Why do increased stakes lower your chance to win?

[Optional]

Yes, this is really a debate between two different strategies with one not understanding the other. So an edge percentage would apply to someone that would not really pursue this type of strategy as much. When a gambler is outsizing their bets, they believe they have a substantial edge that goes beyond quantifying which is where the danger lies. If you believe you have great bets, these bets should be winning at a high percentage and the games should be going as you expect. If they aren't, it is due to lack of edge.

Last year I won under 15% bets I placed. But also cleared 20 cents profit for every dollar I bet.

As you suggest there really are many ways to skin a cat.

Definitely no need to win at a high % to confirm you know your edge.

[Accrued Interest]

Last year I won under 15% bets I placed. But also cleared 20 cents profit for every dollar I bet.

As you suggest there really are many ways to skin a cat.

Definitely no need to win at a high % to confirm you know your edge.

That is something different. That is long shot betting. So things are basically going as you expect.

If you are betting a spread where it is basically 50-50, there are really no excuses for these bets not winning.

[Optional]

I bet motor racing mostly.

But not just longshots. Anything +EV in all races.


D2bets probably does have a pretty good idea of his true edge btw. Been around talking professional betting for many years and still hasnt gone broke

[Accrued Interest]

I bet motor racing mostly.

But not just longshots. Anything +EV in all races.


D2bets probably does have a pretty good idea of his true edge btw. Been around talking professional betting for many years and still hasnt gone broke

Mostly longshot when you win less than 15%. That is obviously where you make your hay.

D2bets is probably a guy that bets off of numbers so is betting other people's edges which is fine but not pertinent to the discussion. That is how most people win at gambling.

[d2bets]

I bet motor racing mostly.

But not just longshots. Anything +EV in all races.


D2bets probably does have a pretty good idea of his true edge btw. Been around talking professional betting for many years and still hasnt gone broke

Honestly, I feel like I have a very strong idea whether or not a bet is +EV or not, but do I know exactly if it's 4% or 8% 12%? I could guess, but I hardly care. I'm at the point where I'm generally betting the limit regardless, so I don't really care. I need to move too fast to worry about that much precision.

[d2bets]

Mostly longshot when you win less than 15%. That is obviously where you make your hay.

D2bets is probably a guy that bets off of numbers so is betting other people's edges which is fine but not pertinent to the discussion. That is how most people win at gambling.

For the most part, yeah that's true.

[d2bets]

That would be because you do not have one. Limits don't really have anything to do with it. That is purely bankroll.

Huh? Limits have everything to do with it.

Let's say I have a wager with 10% edge, but my limit is just $200
Let's say I have another with a 5% edge, but my limit is $1,000
My bankroll is $1 million.
I'm going to bet $200 on the 10% edge and $1,000 on the 5% edge. Yeah, I bet more on the wager with less edge. So what.

[Accrued Interest]

Huh? Limits have everything to do with it.

Let's say I have a wager with 10% edge, but my limit is just $200
Let's say I have another with a 5% edge, but my limit is $1,000
My bankroll is $1 million.
I'm going to bet $200 on the 10% edge and $1,000 on the 5% edge. Yeah, I bet more on the wager with less edge. So what.

They have zero to do with it. The question is why do outsized bets lose. The dollar amount of the bet is irrelevant. The question is when do you make the bets and how do you judge the value. It does not matter if it is $10 or $5,000. It is the outcome that matters.

The betting limit only impacts how much you bet and where. It has nothing to do with the amount you will decide to bet ultimately for the reason you are making the bet. It is the reason for the bet that triggers the bet. Not the betting limit.

It is the reasoning here that matters. If the bets lose, you had bad bets and that is why you lose.

[Optional]

Mostly longshot when you win less than 15%. That is obviously where you make your hay.

I thought to myself after I posted that I didn't make complete sense saying not longshots when I must be averaging +800 to do that.

Anyway, not a pro bettor like you guys. Was just trying to say you don't need to win at a high rate to estimate your EV semi accurately.

[Accrued Interest]

I thought to myself after I posted that I didn't make complete sense saying not longshots when I must be averaging +800 to do that.

Anyway, not a pro bettor like you guys. Was just trying to say you don't need to win at a high rate to estimate your EV semi accurately.

I'm not a pro better either. I just pursue this strategy so I understand it.

[d2bets]

They have zero to do with it. The question is why do outsized bets lose. The dollar amount of the bet is irrelevant. The question is when do you make the bets and how do you judge the value. It does not matter if it is $10 or $5,000. It is the outcome that matters.

The betting limit only impacts how much you bet and where. It has nothing to do with the amount you will decide to bet ultimately for the reason you are making the bet. It is the reason for the bet that triggers the bet. Not the betting limit.

It is the reasoning here that matters. If the bets lose, you had bad bets and that is why you lose.

Come again...?

I can "decide" that I'd like to bet a million dollars, but if I can't get that down, then who gives a rats ass. All that matters is how much you can actually bet at a particular number, and frequently that is solely a function of limit.

[BeatTheJerk]

Funny debate going on here between these two with a circular vibe.

[Accrued Interest]

Come again...?

I can "decide" that I'd like to bet a million dollars, but if I can't get that down, then who gives a rats ass. All that matters is how much you can actually bet at a particular number, and frequently that is solely a function of limit.

You are a numbers bettor. You do not understand what goes into the bets that you copy.

[KVB]

This actually is a good analytical question because it gets to the core of gambling which is EDGE...

Not really. The original post isn't talking about an edge or even assuming an edge.

First, it's Gaze, so it's more of a random placement of multi unit bets.

And B, there is no instance where one would be correct in determining they have an edge that warrants a bet of 2 or 3 times the size of the "normal" bet.

It just doesn't work that way.

It's not a good analytical question when it comes to edges, or margins, it's just Gaze getting away from the basics.

It's simply of question of psychology, and an analytical one at that, and why it really is determined that a bet is worth 2 or 3 times as much as another. For some, it's because they just had a win streak, increasing the bankroll, or feeling of getting hot, etc.

For others it's the market building their confidence in other ways (these bettors are not calulating a margin).

And for others it's a combination of the two.

Either way it becomes progressive betting and only those fluent in progressive strategies like partial Kelly, and likely fluent in calculating their margin, should delve there.

For everyone else progressive betting is a very bad idea, whether it's a percentage of bankroll unit or some kind of martingale system.

[Accrued Interest]

Not really. The original post isn't talking about an edge or even assuming an edge.

First, it's Gaze, so it's more of a random placement of multi unit bets.

And B, there is no instance where one would be correct in determining they have an edge that warrants a bet of 2 or 3 times the size of the "normal" bet.

It just doesn't work that way.

It's not a good analytical question when it comes to edges, or margins, it's just Gaze getting away from the basics.

It's simply of question of psychology, and an analytical one at that, and why it really is determined that a bet is worth 2 or 3 times as much as another. For some, it's because they just had a win streak, increasing the bankroll, or feeling of getting hot, etc.

For others it's the market building their confidence in other ways (these bettors are not calulating a margin).

And for others it's a combination of the two.

Either way it becomes progressive betting and only those fluent in progressive strategies like partial Kelly, and likely fluent in calculating their margin, should delve there.

For everyone else progressive betting is a very bad idea, whether it's a percentage of bankroll unit or some kind of martingale system.

Edge does not need to be talked about. That is why you bet two units. This is basic stuff.

If you do not have an edge, you should not be betting. Not one unit or two. But try they will. And if your bigger bets are not working, it means there is no edge.

[TommieGunshot]

Bet 1 unit on 100 coin flips, and you'll break even at +100 (at a magical no-juice book)

Bet 2 or 3 units on 30 of those 100 coin flips, and you're guaranteed to lose.

Since it is a guarantee, would you lay 50 to 1 against me doing that and still coming out a winner at the end?

[J. v. Neumann]

This actually is a good analytical question because it gets to the core of gambling which is EDGE.

Not really. The original post isn't talking about an edge or even assuming an edge.

I would agree with KVB and go farther because not only isn't the author talking about edge, he says "coin flip at +100" (with a no-juice book), so the author knows very well what having an edge means and consciously takes a bet with no expected win/loss in the long term as an example as he wants to address a phenomenon he believes to observe.

I didn't have that in mind when constructing my examples making it unnecessary "complicated" adding an edge (+110). I could have simply demonstrated the math at +100, the message (that variance might be at the root of the matter the author believes to observe) would have been the same and maybe easier to understand.

[Accrued Interest]

I would agree with KVB and go farther because not only isn't the author talking about edge, he says "coin flip at +100" (with a no-juice book), so the author knows very well what having an edge means and consciously takes a bet with no expected win/loss in the long term as an example as he wants to address a phenomenon he believes to observe.

I didn't have that in mind when constructing my examples making it unnecessary "complicated" adding an edge (+110). I could have simply demonstrated the math at +100, the message (that variance might be at the root of the matter the author believes to observe) would have been the same and maybe easier to understand.

No, he believes those bets would be at minimum no value at a no juice book and he is amazed that he sets his money on fire when he makes them.

[BrickJames]

If you bet the same amount in the long run you will be even at even odds,

If you very your bet size your break even point goes up.

[semibluff]

If you bet the same amount in the long run you will be even at even odds,

If you very your bet size your break even point goes up.

C'mon man!

[BrickJames]

C'mon man!

I'm serious. If you very your bet size over a given sample of flips your break even point goes up.

[TommieGunshot]

I'm serious. If you very your bet size over a given sample of flips your break even point goes up.

Can you describe the math behind this?

If I bet on a coin flip 100 times, each time my bet is a random amount between 1 and 100, how much has the break even point gone up?

How about if I make those bets one million times?

[BrickJames]

Can you describe the math behind this?

If I bet on a coin flip 100 times, each time my bet is a random amount between 1 and 100, how much has the break even point gone up?

How about if I make those bets one million times?

The break even point will be significantly higher over 100 flips than over 1M flips.

I'll break it down in a little while. In the middle of something now.

[KVB]

Can you describe the math behind this?

If I bet on a coin flip 100 times, each time my bet is a random amount between 1 and 100, how much has the break even point gone up?

How about if I make those bets one million times?

How much in vig are you paying per bet?

If you using a percentage of bankroll, say a partial Kelly, you are changing your break even point. That's where it really becomes a problem for bettors. Some bettors have the notion to bet a percentage of existing bankroll.

The thinking is that you can't go broke as your bet size will dwindle as Funds drop. But changing the unit size is the absolute worst thing to do in the face of extreme streaks.

But, more simply, I've posted about this in the past...

...I’ve posted over and over again that changing you bet size is equivalent to progressive betting and it is costly.

Let’s keep it simple and get back to basics. Take a set of 21 bets; give yourself 11 wins and 10 losses. Now take any starting bankroll amount. To keep it simple, bet 5.5% to win 5% for each bet and put the wins and losses in any order you desire. After each bet, win or lose, adjust the next bet to 5.5% of the new bankroll, just like Gunshard says.

Now, if you didn’t change the size of your bets, 52.4%, or 11 wins and 10 losses would result in breaking even.

But Gunshard’s plan requires changing the size of your bets after each play, changing the breakeven point. How much it changes depends on the percentage bet, but the higher the percentage, the worse off you are. With my example, of 5.5%, the breakeven point nears 54%.

Gunshard should be thankful for discount books and vigorish, if he uses them, as his strategy raised his breakeven point, which was offset by the reduced vig.

Again, the percentage doesn’t matter; it’s easier to use 5.5% for this exercise than Gunshard’s recommended 5%, but the results are along the same lines.

Try it again and again. No matter what order you place your 11 wins and 10 losses, after those 21 bets, you always have 97.1% of your roll left...

It's not just a math excercise, it's a practical excercise.

This applies to the vast amjority of regular bettors out there, if you are good at margins and edges, partial Kelly can be applied, but it does change your breakeven point regardless.

And, finally, no, increasing your stakes do not lower your chances of winning, but increasing your stakes on plays that have a lower chance of winning will make it appear that way. No matter what, it's a money management, and possibly bankroll, issue.

If you have a bet that warrants as much as 2 or 3 times the risk as other plays, there is little reason to play the other plays.

[Accrued Interest]

I'm serious. If you very your bet size over a given sample of flips your break even point goes up.

That is basically true. If you bet as a 56% winner and win 53%, you will go broke over the long term. Most people bet as 75% winners.

[Accrued Interest]

If you have a bet that warrants as much as 2 or 3 times the risk as other plays, there is little reason to play the other plays.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Winner.

You want to make your best bets be what puts you in the black as an average bettor which means you need to get rid of the other bets or make them inconsequential. That is basically your only way to win. It is not the winners that are the problem. It is the average bet. But if you have no winners, you have a pretty big problem.

[TommieGunshot]

How much in vig are you paying per bet?

Zero. There is no edge on either side of the bet. Kelly is immaterial. These bets aren’t made as a percentage. I have a feeling the silly claim about break even is not going to be supported with anything meaningful.

at even odds,

[d2bets]

That is basically true. If you bet as a 56% winner and win 53%, you will go broke over the long term. Most people bet as 75% winners.

Are you talking pure -110 plays? If so, no, you will not go broke over the long-term if you wager appropriate bet sizes. In fact, you will win over the long-term.

[d2bets]

How much in vig are you paying per bet?

If you using a percentage of bankroll, say a partial Kelly, you are changing your break even point. That's where it really becomes a problem for bettors. Some bettors have the notion to bet a percentage of existing bankroll.

The thinking is that you can't go broke as your bet size will dwindle as Funds drop. But changing the unit size is the absolute worst thing to do in the face of extreme streaks.

But, more simply, I've posted about this in the past...



It's not just a math excercise, it's a practical excercise.

This applies to the vast amjority of regular bettors out there, if you are good at margins and edges, partial Kelly can be applied, but it does change your breakeven point regardless.

And, finally, no, increasing your stakes do not lower your chances of winning, but increasing your stakes on plays that have a lower chance of winning will make it appear that way. No matter what, it's a money management, and possibly bankroll, issue.

If you have a bet that warrants as much as 2 or 3 times the risk as other plays, there is little reason to play the other plays.

I'm going to register a rare disagreement with you. +EV is +EV and it is worth a play. Even if you have some -110 60% plays, that does not mean that you should pass up 54% plays because of it. Only reason would be if you are at risk of running out of bankroll. Otherwise, play the +EV plays.

In fact, and I think you know this, I might even prefer the 54% over the 60% play if the limit is significantly higher.
So let's say my limit on the 60% play is $50, but the limit on the 54% play is $2,000. And I had to choose to only make one of the wagers.
Assuming bankroll is sufficient, I'd rather take the 54% play for $2,000 than the 60% for $50.

For +EV, volume is the name of the game.

[texhooper]

I can’t believe that this turned into an actual legitimate conversation

[KVB]

I'm going to register a rare disagreement with you. +EV is +EV and it is worth a play. Even if you have some -110 60% plays, that does not mean that you should pass up 54% plays because of it. Only reason would be if you are at risk of running out of bankroll. Otherwise, play the +EV plays.

In fact, and I think you know this, I might even prefer the 54% over the 60% play if the limit is significantly higher.
So let's say my limit on the 60% play is $50, but the limit on the 54% play is $2,000. And I had to choose to only make one of the wagers.
Assuming bankroll is sufficient, I'd rather take the 54% play for $2,000 than the 60% for $50.

For +EV, volume is the name of the game.

Read my post again. I'm talking about making a bet's worth 2 or 3 times the risk over others.

Not the smaller margins you are talking about.

Assessing the risk warranted for a play will have nothing to do with your limits.

That's a different constraint altogether. Getting down is a different set of protocols than determining risk. They are not related, even in the face of limits.

[JIBBBY]

When you chase you lose. Gambling 101.

[KVB]

To use your example to make my point, it really doesn't matter how many $50 bets you place, in the end it will be the $2000 bets that matter.

I agree the +EV is +EV and they should nearly all be bet, depending on the book and circumstance, but rarely does a calculation of margin warrant such a difference in risk between bets and when there is a difference, again, it's only those bigger bets that will really matter.

If you are the kind of better to lose 40 $50 bets and then make one $2000 bet that wins and you call yourself even, you will need self reflection.

If you are the kind of better to lose 40 $50 bets but then win one $50 bet at 40-1 odds, then you can see there is big difference in methodology and you can guess which bettor is more likely to lose less or even profit long term.

[texhooper]

The second one is more likely to lose less or even profit long term.

I’ll see myself out

[TheLock]

I can’t believe that this turned into an actual legitimate conversation

That’s exactly what I was thinking!!