[Grind-It-Out]

Chasing is for donkeys. If you're chasing (even in a limited way), you probably don't understand the basics of conditional probability.

Before a series begins, my analysis may indicate that the odds are very good (X) that Team A won't get swept. But if they lose the first game, my estimate of X MUST CHANGE (it has to go down). Chasers don't understand that -- they think X is fixed and therefore implicitly assume that, since Team A in fact lost the first game, they must now have a better chance than before of winning the next game. That's WRONG, plain and simple.

In the long run (which is all that matters), chasing is a poor strategy.

I always thought people just chased because they either had no self control, or because they were working with a limited bankroll and were willing to accept the added risk. If people think that landing on Tails on the first flip means that Heads now has a 75% chance of occurring on the second flip, God help them lol.

[Ruifgalmeida]

just 3 rules.
Never bet more that 1% of BR on a single bet
Never more that 10% on the line in a single day.
And no less that 5% value(added this one a short while ago).

[BeatingBaseball]

Chasing is for donkeys. If you're chasing (even in a limited way), you probably don't understand the basics of conditional probability.

Before a series begins, my analysis may indicate that the odds are very good (X) that Team A won't get swept. But if they lose the first game, my estimate of X MUST CHANGE (it has to go down). Chasers don't understand that -- they think X is fixed and therefore implicitly assume that, since Team A in fact lost the first game, they must now have a better chance than before of winning the next game. That's WRONG, plain and simple.

In the long run (which is all that matters), chasing is a poor strategy.

I certainly appreciate what you're saying. Maybe its just a matter of semantics or definition. I agree with you that chasing, as generally defined and in the sense you describe, is for donkeys. I am in no way an advocate of chasing in that sense. I do not agree, however, that the MLB series strategy I describe falls in that category.

Of course I realize that X changes after a loss in game 1, but - unlike a dice table where the immutable math is the sole consideration and the next roll is in no way influenced by the last - team dynamics in baseball are much more than pure math. There are a great many more factors influencing X in a baseball series than on a dice table and ideally those factors were part of the original analysis. If the original call of no sweep was a good one and +ev to begin with, I expect my follow up play to be +ev as well - hopefully even more so if my assessment of the relative team/pitching dynamic holds up and proves more correct than that of the market.

Good Luck in the 2nd half.

[Grind-It-Out]

just 3 rules.
Never bet more that 1% of BR on a single bet
Never more that 10% on the line in a single day.
And no less that 5% value(added this one a short while ago).

I disagree with all 3.

1) Your bet size should be directly related to the expected growth of the bet. If you have a 99% chance of winning a +100 bet, you sure as hell better put more than 1% of your bankroll down. The only thing worse than betting too much on one bet is not betting enough.

2) Bets are a continuous series, and are not related to each other by day, week, month, etc (unless betting two sides of the same game). While Kelly does tell us to bet slightly less when we have multiple bets in play, it certainly shouldn't be restricted to a fixed amount, especially one as low as 10%.

3) You should be playing EVERY game where you have ANY value above 0%. This is where your incorrect implementation of rule 1 hurts you further. Relatively, these are not great bets, but every bet that is +EV adds up. If you knew how to calculate the proper amount to bet when you had a 15% edge, then you too would understand how to calculate the amount for a 0.05% edge. Granted, you may be betting less than 0.01% of your bankroll, but the bet still should be placed.

[thebestthereis]

i lick the piss off the seat then go to the urinal to piss; i will piss more and spend more time at the urinal because i just put more piss in me. more piss in, more piss out. i am no hydrologist but it seems pretty simple.

[bztips]

I certainly appreciate what you're saying. Maybe its just a matter of semantics or definition. I agree with you that chasing, as generally defined and in the sense you describe, is for donkeys. I am in no way an advocate of chasing in that sense. I do not agree, however, that the MLB series strategy I describe falls in that category.

Of course I realize that X changes after a loss in game 1, but - unlike a dice table where the immutable math is the sole consideration and the next roll is in no way influenced by the last - team dynamics in baseball are much more than pure math. There are a great many more factors influencing X in a baseball series than on a dice table and ideally those factors were part of the original analysis. If the original call of no sweep was a good one and +ev to begin with, I expect my follow up play to be +ev as well - hopefully even more so if my assessment of the relative team/pitching dynamic holds up and proves more correct than that of the market.

Good Luck in the 2nd half.

BB,
Unless you have some reason to believe that a loss in Game #1 has some actual positive influence on winning Game #2 (which is highly unlikely), then you don't have any justification for INCREASING your bet size on #2, which is what chasing tells you to do.

[Grind-It-Out]

BB,
Unless you have some reason to believe that a loss in Game #1 has some actual positive influence on winning Game #2 (which is highly unlikely), then you don't have any justification for INCREASING your bet size on #2, which is what chasing tells you to do.

You're assuming a goal of maximizing long-term success. For whatever reason, that is not everyone's goal.

[bztips]

I disagree with all 3.

1) Your bet size should be directly related to the expected growth of the bet. If you have a 99% chance of winning a +100 bet, you sure as hell better put more than 1% of your bankroll down. The only thing worse than betting too much on one bet is not betting enough.

2) Bets are a continuous series, and are not related to each other by day, week, month, etc (unless betting two sides of the same game). While Kelly does tell us to bet slightly less when we have multiple bets in play, it certainly shouldn't be restricted to a fixed amount, especially one as low as 10%.

3) You should be playing EVERY game where you have ANY value above 0%. This is where your incorrect implementation of rule 1 hurts you further. Relatively, these are not great bets, but every bet that is +EV adds up. If you knew how to calculate the proper amount to bet when you had a 15% edge, then you too would understand how to calculate the amount for a 0.05% edge. Granted, you may be betting less than 0.01% of your bankroll, but the bet still should be placed.

Grind
Regarding #3 it all depends on how confident you are in your edge. Depending on the event being wagered, most people don't have enough information to be able to compute a variance around their +EV calculation, but that doesn't mean that it's zero. If I have a model that gives me a point estimate of a +0.1% edge but I'm not very confident that it's exactly 0.1%, then to my mind I might well think about not betting. With limited information, using some minimum rule (only bet events with +5% EV or better) may well be a reasonable strategy for maximizing long-term BR growth.

[Grind-It-Out]

Grind
Regarding #3 it all depends on how confident you are in your edge. Depending on the event being wagered, most people don't have enough information to be able to compute a variance around their +EV calculation, but that doesn't mean that it's zero. If I have a model that gives me a point estimate of a +0.1% edge but I'm not very confident that it's exactly 0.1%, then to my mind I might well think about not betting. With limited information, using some minimum rule (only bet events with +5% EV or better) may well be a reasonable strategy for maximizing long-term BR growth.

Very true, but then we're getting into Perceived Edge vs Actual Edge. The original poster said not to bet anything with an edge of less than 5%. In reality, it should have been more like "Don't bet anything where your perceived edge is less than one standard deviation above zero" or something to that effect. Perhaps I should have assumed that he meant perceived edge though, as it's impossible to calculate actual edge.

[BeatingBaseball]

BB,
Unless you have some reason to believe that a loss in Game #1 has some actual positive influence on winning Game #2 (which is highly unlikely), then you don't have any justification for INCREASING your bet size on #2, which is what chasing tells you to do.

Actually - given a team, pitching staff and leadership that has balls, professional pride and more to play for, the type of team I would put this play on in the first place - that's exactly what I believe. Especially vs a lesser team where complacency often operates and vs a public market which insufficiently apprectiates and under prices that dynamic. But that's just me.

[SolidDala]

BB,
Unless you have some reason to believe that a loss in Game #1 has some actual positive influence on winning Game #2 (which is highly unlikely), then you don't have any justification for INCREASING your bet size on #2, which is what chasing tells you to do.

I believe that the outcome in game one reflects outcome in game two. If I bet team A to win first game and win this, I usually not touch team A for next game.

Furthermore in a more general discussion: Since I don't know if a bet is +EV at +130 but not at +115 I relay much on capping, and when people talk about max 10% per day, they are so wrong - If I have 10% for the early games, should I just skip the late plays then, of course not. When thinking about it, its not about one day, its about having 10% in motion at one time max, when this is session ends, a new session.

For tonight Rockies are at +106, I know the no-vig probability and the calculations for that, but what I do not know is if rockies still is +ev at -110... I am therefor more depending on money management and capping...

[Ruifgalmeida]

grind it out let me tell you about your coments about ,I think that kelly criteria is suicide, I think all your ideas are suicide, let me just tell you about murphys law that I live by it "anything that can go wrong, will go wrong". That day will come sonner or later, the diference is that- I will lose 10% of my BR you will lose 100%

[Grind-It-Out]

I think that kelly criteria is suicide, I think all your ideas are suicide, let me just tell you about murphys law that I live by it "anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. That they will come sonner or later, the diference is that- I will lose 10% of my BR you will lose 100%.

If you don't understand why the Kelly Criterion is perfect, then you will never be a successful sports bettor. In order to be successful long term, you HAVE to understand the basics of mathematics, and the Kelly Criterion is PROVEN to maximize long term bankroll growth.

It's not the KC that gets people into trouble, it's the inability of the person using KC to correctly estimate winning probability. That's why you should always error on the side of underestimating win probability.

You should never bet a game unless it is +EV (except for the case of hedging, or buying with the intent to hedge, but that's a different story for a different thread). Therefore, the difference is strategies doesn't lead to "I will lose 10% of my BR you will lose 100%," it leads to "you will have a 5% ROI and I will have a 400% ROI."

[Maverick22]

If you don't understand why the Kelly Criterion is perfect, then you will never be a successful sports bettor. In order to be successful long term, you HAVE to understand the basics of mathematics, and the Kelly Criterion is PROVEN to maximize long term bankroll growth.

It's not the KC that gets people into trouble, it's the inability of the person using KC to correctly estimate winning probability. That's why you should always error on the side of underestimating win probability.

You should never bet a game unless it is +EV (except for the case of hedging, or buying with the intent to hedge, but that's a different story for a different thread). Therefore, the difference is strategies doesn't lead to "I will lose 10% of my BR you will lose 100%," it leads to "you will have a 5% ROI and I will have a 400% ROI."

Ruifgalmeida = PWNT

[Ruifgalmeida]

I do understand kelly, I already use it, I still call it suicide

[Ruifgalmeida]

Ruifgalmeida = PWNT

Maverick= eat shit

[Maverick22]

Maverick= eat shit

Dont be mad at you b/c he schooled you...

[Grind-It-Out]

I do understand kelly, I already use it, I still call it suicide

This statement clearly proves that you DON'T understand it. If implemented properly, it isn't suicide, it's homicide, of the bookies.

Food for thought: if you lose using Kelly, then you aren't actually using Kelly.

[Grind-It-Out]

Dont be mad at you b/c he schooled you...

Nice.

"Eat shit" = I can't make an actual argument so I'll just respond like a 12 year old.

[Ruifgalmeida]

kelly can turn your bankroll of 100 into 1 in a few bets, martingale can do that just fine.
I do understand Kelly, never said it doesnt work, just saing it is to risky and I work very hard for my bankroll to lose a chunk of it in a few bets.

[Ruifgalmeida]

Nice.

"Eat shit" = I can't make an actual argument so I'll just respond like a 12 year old.

I thought that you where cool

[Grind-It-Out]

I thought that you where cool

Haha, my bad. I try to be, but my love of math gets me in trouble sometimes

[Grind-It-Out]

kelly can turn your bankroll of 100 into 1 in a few bets, martingale can do that just fine.
I do understand Kelly, never said it doesnt work, just saing it is to risky and I work very hard for my bankroll to lose a chunk of it in a few bets.

No way Jose.

Let's assume -110 lines and a 60% win probability (which is what some people estimate, but people VERY rarely have that much of an edge.

In this case, KC recommends betting 16%. so, it would take 1 = 100 * (1 - .16)^x = over 26 losses in a row to get down to $1

If you truly did have a 60% chance of winning, that would only happen
.0000000000450359963% of the time

[Ruifgalmeida]

Haha, my bad. I try to be, but my love of math gets me in trouble sometimes

we cool , I dont argue with math guys again, I will go to other part of the forum where math is not a issue.

[Ruifgalmeida]

.0000000000450359963% of the time. Ok that is realy low, no argument there.
But I have to go again to murphy`s law "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" I know it is not a math argument but believe this statement is the reason that bookies make so much money.

[Grind-It-Out]

.0000000000450359963% of the time. Ok that is realy low, no argument there.
But I have to go again to murphy`s law "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" I know it is not a math argument but believe this statement is the reason that bookies make so much money.

I won't get into arguing that law, lol, but I don't think that's why at least the majority of losers are losers.

I think most people lose because they chase. They win 4 or 5 in a row, are happy and up money, then they lose 1 in the 9th inning and get all bent out of shape and try to get it all back in one night. And then even if they win, they think "well I should be up 2 games, not break even".

If people didn't constantly live in a "what if" or "i should be" state of mind, they'd be okay in my opinion.

And I'm just as guilty as the next guy.

[crownontheground]

My only rule: Cash rules everything around me. Get the green. Dollar dollar bill y'all.

[Sawyer]

I don't suggest Kelly kamikaze criterion.. Flat staking is the way to go!

[tachi]

I don't suggest Kelly kamikaze criterion.. Flat staking is the way to go!

full Kelly is really kamikadze.If you have a big value on a particular bet,you have to bet big % of your bankroll.

In long run,the bankrupt is inevitable.

But if you "create" a new bank, in long run you should have bigger profits.

Half Kelly is also dangerous.

[Thremp]

The people who have arguments against Kelly in favor of arbitrary systems have issues with 1) money 2) math.

[Grind-It-Out]

full Kelly is really kamikadze.If you have a big value on a particular bet,you have to bet big % of your bankroll.

In long run,the bankrupt is inevitable.

But if you "create" a new bank, in long run you should have bigger profits.

Half Kelly is also dangerous.

WTF don't you people understand. It's mathematically PROVEN!

[TakeIt]

WTF don't you people understand. It's mathematically PROVEN!

what's mathematically proven? that it works, or it doesn't work. lots of people have gone broke using full kelly (or even half kelly). kelly puts way too much money at risk.

[dialup_king]

most sharps don't use full kelly. they use fractional kelly

[Thremp]

what's mathematically proven? that it works, or it doesn't work. lots of people have gone broke using full kelly (or even half kelly). kelly puts way too much money at risk.

There has never been a person to go broke using full Kelly. Even if you overestimate your edge, you can't even go broke.

[Grind-It-Out]

what's mathematically proven? that it works, or it doesn't work. lots of people have gone broke using full kelly (or even half kelly). kelly puts way too much money at risk.

Nobody has ever gone broke using Kelly. In fact, it's nearly impossible to do so. If people claim to have done so, it's simply because they overestimated their winning %, which is not Kelly's fault.