[lottowin]

Hi guys!
Is money management supposed to help you. Some players say that it is a system which balances your win vs loss and investment vs return ratio. I understand that it is best to know how much to gamble and when to stop, but a definition of money management dazzled me: 'It is the bastard mix of magician and advertising. Stage magic is all about misdirecting the viewers’ focus away from how the trick is performed. So, money management was the stepchild of the gaming system industry.'
Any idea what it means?
Cheers!

[rm18]

books do not make money because of bad money management by players, they make money because people who suck at handicapping think they lose money because of bad money management and continue to make bad bets

[byronbb]

An advantage sportsbettor, (one with an edge long term), must use money management or they will go broke, therefore it is imperative.
A losing player is going to lose money regardless, but using money management is going to prevent an accelerated risk of ruin. The person who wrote that was basically implying that losers are going to lose so a "money management" system sold as a means to profit is a mere illusion, which is true, however, a recreational better can do nothing better than adopt a very strict and conservative bet sizing as a percentage of a bankroll.

[wantitall4moi]

yup, if you cant pick winners then money management is just the death of a thousand cuts.

It was one of those things that 'smart' guys and 'math' guys cling to because it is the one thing they can actually prove (to some extent) will work in a theoretical vacuum. Problem is all money management strategies people cite always assume something that cant be assumes....risk, or 'edge'.

They all make the mistake that says 'price equals edge', which is dead wrong.

I remember back 8-9 years ago these braindeads who were supposed to the the geniuses would say that because a game was now only -105 it had a much better edge and was worthy of a larger portion of their bankroll. When in fact 'logical' thinking would dictate the opposite. Or at least their 'steam' wins theory said so. If 'smart' money moved it then the team should win more often than not, a theory still held today. So they had conflicting theories going on.

So then, and now they have adopted a hybrid, you bet the best number available after you recognize what the 'smart' money says.

Still all bullshit.

But for example if you use Kelly or some version of it and it says a play at -5 is a 2.5% bankroll play, if 'smart' money moves it to -6.5 then it (the 5) magically becomes a 4.2% bankroll play or some nonsense, guys who are familiar can fix that for me and give the exact numbers if they want. So -5 before steam (old term expression for it) was 'worth' 2.5% of your bankroll, but once it moved to -6.5 somewhere the -5 (if you could still find it, or even bet it) was worth more?

They dont bother trying to figure out what +6.5 is worth or even if +5 ws the 'best' bet in the first place. They watch the 'market' and let price determine whatthey bet, and the price comparisons the percentage/amount they bet.

So theyre followers, and followers with zero ability or opinion to pick winners will lose, no matter what strategies they employ.