Is lt profits the best capper at sbr?

[jjgold]

LT going to own everyone here

[BeatTheJerk]

Jerky your playing with 2K roll as a pro bettor

LT 50k++

18k currently

[jjgold]

Not bad Jerky

[2daBank]

When I was giving picks, I owned MLB; No question. If you talk MLB, its me. If you talk other sports, everyone has their moment.

Lmfao.

Really nothing else to say, just LMFAO. Clown

[BeatTheJerk]

I need a nice score soon or it’s back to running pipe & wire fml.

[pavyracer]

LT Profits is not even a capper. He is a stats modeler. He doesn't cap games based on situations or who needs to win the game more. If there is a flow in his model, like in this year's MLB, he doesn't adjust it and keeps getting burried on old stats.

[jjgold]

We are waiting for a statement from LT

[LT Profits]

We are waiting for a statement from LT

Cut what was around -26 in MLB about a week ago to -17.47 with still time left

[LT Profits]

MLB season low of -26.65 was after last Sunday's games, so +9.18 last 5 days. And remember I went a total of +50.56 over the other 5 sports, so all good.

[jjgold]

LT the question is do you bet more than $50 per game

Many of us have side bets

[LT Profits]

LT the question is do you bet more than $50 per game

Many of us have side bets

The answer is YES.

[LT Profits]

LT the question is do you bet more than $50 per game

Many of us have side bets

And actually, your guess came the closest, although you may have cheated and deciphered it from our chats.

[eaglesfan371]

Definitely +EV in other sports. He says he’s been a winner in MLB but I vaguely remember always seeing him down in MLB when I’ve checked in over the years. Nonetheless see no reason not to believe him. Definitely drives views to this forum and top 5 most valuable poster.

[pavyracer]

If LT bets $1000 per game he is down $20000 this year.

[LT Profits]

If LT bets $1000 per game he is down $20000 this year.

JJ guessed half that and I am currently closer to his number. However if my recent MLB hot streak continues, it could get get back to those that guessed 1K being closer.

[LT Profits]

Definitely +EV in other sports. He says he’s been a winner in MLB but I vaguely remember always seeing him down in MLB when I’ve checked in over the years. Nonetheless see no reason not to believe him. Definitely drives views to this forum and top 5 most valuable poster.

Did you miss my MLB 2015? +93 units makes up for a lot of losing years. That said, while that kind of year will never happen again with sabermetrics now being the new normal, I have followed up that season with two much smaller winning seasons in the last three years.

[sosawestbrook]

LT you change bet amount depending on how well you are doing?

[LT Profits]

LT you change bet amount depending on how well you are doing?

Yes, 99% of the time my unit is 2.5% of whatever bankroll is at the start of the day. More like 100% of the time for baseball.

[KVB]

Yes, 99% of the time my unit is 2.5% of whatever bankroll is at the start of the day. More like 100% of the time for baseball.

You might be costing yourself thousands in vigorish with that haphazard progressive betting scheme.

You are definitely decimating your breakeven point.

Think about it.

It's a mistake even professionals make and it could be costing you.

It could be.

[jjgold]

Mods remove this post

And actually, your guess came the closest, although you may have cheated and deciphered it from our chats.

[lakerboy]

You might be costing yourself thousands in vigorish with that haphazard progressive betting scheme.

You are definitely decimating your breakeven point.

Think about it.

It's a mistake even professionals make and it could be costing you.

It could be.

You only bet 1%,?

[KVB]

You only bet 1%,?

No, it's not about the actual percent, which it does get worse the higher you go, it's about the percent of "what"...daily bankroll, constantly adjusted, or a starting bankroll that only adjusts up or down at key levels.

I'm talking about how each day he's betting a different amount.

If I have $100 bankroll and bet 2.5%, that's a $2.50 bet. If it loses, I'm at $97.50.

The next day I bet 2.5% of that, it's a $2.43 bet. Say it wins. Betting "to win" that percent makes my point even worse and will really change the breakeven, but even just betting the risk of 2.5% means the second bet, the winning one, is less than the first.

Reverse the order, it doesn't matter. Make the winning bet $2.50, then the losing one, the very next day, will be a $2.56 bet.

In the first case you are losing the bigger bet and winning the smaller one.

In the second case you are winning the smaller bet and losing the the bigger one.

That "flat" percentage isn't at all because the daily bankroll is changing, changing the breakeven point...and not for the better.

It is likely costing LT money. Don't even get me started on the massive fluctuation of those betting "to win" a percentage, having their risk jump around because of market price.

[KVB]

Progressive betting schemes, which is what a flat percentage of a daily bankroll actually is, are not very good for sports betting.

The rare instances of fractional Kelly betting can make be a bright side in this, but really that's no what we're talking about here.

As LT wins, be bets more immediately. That is progressive betting whether one realizes it or not.

I can win 9 straight 1 dollar bets then lose the 10 bet, for $10 dollars and have nothing to show for it.

Gambling 101.

My point is that there is a cost to the bottom line in vigorish and it's easy to increase that cost just by money management.

[lakerboy]

No, it's not about the actual percent, which it does get worse the higher you go, it's about the percent of "what"...daily bankroll, constantly adjusted, or a starting bankroll that only adjusts up or down at key levels.

I'm talking about how each day he's betting a different amount.

If I have $100 bankroll and bet 2.5%, that's a $2.50 bet. If it loses, I'm at $97.50.

The next day I bet 2.5% of that, it's a $2.43 bet. Say it wins. Betting "to win" that percent makes my point even worse and will really change the breakeven, but even just betting the risk of 2.5% means the second bet, the winning one, is less than the first.

Reverse the order, it doesn't matter. Make the winning bet $2.50, then the losing one, the very next day, will be a $2.56 bet.

In the first case you are losing the bigger bet and winning the smaller one.

In the second case you are winning the smaller bet and losing the the bigger one.

That "flat" percentage isn't at all because the daily bankroll is changing, changing the breakeven point...and not for the better.

It is likely costing LT money. Don't even get me started on the massive fluctuation of those betting "to win" a percentage, having their risk jump around because of market price.

Interesting.

[KVB]

Interesting.

If you lose 3 bets today, and you think you can get them back tomorrow, then why bet less tomorrow? Is it just because you lost today?

If you do bet less, then your profit won't actually reflect your winning percentage, you will have less than you should based on your record.

Because your breakeven changed.

It can be hell on a bankroll and you can lose a significant amount on top of the vig just by the act of betting.

[pavyracer]

KVB is right. You need a standard unit regardless of starting bankroll. Not a 2.5% unit of bankroll. What if you start 3-21? The diminished bankroll 2.5% unit may be only 1% of your starting bankroll at that point.

[jjgold]

LT is blade sharp

[LT Profits]

You might be costing yourself thousands in vigorish with that haphazard progressive betting scheme.

You are definitely decimating your breakeven point.

Think about it.

It's a mistake even professionals make and it could be costing you.

It could be.

Totally false. When I have winning years. I win more than I would have flat betting regardless of bankroll. And when I have losing years, I lose less than I would have.

Try some simulations and see for your self. start with a 10K bankroll and then compare betting 250 per game flat regardless of bankroll all the way through with betting 2.5% all the way (so you start at the same 250).

[Big Bear]

Lt profits

a guy named Brahmabull is

[KVB]

Totally false. When I have winning years. I win more than I would have flat betting regardless of bankroll. And when I have losing years, I lose less than I would have.

Try some simulations and see for your self. start with a 10K bankroll and then compare betting 250 per game flat regardless of bankroll all the way through with betting 2.5% all the way (so you start at the same 250).

It's not about the winning years winning more and losing years losing less.

Of course that's true, but no point in breaking it down by seasons. It's one long never ending rotation.

But no matter what, along the way, you are paying increased vig and changing your breakeven.

Not for the better.

I used terms like "it could" because the amount depends on the prices you are betting as well. Finding the happy medium is ideal, but as a business, you are paying too much commission with that strategy, whether you are winning or losing overall.

Run the same bets with flat risk, take out you 100 unit outlier if you dare, or use medians to compare.

The difference may be little, but never forget the compression factors at work.

Perhaps most importantly, that the winning bets are paying the vig.

[LT Profits]

Of course that's true,

And that is all that matters.

Everything else is just noise. Plus I don't even know what you are endorsing here. It is not an opinion but a mathematical fact that betting a flat % of bankroll is superior to betting a flat $ amount, that is not even arguable.

[slapshot]

if you bet a system like LT you will have losing streaks.....during these losing streaks you have to limit the losses to a bare minimum.

and crank it up to maximize winnings when the system is hot.
everyone playing systems will have streaks.....it's a fact.

however playing a system you should never take a break.

if you don't bet a system....you can just take a break and come back when you feel reset.

[LT Profits]

Now my record keeping is done using flat units, but that is only because that is the normal convention and this makes it easier to compare myself to other cappers around the net that base their records on one unit per game. But in the real world, if I am + units at SBR, I am up MORE than simply multiplying those units by my unit size to begin the season, and when I am - units at SBR, I am down LESS than straight multiplication of units down times beginning unit.

As it should be.

[LT Profits]

if you bet a system like LT you will have losing streaks.....during these losing streaks you have to limit the losses to a bare minimum.

and crank it up to maximize winnings when the system is hot.
everyone playing systems will have streaks.....it's a fact.

however playing a system you should never take a break.

if you don't bet a system....you can just take a break and come back when you feel reset.

Right, and that is EXACTLY what betting % of bankroll does.

[asiagambler]

But in the real world, if I am + units at SBR, I am up MORE than simply multiplying those units by my unit size to begin the season, and when I am - units at SBR, I am down LESS than straight multiplication of units down times beginning unit.

This is not necessarily true. It depends on how "streaky" your bets were. Basically, if you have lots of consecutive wins and consecutive losses, then your premise of being up MORE than if you had flat bet is true. But if you have lots of alternating wins and losses, then you can actually be up less than if you had flat bet.

The same also applies in reverse in the case that you're down units. You can be down LESS if you have a lot of consecutive losses (and wins) but if your wins and losses alternate a lot, then you will be down more than if you had flat bet.