claim flat betting to be a preferred method.

Can some of you advocates of flat betting state to pros to this? I honestly see nothing but cons,

Because 99% of gamblers have no idea what their edge is.

[BChrisB]

In sports betting you do increase your bet when the "count" is in your favor. You bet something >0. When the "count" is not in your favor, you bet 0, which is equivalent to not betting.

Which is flat betting by your standards?

[Inspirited]

I usually see people advocate 1% to 2% of a starting BR and then maybe after the BR is increased by a certain amount they readjust to 1-2% of this new level.

[Wrecktangle]

Thanks Jive, you said it better than I did.

[skrtelfan]

We're all essentially saying the same thing, but if you can't estimate your edge, you shouldn't be betting, period. I see the point about advising recreational bettors to bet as little as possible if they insist on betting since many rec bettors overbet their "lock picks," often to a ridiculous degree, but I don't see a lot of value in discussing what rec bettors should or shouldn't do in the tank. As I said, they really shouldn't be betting at all.

[Flying Dutchman]

We're all essentially saying the same thing, but if you can't estimate your edge, you shouldn't be betting, period. I see the point about advising recreational bettors to bet as little as possible if they insist on betting since many rec bettors overbet their "lock picks," often to a ridiculous degree, but I don't see a lot of value in discussing what rec bettors should or shouldn't do in the tank. As I said, they really shouldn't be betting at all.

If all the -EV folks leave, your "sharp" market goes to shit.

...so let's all denigrate them and run 'em off...