So this started in Gambling God's Thread. What do you guys think? Me personally I'd rather pick my spots and play a few games each week. What's your strategy and why
-
-
Posted my thoughts in other thread
short answer is the info dictates
5 games card could have 3 plays
100 game card could have 3 plays
but that's just me
less variance protects against other variables coming into play
Protect protectComment -
I like to just pick a game when it makes sense from a situational or stat standpoint. When I
pick a lot of games, I wind up betting on bad teams sometimes. A team ranked on Pomeroy
at #300 playing #305 starts being a play rather than finding where a good team is
favored by less points than I thought against a mediocre or bad team or were a good
team is getting a lot of points against so/so competition. I guess it is just personal
preference. I just seem to win more cash if I focus in on a game here or there.Comment -
looking at college basketball 40 games on saturday
a few games just look intriguing such as
central michigan at Illinois the other games it depends on the line
prediction Cincinnati 78 Butler 74 this game stands out right away
Or some teams you can get a good read on and play them alot
Baylor at rank 4 looks too high, so I think they will be overvalued
and they play better in the second half
Like lets look at a game for example
Long Beach st at Texas, think Texas will score a little more than average because long beach is small and plays fast
The Texas D should hold the 49ers down. So looking like 67-76 Both teams are somewhat underperforming.
so then will look at spread when line comes out.Comment -
From a math perspective it's simple. More plays is better.
- A 56% bettor who plays 50 games a season ($100 risk per bet at -108) goes 28-22 and profits $392.59 over the season
- A 56% bettor who plays 300 games a season ($100 risk per bet at -108) goes 168-132 and profits $2355.56 over the season
However, in practice, the average person playing 50 games a season is much more likely to only be playing games he feels very comfortable with, while the person playing 300 games is more likely to be playing out of boredom and/or chasing.
If you can increase games while keeping your winning percentage, then do. The math is simple. But if you are playing more just to have more action, you are probably going to kill your winning percentage and end up worse off.Comment -
More plays = less variance. Variance/Risk/Luck. Whatever you want to call it.Comment -
I think this is true if all picks grade out the same (however one handicaps them). The problem with aiming for a lot of plays is that there's a temptation to include plays that don't grade out as highly (again, using whatever method you choose) in the name of eliminating variance.Comment -
How many cappers are 56%!!!
Lol all these #'s are based on that
why isn't everyone retired by now
i guess I'm an idiot but how is more games = less variance
Idk , not here to Argue
gl to allComment -
Top cappers are capable of 55% for what is statistically possible. Anything above that is luck. There are only so many "good" selections on the board each day.
It all comes down to what you are looking for and your end goal. From my personal experience it is better to limit the numbers and play for quality over quantity.Comment -
Take an 80% free throw shooter. I offer you a normal odds over/under line of 75%. You'd bet the over, right? Now, say I offer two scenarios, A) he takes 10 shots, B) he takes 100 shots. Which scenario do you take my bet on?
Hint: you take the over on scenario B, since more shots = less variance or chance of 'bad luck' ruining your bet.Comment -
[QUOTE=DOM_Toretto;26613762]Take an 80% free throw shooter. I offer you a normal odds over/under line of 75%. You'd bet the over, right? Now, say I offer two scenarios, A) he takes 10 shots, B) he takes 100 shots. Which scenario do you take my bet on?
Hint: you take the over on scenario B, since more shots = less variance or chance of 'bad luck' ruining your bet.[/QUOTE?
Incorrect. The more someone shoots the more variables can come into play that wouldn't in the short run. Fatigue? Loss of focus? Etc...Comment -
But if you are talking about broken down over 100 into multiple situations...yes. again this is why there are a lot more variables that are in the picture that need to be examined and noted.Comment -
[QUOTE=DOM_Toretto;26613762]Take an 80% free throw shooter. I offer you a normal odds over/under line of 75%. You'd bet the over, right? Now, say I offer two scenarios, A) he takes 10 shots, B) he takes 100 shots. Which scenario do you take my bet on?
The problem is over 10 years a few games a week adds up to a big sample size as well you are trying to say you need to limit risk each day and week but it would also be limited if you played 5 games a week for 10 years as well. 5 games a week for 10 years is 2600 games that would be the same as playing 2600 games in a year. I'd rather pick and choose my spots and play the same unit on each gameComment -
Lol unbelievable the rookies in this thread. Why don't you just go all-in on your next bet please. Half of you will be finished and we don't have to hear from you anymore. The other half will think they're geniuses 😂
If there are any real poker players on SBR please chime in. Ever heard of "running it twice"? Think they started that for fun? Or because splitting 2 outcomes is safer than 1 outcome. Same theory translates to sports betting.Comment
