[keel44]

I have a topic of conversation that I was mulling over lately.

The way I see it, if you believe to have an edge on just about every game, money line or spread, why not use a lower bet size and bet a lot of games at once. I say about 20-30 bets a day using 1-2% of your bankroll for each game.

You see people bet 3-4 games they believe to have the biggest edge. They think it is wise to bypass all the other games because they don't "see" much value. Bettors can't possibly quantify an edge. My idea was to be on the "right" side of 20 - 30 bets on one day. The money management part of this would be to asses whether I am making money or not every 4 days or so and raise my bet size if I am down. I would then believe to catch a little fire to make a profit.

It is my belief that you could at the very least hit 50%. You see, if you have 150+ bets in a week, it is an almost certainty you will be at the very least 50%. You would then raise your bet size a little depending on win percentage overall and/or profits.


So I guess what I am asking is:

Do you bet 20-30 games a day or just 3-4? Which is better? Why? Raise stakes when losing? Why? Why not?

[Poogs]

That is a terrible idea

[solring]

Sounds like a typical NCAA Football Saturday or NFL Sunday...

[mattmc419]

The number of games I bet on depends on how many I feel comfortable predicting the outcome of. Since doing so usually requires some research and looking at other people's opinions around then net, I usually don't have time for a ton, and stick to 3-5. I would never bet a game just to increase your count. Remember, the odds are inherently 50/50 and you're laying down $11 to win $10. So if you're basing multiple picks solely on luck day in and day out, you're going to lose money over time. I suggest sticking to a few games that your research supports each day.

As far as bet size, I like to stick with a unit system. 90% of my bets are 1 unit, and occasionally I'll make a 2 or 3 unit bet. Nothing larger than that, because there are no guaranteed picks. It's hard sometimes, but chasing your losses by making larger bets isn't a smart move either. Just because you lost your last five bets doesn't mean the next one will win.

It's all about having a system and sticking to it. Self control and capital management is crucial to making a profit.

Best of luck,
Matt

[sneak-a-peak]

The only guys who have a edge on 20-30 (or more) games a day are bookies who are taking bets at -110 odds.

[keel44]

What I really need an opinion on is quantifying an edge. Let us say I think the Nuggets over the T-Wolves should be -12. The real line is -11.5. Also I think the Knicks should be -7 over the Cavs. The real line being -4.5.

After looking it over, one would assume the Knicks have more of edge over the Nuggets. Do I bet both Nuggets and Knicks? Just the Knicks? Certainly not just the Nuggets. I mean after all, being on the Nuggets would be on the right side.....yes? Why not bet 20-30 games a day like this? Could an edge be THAT rigid?

[solring]

Remember, the odds are inherently 50/50

elohel

[nli07]

How do you handicap 30 games???? 3-5 games is hard enough AS IS haha

[Astros148]

worst thinking

[Poogs]

elohel

whats funny about that?

[Whitefin14]

Doesnt seem logical

[Wrecktangle]

If you really can handicap that many games a day by hand (rather than by computer) and you can verify you are +EV in all, there is no reason why not if you are flat-betting. You should get down on every +EV opportunity. Kelly staking is an entirely different matter.

However if you are -EV on all or a large fraction of your bets, with the vig you'll burn that BR quickly even if you are picking at 50% on a points line.