 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 | ||
Double Down Method
anyone ever try out the double down method?.... every time you lose you double down and bet the total amount that you're down until you win, thus bringing you back to even. I'm thinking about trying this with Sebastian's 100 star insiders. I was thinking about starting at $100. By the time I got to my sixth game, I'd be putting up $1600. I can't see him going 0-6 on insiders.....
Never tried it...I am not disciplined enough to only play 1 game per day. No need to use Sebastian's 100 star insiders. There are tons of great cappers at this forum. Best of luck.
You'll go broke doing that. Looks great on paper until the inevitable losing streak comes along and you end up betting your entire bank. Don't do it. Find games where you have a positive expectation and bet a reasonable % of your bankroll.Originally Posted by Lunds15
i use this sometimes not very often though i guess its all the same as the other system have to have bankroll but does not really matter how many bets are wagerd,its based on per day
first 2 days 2units/2 days in
next 4 days 4units/6 days in
next 3 days 6units/9 days in
next 3 days 8.5units/12 days in
next 3 days 11 units/15 days in
i can honestly say i never had more than 8 loosing days,i do not see how anyone can have 15 bad ones ouchy ouchy
15 losing streaks does happen, and when it happens, you're losing initial bet *2^15, which is about 3.3 million dollars if you start with 100. how confident are you when you lose 14 games staright and you're going to wager 1.6 million dollars on some game?
no its not exactly a double up system ,for the gamblers sake betting only one bet per day if you run the entire 15 days it costs $88 its more of trying to recover something than loosing everything..
thats about it
i do this sort of thing sometimes. i start with a certain amount and if i t goes away i stop playin. instead of doubling though i play the other system of combining the previous two bets. example 20, 30, 50, 80, 130, 210, 340. the other thing i do is "buy a little insurance" by putting the opposite of my play on a 3 team parley. So, if i am on the 80 dollar play i will play a 12 dollar parley on the opponent of my play with two other plays i like. if the 80 wins i jump back down to the 30. if the 80 loses and the insurance wins ,then i can play the 80 again. the problem is that you will get nervous when you get to the larger bets, and this may take days off of your life...........
that is fib sequence. still get burried if you hit a bad streak. you're only guranteed on one leg of the parlay...your insurance has 25% chance of paying off.
Last edited by pico; 02-05-08 at 02:55 AM.
bad streak still applys. i think you're saying you'll be betting like a large set of games with flat betting during a period of time, and you have a bad week or couple of days, you'll increase you flat bet size during the next period.
better than double up, but i wish you don't hit a cold month...it can happen in baseball or basketball.
Double down will eventually wipe you out. If you have a +Ev tout, you would be better off to use Kelly instead ...if you value your bankroll.
Not to mention the fact that you will hit the book's limit at some point. Terrible, teribble idea.
There are no guarenteed systems that will win if you can't pick winners. If you pick more losers that winners, you will never win in the long run no matter what you try. If you are forunate enough to be a winning handicapper, just stick with Kelly (Ganch's preference) or percent of bankroll (my preference) and let the percentages work for you. Don't look for a get rich fast scheme because there is none that works.
It's known as chasing. There are chases that work, but they are based on a set of very specific angles, and there has to be a preset limit for how deep the chase goes. I would never do anything beyond a four deep chase.
DH,
I know what you are saying, but even just a 4-deep chase that goes 0-4 at -110 each loses about 18.45 units (chasing to win one unit). You would need one helluva winning percentage on the chase in the long run to overcome that.
I used the Martingale system to fade a tout for about 3 months. Why did I stop? They got hot for 6 games in a row. Try putting down that 7th bet when it's the last of your earnings from the system.
I didn't have the stomach nor the roll for it. If you're going to Martingale - you have to be able to sustain (IMO) up to 9 or 10 losses in a row, and even then, you're eventually going to be wiped out.
It is a roller coaster, for sure. I like using that system for the NFL - take one team and then stop at week 12 or whenever they cover after that (hopefully they will). It's got to be a team with promise, though, that flys under the radar.
I only use this system when betting against New England Patriots. If you had used it on their last 8 games you could have been a millionaire by now.
I also would be highly skeptical towards chasing methods, but have come across one or two in MLB that work.
Agreed. This double down sounds like glorified chasing to me.
It would only work if it is +ev in the first place, in which case you'd be better off quantifying your edge and betting Kelly.I also would be highly skeptical towards chasing methods, but have come across one or two in MLB that work.
If you believe in Kelly.
Kelly is a beautiful theory. With an equally remarkable disconnect with reality. Kelly does not factor in extreme streaks. (In theory it does, but it fails to mention that you'll be betting with peanuts from thereon). Kelly proponents will suggest that you didn't calculate your edge correctly if you experience a long losing streak. Right... What they really do is deny the existence of streaks. Finally, after a long debate, they may admit that you could indeed be betting with pennies if you bet full Kelly.
A key difference with Kelly. When I do chase my unit size goes down. This is because I don't want to be victimized by a long losing streak, the chance of which increases when you significantly increase your number of bets. Kelly's unit size is based on maximum profit.
Last edited by Dark Horse; 02-05-08 at 12:58 PM.
So in addition to hating money, you fundamentally don't understand Kelly. It doesn't maximize profit, it maximizes bankroll growth.
Kelly is an excellent way to grow your bankroll, provided you are a +Ev player. Doubling up will kill all players in time, the +Ev ones included.
Even the Kelly better can bet his bankroll to "peanuts"(virtual bankruptcy) as DH says, but the #1 cause of that is the player overstating his edge--thereby betting too much.
Perhaps the best advantage of Kelly is that you increase your bets when winning, as opposed to doubling up your losers.
It is a bad idea to double each time. That's the quickest way I know of to go broke.
This also holds true for guys like me that bet fixed % of BR.
Yes, but you are still betting sub-optimally. If full-Kelly is too much for you, it would still be better to bet some fraction of Kelly.This also holds true for guys like me that bet fixed % of BR.
Not necessarily, if the edge is equal for all bets then betting bankroll percentage IS Kelly-betting. Whether your call it full-Kelly or fractional Kelly depends only on what the assumed edge is.
Just to clarify ... assuming uniform edges across bet candidates then betting to win a fixed percentage of bankroll is (more or less) consistent with n-Kelly, but risking a fixed percentage of bankroll is not.
Enough already.
Enough of what? Math?Enough already.
If you want to split hairs about increasing bankroll percentage or increasing profit, go right ahead.
My argument against Kelly, as already mentioned, is based on streaks.
May you have long ones.
Mathematicians often have a wonderful disconnect from reality. The perfect theory works on the chess board, and it works in the test tube. But it doesn't work so perfectly in reality. Why not? Because their whole approach was based on isolation from outside elements. Streaks are a reality. Where are they in the Kelly theory?
That's not splitting hairs at all and once again indicates you fundamentally don't understand Kelly.
As for streaks, since this is supposed to be a serious forum I'm hoping that you don't think things like being "hot" exist.
Are you suggesting that streaks don't exist, or merely admitting to your ignorance of them?
Could you clarify what you mean by streaks existing? What I am suggesting is that if you flip a coin (and we know for a fact that it is not a loaded coin) 10 times in a row and the first 9 are heads, the tenth flip is exactly 50% to land on heads.
Come on guys, let's all try to keep it civil and on-topic.
Winning and losing streaks happen. There's no denying that. This is true whether you're betting on sports, playing rock-paper-scissors, or trying to pick up women at a bar.
DH, you frequently bring up your "streak criticism" of Kelly but I've never really been clear as to the spcifics of this argument. Perhaps you could clarify?
Reply With Quote
