Money Management

[Professor1215]

Good morning.

I am currently gearing up for baseball season and am writing my 2012 MLB budget.

As I project out my winnings based on projected Win%, I allow myself a 2% pain tolerance.

If I make one bet at a time, what danger is there in compounding my bets each day?

[AceKingHigh]

Compound and de-compound after each bet if win =increase if lose = decrease ?
If that's what your asking, I'm highly interested in more information as well.

[Professor1215]

Yes, compound after a win, de-compound after a loss. I did not make that very clear.

I am just trying to figure out which one is more profitable in the long-run between that and using the plateau method, where you would reconfigure that 2% after you were 25% ahead of your beginning bankroll, reconfigure that after another 25%, etc etc.

As far as giving you more information, everything is still in pre-work stage, but i'd be more than willing to talk management with you.

[buby74]

Why don't you just use Kelly?

[Sawyer]

I don't suggest Kelly. Don't use Kelly.

Stick with flat betting or a narrow-ranged stake level strategy like 2-3-4 or 3-4-5.

[Professor1215]

c'mon guys, I am not a novice and neither of those answers my question.

Maybe no one is capable of answering my question

[buby74]

Well if by 2% pain tolerance you mean a 2% stake per bey and the question is how often to recalculate how much 2% is. From a Kelly standpoint I would recalculate as often as you can otherwise your bets will be too big after a losing streak. Why not run some simulations in excel varying when yourecalculate your 2%. I think your expected gain will drop if you don't recalculate often enough unless your edge is so big that you are in effect betting a fraction of Kelly so you will be trading profit for lower risk although you never said whether or not you use Kelly

[tenbas]

Money management?
0,1-0,5% or less. IMHO.

Nevertheless, I have just bet 99% of SBR points on a single event.

[Wrecktangle]

If by "compounding de-compounding" you mean changing your estimated win% in order to use Kelly (full or fractional) or increasing-decreasing flat bets, you'll not find much here. As you basically are looking at Bayesian methods, you'll find this is the Hezbollah Holy Ground of Frequentist Statisticians; not only do they not believe in such, as true zealots they actively pile-on and shout down any who dare to mention it.

BTW, I've not seen much mention of this in any other betting forums, but when it is brought up, it is largely misunderstood. So you are pretty much on your own.

But if you are a seeker of truth and beauty, google: beta distributions, as they are key. Also, John Kruschke in "Doing Bayesian Data Analysis" in chapt 5 has one of the best explanations of using beta I've seen. It's a pretty decent book on the stat language R and BUGS, to boot; not cheap though.

Good Luck.

[ClimbSomeRocks]

I don't think there is much danger. In blackjack, we play with a 1% advantage, having 1000 units gives us a .5% chance of ruin before doubling our bankroll. Same should apply to sports betting. Plus, if you are a successful handicapper, you'll be winning and increasing your bet over time.

[jolmscheid]

I would like to know what professor is asking as well...is re-calculating a 2% wager size every day / wager better or worse than re-calculating at +25% or -25% bankroll intervals?

[tukkk]

I would like to know what professor is asking as well...is re-calculating a 2% wager size every day / wager better or worse than re-calculating at +25% or -25% bankroll intervals?

-if youre break-even bettor, it doesnt matter
-if youre
1)winning bettor, you jeopardize your growth calculating at intervals
2)losing bettor, you constantly overbet, therefore go broke sooner

[jolmscheid]

-if youre break-even bettor, it doesnt matter
-if youre
1)winning bettor, you jeopardize your growth calculating at intervals
2)losing bettor, you constantly overbet, therefore go broke sooner

So re-calculating daily is the best if you're a winning bettor? What is the evidence this is better for growth than doing re-calculations at certain intervals?

[hutennis]

So re-calculating daily is the best if you're a winning bettor? What is the evidence this is better for growth than doing re-calculations at certain intervals?

Recalculating daily is not optimal. Kelly is.
Kelly is optimal for growth and it is applied to every bet. Not once a day or once a month or at certain %% up or down Every bet.

And it really easy too. Just make sure you have an edge in every bet you make and then apply a simply formula.
That's it.

Alternative is not that complicated either
If you dont have an edge or dont know what is your edge and where it comes from then don't bet at all.

[tukkk]

i wouldnt worry so much about this issue, just calculate when you can.
and put that free time into determining your edge.

[hutennis]

i wouldnt worry so much about this issue, just calculate when you can.
And put that free time into determining your edge.

this!!!!

[Professor1215]

-if youre break-even bettor, it doesnt matter
-if youre
1)winning bettor, you jeopardize your growth calculating at intervals
2)losing bettor, you constantly overbet, therefore go broke sooner

Maybe I am just not explaining it right.

Lets say I had $500 on the books and all I bet were spreads (-110). My initial first bet would be 2%, or $10 (to win $9.09).

Let's say I won the bet, my new bankroll would be $509.09. My next bet would be $10.18.

Let's say I lost the bet, my new bankroll would be $490.00. My next bet would be $9.80.

This is not Kelly, I am not calculating at intervals, and I am not going broke sooner.

Just trying to get multiple perspectives on the topic.

[LT Profits]

Recalculating daily is not optimal. Kelly is.
Kelly is optimal for growth and it is applied to every bet. Not once a day or once a month or at certain %% up or down Every bet.

And it really easy too. Just make sure you have an edge in every bet you make and then apply a simply formula.
That's it.

Alternative is not that complicated either
If you dont have an edge or dont know what is your edge and where it comes from then don't bet at all.

Daily is just more practical when you have like 60 plays on a Saturday. Especially when you are adding plays while other games are going on.

[FourLengthsClear]

Maybe I am just not explaining it right.

Lets say I had $500 on the books and all I bet were spreads (-110). My initial first bet would be 2%, or $10 (to win $9.09).

Let's say I won the bet, my new bankroll would be $509.09. My next bet would be $10.18.

Let's say I lost the bet, my new bankroll would be $490.00. My next bet would be $9.80.

This is not Kelly, I am not calculating at intervals, and I am not going broke sooner.

Just trying to get multiple perspectives on the topic.

If you are flat betting at 2% of bankroll, it is not going too much difference whether you recalculate per wager, per day or at 10% intervals.

From everything you have read in recent weeks however, I am sure you are aware that this is not optimal (on the assumption that your wagers have +EV). Quantifying your edge per wager and using Kelly (or fractional Kelly) should be your aim.

[durito]

If by "compounding de-compounding" you mean changing your estimated win% in order to use Kelly (full or fractional) or increasing-decreasing flat bets, you'll not find much here. As you basically are looking at Bayesian methods, you'll find this is the Hezbollah Holy Ground of Frequentist Statisticians; not only do they not believe in such, as true zealots they actively pile-on and shout down any who dare to mention it.

BTW, I've not seen much mention of this in any other betting forums, but when it is brought up, it is largely misunderstood. So you are pretty much on your own.

But if you are a seeker of truth and beauty, google: beta distributions, as they are key. Also, John Kruschke in "Doing Bayesian Data Analysis" in chapt 5 has one of the best explanations of using beta I've seen. It's a pretty decent book on the stat language R and BUGS, to boot; not cheap though.

Good Luck.

try reading

[Wrecktangle]

try reading

Try math. Spreadsheet tot-sheets is not analysis.

[durito]

you still down lifetime?

[Wrecktangle]

you still down lifetime?

You still living in your Mother's basement?

Have you ever tried being a productive member of society?

...see, I can do this shit too...

Ya know, you and the other members of the Hezbollah regime might want to try being non-haters sometime, it frees the soul.

[135steward]

chances are ...

Maybe I am just not explaining it right.

Lets say I had $500 on the books and all I bet were spreads (-110). My initial first bet would be 2%, or $10 (to win $9.09).

Let's say I won the bet, my new bankroll would be $509.09. My next bet would be $10.18.

Let's say I lost the bet, my new bankroll would be $490.00. My next bet would be $9.80.

This is not Kelly, I am not calculating at intervals, and I am not going broke sooner.

Just trying to get multiple perspectives on the topic.

I'll always see this forum as the overthink tank. If you chase trends, as you suggest here, it really isn't much different than using flat betting or some Martingale variance. Statistically, you'll lose the equivalent of the vig over time. The Wizard of Odds explains this well, if you ever visited his site.

The only way to win is to determine an edge. That's what we all try to do here. Once some one does that (assuming it's possible), then Kelly, Labby, even spinning a friggin' wheel will work! Just have fun trying. If you don't enjoy the pursuit, you're wasting most of your life. The finish is only an insignificant fraction of the game. Enjoy the game.

[Darkside Magick]

I'll always see this forum as the overthink tank. If you chase trends, as you suggest here, it really isn't much different than using flat betting or some Martingale variance. Statistically, you'll lose the equivalent of the vig over time. The Wizard of odds explains this well, if you ever visited his site.

The only way to win is to determine an edge. That's what we all try to do here. Once some one does that (assuming it's possible), then Kelly, Labby, even spinning a friggin' wheel will work! Just have fun trying. If you don't enjoy the pursuit, you're wasting most of your life. The finish is only an insignificant fraction of the game. Enjoy the game.

[hutennis]

Daily is just more practical when you have like 60 plays on a Saturday. Especially when you are adding plays while other games are going on.

Do you bet 60 plays in one day?
You are not betting then just b/c you like action, right?
You only bet b/c you have an edge, right?

So you have an edge in about all Saturday plays, right?
You beat market every time you look at it, right?

Gotta tell you, that is amazing!

IMHO, it is impossible to have so much +EV action that it is not enough seconds to use simple formula to ensure optimal growth.

[LT Profits]

Do you bet 60 plays in one day?
You are not betting then just b/c you like action, right?
You only bet b/c you have an edge, right?

So you have an edge in about all Saturday plays, right?
You beat market every time you look at it, right?

Gotta tell you, that is amazing!

IMHO, it is impossible to have so much +EV action that it is not enough seconds to use simple formula to ensure optimal growth.

Do you bet 60 plays in one day? YES I have easy for a Saturdday
You are not betting then just b/c you like action, right? NO
You only bet b/c you have an edge, right? YES

So you have an edge in about all Saturday plays, right? Hardly, there are like 130 games in the CBB board alone
You beat market every time you look at it, right? Of course not always, but enough to turn a profit

Gotta tell you, that is amazing! WHY? Better to have 60 games with a 2% edge than 20 games with a 5% edge

IMHO, it is impossible to have so much +EV action that it is not enough seconds to use simple formula to ensure optimal growth. Not true, especially when some plays don't become plays until other games have started. Nothing wrong with using fractional Kelly based on bankroll at beginning of each day, the difference won't be that much in long run because great days and lousy days generally wash out long term. Now FULL Kelly might make more of difference. Still, as even you alluded to earlier, time during the day is better spent seeking +EV than futzing around with adjusted BRs.

[hutennis]

Gotta tell you, that is amazing! WHY? Better to have 60 games with a 2% edge than 20 games with a 5% edge

LOL. Sure it is better to have 60 with 2 than 20 with 5. Its even better to have 100 with 1.5 than 60 with 2.
That's not a question.

The question is how can one become such a edge generating machine to be able to find such a monstrous edges consistently in half of the games on a board?
And if one miraculously was able to, how come he is not on a Forbes 400 list yet?
It takes very little time for 2% edge compounded dozens of times per week to materialize to ungodly amount of money.

According to Occam's razor, among competing hypotheses, the one that requires the fewest number of assumptions is most likely the correct one.

We have 2 competing hypotheses here.

1. You are an amazing edge generating machine.
2. You have very little clue.

See which one needs fewer assumptions.

[durito]

You have very little clue.

you

[FourLengthsClear]

LOL. Sure it is better to have 60 with 2 than 20 with 5. Its even better to have 100 with 1.5 than 60 with 2.
That's not a question.

The question is how can one become such a edge generating machine to be able to find such a monstrous edges consistently in half of the games on a board?
And if one miraculously was able to, how come he is not on a Forbes 400 list yet?
It takes very little time for 2% edge compounded dozens of times per week to materialize to ungodly amount of money.

According to Occam's razor, among competing hypotheses, the one that requires the fewest number of assumptions is most likely the correct one.

We have 2 competing hypotheses here.

1. You are an amazing edge generating machine.
2. You have very little clue.

See which one needs fewer assumptions.

This would be close to impossible if you talk about the narrow confines of full game, sides and totals in major US sports. Broadening out to other sports, halves, quarters, props and live bets throws up many, many more opportunites, no?

[LT Profits]

2. You have very little clue.

First, I said I HAVE played 60 plays on a Saturday, not that I ALWAYS have 60 plays. Second, on the occasions when I have had 60 plays, it has been MUCH less than half the board since I mean 60 plays across ALL sports, I presented the 130 NCAA games as an example of a Saturday card, I did NOT say all 60 plays were CBB. Third, in reference to your second hypothesis, I have been running documented threads at SBR for years. He is a sample (and you can add 5-0 so far today) http://forum.sbrforum.com/ncaa-baske...-saturday.html So, what's your record? Finally, its a lot easier to find edges in college sports than in the pros.

[Darkside Magick]

First, I said I HAVE played 60 plays on a Saturday, not that I ALWAYS have 60 plays. Second, on the occasions when I have had 60 plays, it has been MUCH less than half the board since I mean 60 plays across ALL sports, I presented the 130 NCAA games as an example of a Saturday card, I did NOT say all 60 plays were CBB. Third, in reference to your second hypothesis, I have been running documented threads at SBR for years. He is a sample (and you can add 5-0 so far today) http://forum.sbrforum.com/ncaa-baske...-saturday.html So, what's your record? Finally, its a lot easier to find edges in college sports than in the pros.

[hutennis]

First, I said I HAVE played 60 plays on a Saturday, not that I ALWAYS have 60 plays. Second, on the occasions when I have had 60 plays, it has been MUCH less than half the board since I mean 60 plays across ALL sports, I presented the 130 NCAA games as an example of a Saturday card, I did NOT say all 60 plays were CBB. Third, in reference to your second hypothesis, I have been running documented threads at SBR for years. He is a sample (and you can add 5-0 so far today) http://forum.sbrforum.com/ncaa-baske...-saturday.html So, what's your record? Finally, its a lot easier to find edges in college sports than in the pros.

Thanks for the link.
Very interesting.

Lets see how easy it is to find edges in college nowadays.

What ever has closed so far from your picks.
Market = no vig from avg CLs ( as per Odds Portal)

Market LT Edge vs CL
Western Carolina +6 -108 (101) (108) -3.22%
Oklahoma -7 -110 (102) (110) -3.60%
Wright State +6.5 -105 (103) (105) -0.94%
Northern Illinois +9 -105 (106) (105) 0.46%
Penn State +7 -101 (100) (101) -0.30%
Davidson -2.5 -106 (104) (106) -0.92%
Western Kentucky +6.5 -105 (102) (105) -1.41%
South Dakota +6.5 -108 (110) (108) 0.88%
Nebraska/TCU OVER 129 -108 100 (108) -3.70%

Average -1.42%

You must have your own definition of edge.
Would be nice to know what that is.

Based on what i see so far, my original hypothesis that there is not a lot of clue in what you are doing is getting confirmed

I'll be back with the rest of analysis later, when all games will start.

[tukkk]

hutennis, you just proved you have no clue about edge

[evo34]

c'mon guys, I am not a novice and neither of those answers my question. Maybe no one is capable of answering my question

You're not a novice? As of 24 hours ago, you didn't even know what "Pinny" was or how/why vig can differ among types of bets. Why clutter the Think Tank with Betting 101 questions?