Average Stake as % of Bankroll?

[ProphetofProfit]

Does anyone have any advice and/or want to share how much there are betting? As a percentage of bankroll, not interested in dollar amounts. I'm messing around with monte carlo simulations in Excel and plotting graphs to get an idea of the downswings that will occur, and conclude that full kelly will give me a heart attack. In fact, with average odds of 1.95 and win percentage of 53.5 for 4.3% ROI:

Full kelly (4.6% per bet) is absolutely mental to look at, let alone live through
Half kelly (2.3%) still has some terrible downswings.

So I think I'm going to settle around 1.5% on average, and maybe cap my high value bets at 2% or something similar. Is this a reasonable approach? I can't really afford gamblers ruin because building my bankroll bank up again after that will involve long hard graft at a proper job, so I need to be cautious.

And ignore middling/artibrage if you want to respond to the bet size question.

[ProphetofProfit]

I also have up to 40 simulataneous wagers open on a weekend because of the football calendar, so I guess I have to be extra cautious.

[Ra77er]

Kelly IF you can quantify your edge is the optimal staking amount period. Most utilize fractional kelly to reduce risk/overbetting. If you have no clue what your edge is then simply 1-2% of your bankroll per play would be optimal. You'll do better on average results flat betting.

[probettor1]

You shoud use flat betting only if you are a loser and wants to lose your money in a slow fashion. If you knew what you are doing you will never use fat betting except if you bet only a few bets a year with a similar edge. But if you bet many games the edge will be very different and the percent to bet should be the different.

[wiffle]

if you are a loser, then you should def bet kelly

[Pot luck]

I bet a similar volume on soccer, sometime more when it's busy, and I have a better ROI. I bet 1%, occasionally 2%. I cant remember what the Kelly is for 40 simultaneous wagers but you wont go too far wrong around 1%.

[GunShard]

People new to capping should start at 1%.

[wantitall4moi]

These are always loaded questions. because even though it is a percentage it still depends on bankroll size. if you start out with 50K and bet 1% per play (which seems safe) and you start out 0-10 your down to 40K, and have lost half your BR after a day (maybe 2) of betting. Then you have to lower your bet size due to your BR being 10% less.

Thats why I always laugh at Kelly guys. Because Kelly assumes way too much. It is just another make believe system that some tout somewhere thought would make his money management scheme sound legit. Kelly only works in a vacuum, and even that is not fully proven. But only when you know everything, the probability and the ROI. Ask a guy who bets full kelly how losing 10-12 in a row tastes. And if youre gambling full time losing 10 or even more games in a row will happen. But I digress.

It still depends on your threshold and ultimately your first series of bets. Reality doesnt always follow theory. But if you can win the right amount of games versus your expectation then it all works out.

The first thing you have to do is figure out how you will handle losing streaks that come, and how you go forward after they occur. If you do lose 10% of your bankroll on any given day is that enough to lower bet size, and thus increase the need to be even more successful just to catch up? Or do you keep the same bet size (which is an increased BR %) and push through it hoping the streak ends? Both sides of that have valid reason to do it and not to do it. But ultimately it will come down to your actual ability to win. If you are good enough to win it will eventually even out. If you are only winning due to getting the 'perfect' number every time, and thus simply beating the so called market, then you will eventually go broke no matter how you bet. Because you arent going to get the edge every time you bet. The trick is to maximize winners and minimize losers. But that isnt the only thing. You still have to recognize what is good and what is bad. That takes a lot of things.

Long and convoluted answer to be sure, because there really isnt one. I used 1% for the first few years. Then after I had built my bankroll up and was surviving I was betting a little more than 1.5%, on one way action anyway.

But if you are surviving on this bankroll and looking to take a 'paycheck' out of it to pay your living expenses you have to factor that in as well, and that is when it gets really complicated. But if that is the case you almost have to work backwards. Which is a bad plan, but again, depending on BR size it might be a necessary evil.

[Pancho sanza]

These are always loaded questions. because even though it is a percentage it still depends on bankroll size. if you start out with 50K and bet 1% per play (which seems safe) and you start out 0-10 your down to 40K, and have lost half your BR after a day (maybe 2) of betting. Then you have to lower your bet size due to your BR being 10% less.

Thats why I always laugh at Kelly guys. Because Kelly assumes way too much. It is just another make believe system that some tout somewhere thought would make his money management scheme sound legit. Kelly only works in a vacuum, and even that is not fully proven. But only when you know everything, the probability and the ROI. Ask a guy who bets full kelly how losing 10-12 in a row tastes. And if youre gambling full time losing 10 or even more games in a row will happen. But I digress.

It still depends on your threshold and ultimately your first series of bets. Reality doesnt always follow theory. But if you can win the right amount of games versus your expectation then it all works out.

The first thing you have to do is figure out how you will handle losing streaks that come, and how you go forward after they occur. If you do lose 10% of your bankroll on any given day is that enough to lower bet size, and thus increase the need to be even more successful just to catch up? Or do you keep the same bet size (which is an increased BR %) and push through it hoping the streak ends? Both sides of that have valid reason to do it and not to do it. But ultimately it will come down to your actual ability to win. If you are good enough to win it will eventually even out. If you are only winning due to getting the 'perfect' number every time, and thus simply beating the so called market, then you will eventually go broke no matter how you bet. Because you arent going to get the edge every time you bet. The trick is to maximize winners and minimize losers. But that isnt the only thing. You still have to recognize what is good and what is bad. That takes a lot of things.

Long and convoluted answer to be sure, because there really isnt one. I used 1% for the first few years. Then after I had built my bankroll up and was surviving I was betting a little more than 1.5%, on one way action anyway.

But if you are surviving on this bankroll and looking to take a 'paycheck' out of it to pay your living expenses you have to factor that in as well, and that is when it gets really complicated. But if that is the case you almost have to work backwards. Which is a bad plan, but again, depending on BR size it might be a necessary evil.

Good lord, not you again.

[Stocks]

I like 4% per bet risk amount but I bet fewer games 1-3 per day. If I were to bet more games I would go down to 2.5% per bet and if betting a lot of games 1-2%

[wiffle]

These are always loaded questions. because even though it is a percentage it still depends on bankroll size. if you start out with 50K and bet 1% per play (which seems safe) and you start out 0-10 your down to 40K, and have lost half your BR after a day (maybe 2) of betting. Then you have to lower your bet size due to your BR being 10% less.

Thats why I always laugh at Kelly guys. Because Kelly assumes way too much. It is just another make believe system that some tout somewhere thought would make his money management scheme sound legit. Kelly only works in a vacuum, and even that is not fully proven. But only when you know everything, the probability and the ROI. Ask a guy who bets full kelly how losing 10-12 in a row tastes. And if youre gambling full time losing 10 or even more games in a row will happen. But I digress.

It still depends on your threshold and ultimately your first series of bets. Reality doesnt always follow theory. But if you can win the right amount of games versus your expectation then it all works out.

The first thing you have to do is figure out how you will handle losing streaks that come, and how you go forward after they occur. If you do lose 10% of your bankroll on any given day is that enough to lower bet size, and thus increase the need to be even more successful just to catch up? Or do you keep the same bet size (which is an increased BR %) and push through it hoping the streak ends? Both sides of that have valid reason to do it and not to do it. But ultimately it will come down to your actual ability to win. If you are good enough to win it will eventually even out. If you are only winning due to getting the 'perfect' number every time, and thus simply beating the so called market, then you will eventually go broke no matter how you bet. Because you arent going to get the edge every time you bet. The trick is to maximize winners and minimize losers. But that isnt the only thing. You still have to recognize what is good and what is bad. That takes a lot of things.

Long and convoluted answer to be sure, because there really isnt one. I used 1% for the first few years. Then after I had built my bankroll up and was surviving I was betting a little more than 1.5%, on one way action anyway.

But if you are surviving on this bankroll and looking to take a 'paycheck' out of it to pay your living expenses you have to factor that in as well, and that is when it gets really complicated. But if that is the case you almost have to work backwards. Which is a bad plan, but again, depending on BR size it might be a necessary evil.

lollercoaster

[That Foreign Guy]

These are always loaded questions. because even though it is a percentage it still depends on bankroll size. if you start out with 50K and bet 1% per play (which seems safe) and you start out 0-10 your down to 40K, and have lost half your BR after a day (maybe 2) of betting. Then you have to lower your bet size due to your BR being 10% less. Thats why I always laugh at Kelly guys. Because Kelly assumes way too much. It is just another make believe system that some tout somewhere thought would make his money management scheme sound legit. Kelly only works in a vacuum, and even that is not fully proven. But only when you know everything, the probability and the ROI. Ask a guy who bets full kelly how losing 10-12 in a row tastes. And if youre gambling full time losing 10 or even more games in a row will happen. But I digress. It still depends on your threshold and ultimately your first series of bets. Reality doesnt always follow theory. But if you can win the right amount of games versus your expectation then it all works out. The first thing you have to do is figure out how you will handle losing streaks that come, and how you go forward after they occur. If you do lose 10% of your bankroll on any given day is that enough to lower bet size, and thus increase the need to be even more successful just to catch up? Or do you keep the same bet size (which is an increased BR %) and push through it hoping the streak ends? Both sides of that have valid reason to do it and not to do it. But ultimately it will come down to your actual ability to win. If you are good enough to win it will eventually even out. If you are only winning due to getting the 'perfect' number every time, and thus simply beating the so called market, then you will eventually go broke no matter how you bet. Because you arent going to get the edge every time you bet. The trick is to maximize winners and minimize losers. But that isnt the only thing. You still have to recognize what is good and what is bad. That takes a lot of things. Long and convoluted answer to be sure, because there really isnt one. I used 1% for the first few years. Then after I had built my bankroll up and was surviving I was betting a little more than 1.5%, on one way action anyway. But if you are surviving on this bankroll and looking to take a 'paycheck' out of it to pay your living expenses you have to factor that in as well, and that is when it gets really complicated. But if that is the case you almost have to work backwards. Which is a bad plan, but again, depending on BR size it might be a necessary evil.

So much fail:

50,000 * 1% = 500
500 * 10 = 5000
50,000 - 5000 != 40,000

* you're

Kelly reduces betsize after losses.

My head asplode now, not going to try and argue with someone who can't do fifth grade maths.

[wantitall4moi]

So much fail:

50,000 * 1% = 500
500 * 10 = 5000
50,000 - 5000 != 40,000

* you're

Kelly reduces betsize after losses.

My head asplode now, not going to try and argue with someone who can't do fifth grade maths.

yeah that was after about 12 or more hours of poker and at 430 am so sue me for being less than lucid. but if a guy goes 0-10 using kelly and he has the 'optimal' bet size going he is going to be down about 45% so the 5% mistake I made wouldnt even be worth mentioning.

Kelly doesnt work, end of story. It assumes way too much. And where one part of a formula is wrong it makes the whole formula invalid.

Even if a sports bet was posted at true odds a person would have difficulty in winning long term with kelly. With vig it is impossible to win with kelly, unless you assume your power at predicting winners outweighs whatever vig you have to pay. So then you have to determine your personal win probability versus a 'fair' line. So now you have two things to worry about, is the line fair and if so what are my chances to beat it? This is all underlined by risk of ruin by betting way too much or even way too little. Winners wont be big enough and losers will be too big, and you eventually go broke.

Even with a coin flip and following kelly it is possible to lose following a truly controlled experiment. where you know your 'true' odds and thus exactly what to bet. because even a coin flip is not mathematically guaranteed to follow a 'perfect' enough sequence to avoid going broke. Nor is it guaranteed to go 50/50 even after many many flips. And the truth is if kelly worked beyond a shadow of a doubt every person that followed it or subscribed to it would all be making the same exact bets for the same exact percentage of money because they would have it figure out.

I told the guy what worked for me, in reality. Not some formula that people have tried for ever to make work out in sports betting, and failed time after time to get to work. I bet sports for 15 years as my only source of income (with a little poker mixed in) and I did pretty well. Following what worked for me, things I learned from practical use and trial and error. I didnt have anything else to fall back on at one point, so if I went broke I was broke for real. Not like guys waiting for their next pay check or welfare check to come into reload. But that is another thing, most guys dont have a true bankroll they have an active amount of money they feel they can lose and not get hurt. So most guys bankrolls arent big enough in the first place. If you have a million bucks use it, dont put in 250K and call that a bankroll, go broke and reload with another 250K. So that is another fatal flaw, misidentifying what a bankroll is in the first place.

Did I do it 'perfectly', I doubt it, but I made a hell of a lot of money and lived a pretty good lifestyle and still do. So that is good enough for me. It was certainly better than every other person I know personally who bets on sports or plays cards. At least in the actual gambling facet of it.

When it all comes down to it the way to be successful at 'gambling' is to become the book maker. Which is the same thing as saying arbitrage your ass off with as much volume as you can get. And balance it out the best you can. Forget +ev or thinking you have an advantage with certain plays. Give me 8-10 cents on every bet and thats all I need. When you eliminate the need to win all the theories are moot anyway.

[Pancho sanza]

This idiot needs to be removed from the think tank, good lord how much stupidity can one person posses.

[wiffle]

lolololololololololololololololololol

lolwtf are you talking about

[wiffle]

Even with a coin flip and following kelly it is possible to lose following a truly controlled experiment. where you know your 'true' odds and thus exactly what to bet. because even a coin flip is not mathematically guaranteed to follow a 'perfect' enough sequence to avoid going broke. Nor is it guaranteed to go 50/50 even after many many flips.

it is impossible to lose money betting kelly on a coinflip at even odds

[wantitall4moi]

This idiot needs to be removed from the think tank, good lord how much stupidity can one person posses.

What I talk about is reality, what you espouse to is all theoretical.

You all talk about odds like it is actual probability. THAT is the stupidity that people fall into. Along with a lot of other things guys who preach math get wrong.

I challenge anyone to state their win probability going forward. Or to be easy their win probability at all. I have done it before and no one could. Because it isnt possible. Therefore using kelly isnt valid.

If a guy has 200000 bets in his life, and he is 104543-95457, then most guys would think he could 'safely' assume he is about a 52% capper. (52.27) But that isnt really true. Even with such a large sample size to go on. And if you dont know why then, well whatever.

But I would like to see the reasons guys feel they can state what their win probability is. At least speciifc enough to plug into a formula like Kelly.

[wantitall4moi]

it is impossible to lose money betting kelly on a coinflip at even odds

Yeah I edited that. I started with a 'what if' but decided not to get theoretical.

But if you start with 100 bux and bet full kelly (25%) per flip at +100, and lost 20 in a row you would be down to 30 cents. Or if you think losing 20 in a row is a stretch, losing 10 in a row gets you to $5.30. So while you might not go broke you'll be below a number most sports books would not let you bet. Another thing people forget. Which is what the gyst of what I said implied. But that is in a vacuum obviously, but it just shows that even with known odds and known probability there is still a realistic chance to lose to a point of needing to reinvest. Kelly still assumes you get the expected number of wins and losses, which is another flaw. So while 10 losses in a row or even 20 or 50 in a row wont make you go broke because youre betting a percentage, it will definitely get you below an amount that exists in real currency if it does happen.

And since I contend you cant ever know the probability of a sporting event beyond a doubt, or a persons ability to pick a winner that just makes it more dangerous.

The problem with it is people always work backwards with things they know and thus fool themselves into thinking it is valid. All these theories assume at least the mean result. Not 'best' case, but what can be 'normally' expected. Just like a guy who starts out with 10K and assumes if he can hit 54% he will make X amount of dollars. Which is also impossible to assume, because if he starts out winless after a certain amount of times then that throws everything way off. Always assume worst case scenario, not probable expectations. Even is something with a known probability like flipping a coin it IS still possible to lose enough money betting with kelly to get below a true existing value to bet with.

[wiffle]

lol, i and everyone else has no idea what you are talking about, but why do you keep talking about losing 10 in a row when you first start out?

[wiffle]

why do you think kelly on a coinflip with even odds is 25% of your roll

it is impossible to lose anything betting kelly in this situation

[warriorfan707]

As a general rule, I always risk 140% of my roll on every play

Hope that helps

[wantitall4moi]

lol, i and everyone else has no idea what you are talking about, but why do you keep talking about losing 10 in a row when you first start out?

Because it is a streak. And streaks happen, and if they are negative they have a very real impact on the future.

and since this is about gambling, I am sure anyone that actually gambles enough to make it worthwhile has lost 10 in a row, probably more than 10 in a row, and probably multiple times. So whether it is at the start of or in the middle it doesnt matter, youre still going to lose the same percentage regardless. it is just easier to use it at the beginning.

and kelly assumes way too much. if you use 4.35 or whatever % as a benchmark, you will with 10 bets have 43.5% of your bankroll in action on just 10 plays. Even if your confidence level is not the same for every game and you vary it and get an average of 2.5 per play that is still 25% of your bankroll being used.

The whole point of kelly is to keep you from betting too much so to avoid over exposure. The problem, as I have stated is that the premise is flawed in the first place, because the formula even in a vacuum isnt flawless. And the individual using the formula generally over compensates their edge in the first place.


As for your second comment on how I got what, Kelly says take your win probabily, mulitply it by pay out odds and subtract you loss expectation, then divide by the pay out odds. So a 50/50 bet is going to be .5 divided by 2 equals .25, that is supposed to be the optimum percentage you should bet. Not my formula the kelly criterion formula. So using the kell formula in a vacuum and plugging in the specific numbers.... a bet at -110 is going to leave you with a -.045 BR bet, which means you cant bet it. Thats why people have to make up their own win probability and plug it into the formula that way. So instead of it looking like this .5 * .91 -.5/.91 = -.045 they give themselves a fantasy win chance, call it 54%, so then their formula looks like this... .54 *.91 -.46/.91= .0345, which then makes then think they can bet 3.5% of their bank roll.

I just want to know where someone determined their 54%? Even if they only give themselves a 53% chance it still means they can 'safely' bet 1.4% of their bankroll. That 1% expectation/probability make the bet size/percentage a lot different. From 3.5 to 1.4, or 2.5 times as much. Thats a big jump for 1% rise in confidence of a game, which cant possibly be determined in the first place. You might as well throw darts at a board and pick and choose how much to bet per game that way. I mean if you hit a bulls eye you will have a lot of confidence in it.

I have argued this for years with guys and they dont ever get it, because they think math doesnt lie. Which it might not in some cases, but this formula is just so much BS.

[bettorjon]

As a general rule, I always risk 140% of my roll on every play

Hope that helps

with that percentage, youre betting more than your bankroll. LOL

[bettorjon]

Because it is a streak. And streaks happen, and if they are negative they have a very real impact on the future.

and since this is about gambling, I am sure anyone that actually gambles enough to make it worthwhile has lost 10 in a row, probably more than 10 in a row, and probably multiple times. So whether it is at the start of or in the middle it doesnt matter, youre still going to lose the same percentage regardless. it is just easier to use it at the beginning.

well i dont and it wont happen because i know what i do so instead of having a losing streak im more into the winning streak side

[Pot luck]

Make a model in EXCEL or whatever other platform you like (I like R). Draw some graphs. Set your edge on each bet to be a random variable and play around. Try out different staking systems like 1%, 2%, 0.5Kelly, fullKelly etc.

I am amazed more people don't do this - it beats writing long, confused rants on forums.

My conclusions: a fractional Kelly stake holds up pretty well, even if your estimate of edge is a little shaky - see for yourself.

[wantitall4moi]

Make a model in EXCEL or whatever other platform you like (I like R). Draw some graphs. Set your edge on each bet to be a random variable and play around. Try out different staking systems like 1%, 2%, 0.5Kelly, fullKelly etc.

I am amazed more people don't do this - it beats writing long, confused rants on forums.

My conclusions: a fractional Kelly stake holds up pretty well, even if your estimate of edge is a little shaky - see for yourself.

Well yes of course. But usually the results help prove the formula. Most guys dont bet long enough or enough games to really proof it out anyway. But full Kelly with a 53% (just barely profitable at -110) calls for a 1.35% BR bet size. Which is right in line with what I said originally of 1% to start, then around 1.5% once you get established and have made enough to prove you can get the best lines, win consistently enough, and overcome some losing streaks. I surely dont believe in the kelly criterion, but some would say I was following it anyway since my numbers matched up. I say I bet the right amount due to experience and what sorts of streaks I could survive and still stay in the game.

Now obviously if you win enough to profit at 1% you will win enough to bet3.5% or 40%. The difference is the ability to overcome losing streaks. Which was the focus of my whole rant. Kelly is supposed to eliminate that issue by getting you to bet a 'reasonable' amount of your bank roll per play. to me 3.5% isnt reasonable, no matter what you think your edge is. At least on a bet that you only have 1 position on or plan to take one position one. betting anything over 2% of your bankroll consistently one way is going to make you lose a lot of money, it just is. You cant go broke theoretically, but you can be decimated. At least over the long term.

Which is also something I alluded to, most guys dont bet enough games to really see the issues. Most guys maybe bet 2500-3000 games a year. While some people might call that a lot, it isnt. Making 'real' money requires massive volume, of bets as well as money. You make as many bets as you can with the least amount of risk you can and let the volume take care of the rest. So people can laugh and scoff at winning 90 bucks on a scalp here, or 60 bux there, but over hundreds of bets it all adds up and it is free money. For full disclosure it is much harder to do now and in some cases you need to take leads and buy back, sometimes at a penny or 2 loss. But that is the way it goes these days and why I just do it for fun.

This got a bit off topic and some people I am sure take exception to it. But math is math, you just plug in a number and what you get is what you get. So guys who try and defend the math have to realize the math is broken when they need to adjust a formula to fit their style. Then the math stops and the theoretical stuff begins. and sports betting is all theoretical. Some guys have it and some guys dont. But in the end volume is what matters and always getting a position that cant lose with as much money on it as you can as many times as you can.

Being some superstar who claims to win XXX% of their bets is a fairy tale. Sure you can do it over a weekend and cash out and look awesome but as a business approach it isnt going to work.

Best advice if youre just starting out bet as much as you think you can afford to lose and not get crippled,and once you build up a feel for it adjust accordingly. But your OP saw the pitfalls so youre on the right track I would say.

[CrimsonQueen]

You don't know how the kelly criterion actually works, yet you state repeatedly that it "assumes too much." I'd say you assume too much in your understanding.

I wouldn't use kelly myself...but trust me, kelly does NOT tell you to bet 25% of your BR on a coin flip.

[wiffle]

it is possible for kelly to tell you to bet half your roll on a coinflip at -110

[donjuan]

Maybe 2500-3000 bets a year? GTFO

[CrimsonQueen]

it is possible for kelly to tell you to bet half your roll on a coinflip at -110

...??? No! Does no one actually understand Kelly? You only bet if you have an edge. You do not have an edge on a 50/50 proposition at -110. Even at EVEN odds, you wouldn't make a bet with Kelly on a literal coin flip.

Now if you were to win the coin flip 51/49, (say you did some research and found that due to the weight of Lincoln's face on the penny it happens to land that side up 51% of the time) and you were being offered Even odds, then Kelly would tell you to bet 2% of your Bankroll.

[Pancho sanza]

it is possible for kelly to tell you to bet half your roll on a coinflip at -110

yes

[donjuan]

...??? No! Does no one actually understand Kelly? You only bet if you have an edge. You do not have an edge on a 50/50 proposition at -110. Even at EVEN odds, you wouldn't make a bet with Kelly on a literal coin flip.

Now if you were to win the coin flip 51/49, (say you did some research and found that due to the weight of Lincoln's face on the penny it happens to land that side up 51% of the time) and you were being offered Even odds, then Kelly would tell you to bet 2% of your Bankroll.

Better luck next time.

[That Foreign Guy]

it is possible for kelly to tell you to bet half your roll on a coinflip at -110

What sort of bizzaro land arithmetic are you using?

[wiffle]

no u

[Wrecktangle]

People new to capping should start at 1%.

Newbies should start with SBR points.

Keep loaded guns away from children.