[Snine]

Let's say you have a standard bet size of $100. Will you always bet $100 regardless of how much juice is on the line or do you account for that and bump it up.

For Example.

+100, you would bet $100 to win $100
-110, would you bet $110 to win $100 ? or $100 to win $90.91

It doesn't seem like that big of a jump to add the juice in most situations, but what about big favourites you like?

-150, would you bet $150 to win $100 ? or $100 to win $66.67
-180, would you bet $180 to win $100 ? or $100 to win $55.56

If you do add the juice then the higher it gets, the more you're straying from strict bankroll management. But also if you do like a line of -150 or even HIGHER, then is it safe to assume that because they are a big favourite it warrants risking more? Also for dog lines like +130, I assume people just bet the normal $100, correct?

Thank you.

[hutennis]

$100 should not be your "bet" size.
It should be your "win" size.

You should bet

$125 to win $100 @ -125 and $80 to win $100 @ +125
$200 to win $100 @ -200 and $50 to win $100 @ +200
$1000 to win $100 @ -1000 and $10 to win $100 @ +1000

[Snine]

Thanks for the reply. I'm having trouble understanding why you would bet less on underdogs though? If you find a +200 line that you like, you're only going to bet half? So no matter how good of odds on dogs you're getting you will never win more then $100?

Wouldn't that be leaving a lot of money on the table? Say after 10 bets like that betting a flat $100, and going 5-5 you would be up $500. Where as if you dropped your bets to $50 and went 5-5 you would only be up $250.

Assuming $100 is well within your bankroll and only represents 2% of your money, I don't see how lowering your bet on dogs has an advantage.

Am I missing something? Thanks for any help.

[tto827]

Everyone does it differently. Determine what works best for you and go with it.

If we want to go legit math answer, your bet size is determined by the edge you have.

[hutennis]

Even if we leave aside edge considerations and 2% of BR is your key number, you still not supposed to bet 2% of your BR.
You supposed to win 2% of your BR, if you don't want to dramatically increase you chance of going broke (risk of ruin) by over betting relative to the size of your BR
That's the mathematical fact established by Kelly.

If $100 is 2% of your BR then your bet at +200 should be $50 to win $100.

Wouldn't that be leaving a lot of money on the table? Say after 10 bets like that betting a flat $100, and going 5-5 you would be up $500. Where as if you dropped your bets to $50 and went 5-5 you would only be up $250.

If you win betting +200 at the rate of 50/50, than this is either an amazing lucky run, or line +200 is posted by people who have absolutely no idea what they are doing. None, what so ever.
You don't need any reason to be lucky, but what reasons do you have to consider odds makers so amazingly incompetent?

[Snine]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply a 5-5 record was expected, just used it for a nice even example.

Basically what I was trying to say is, when you're looking at any sample size of -200 bets, where you are up money, you will have made double the profit by betting $100 rather then dropping it down to $50.

In the long run, obviously you have to believe that you will be up money making these bets, otherwise why would you even bet those games.

I do understand that on the flip side if you were down money using your method you would be down only half, but if your losing money on these bets long term does it really matter if you lose it at a slower rate?

Ether way thanks for your imput though, I will give it some more thought and maybe even try it out.

[byronbb]

You bet less on underdogs because the chances of them winning is less. You bet more on favourites because the chances of them winning is greater.

[hutennis]

You bet less on underdogs because the chances of them winning is less. You bet more on favourites because the chances of them winning is greater.

That's true, but that's what he is doing now.
He bets 110 to win 100 @-110 which is more than $100 he bets to win $110 @ +110.

So the point is that simply betting less on gods is not enough.
It has to be a correct proportion.
Betting to win the same whether you bet dogs or favs is a correct approach.

[Topo]

I like to keep stake + profit roughly equal. Example: If I would bet $50 on a $2.00 line to win $50 then I would bet $25 on a $4.00 line to win $75. Stake + Profit in both cases is $100, so my bankroll would swing $100 either way depending on outcome.

[arwar]

for most books (local anyway) if someone calls up and bets 100 it means
win 100 on a fav (lots of football is -110/-110 eg) so bet 110 to win 100
if they say 100 on a dog (say baseball +125) most books will
translate = bet 100 to win 125
then there are no fractions
but you can do it anyway you want
most offshore books i have used (many) have an option to specify whether
the 100 is the win amount or the wager amount
it generally defaults to like above ---> 110/100 100/125

[easyliving]

Thanks for the reply. I'm having trouble understanding why you would bet less on underdogs though? If you find a +200 line that you like, you're only going to bet half? So no matter how good of odds on dogs you're getting you will never win more then $100?

Wouldn't that be leaving a lot of money on the table? Say after 10 bets like that betting a flat $100, and going 5-5 you would be up $500. Where as if you dropped your bets to $50 and went 5-5 you would only be up $250.

Assuming $100 is well within your bankroll and only represents 2% of your money, I don't see how lowering your bet on dogs has an advantage.

Am I missing something? Thanks for any help.

everything hutennis said is correct so far. how people bet dogs depends on the person I guess. I always bet to win 1 unit on - lines and I bet 1 unit on +money lines. However most of my bets are dogs so its not often I lay juice.

[Inspirited]

I believe in keeping it proportional as hutennis suggests. Maybe you can bet a little extra on dogs if you truly believe you have a larger edge on dogs than with favorites, but I'd still keep it somewhat proportional.

[Noleafclover]

I like fixed returns betting as well - a monte carlo simulation run in Fixed Odds Sports Betting on it vs. Level staking found it showed similar returns with less variance.

But I'm not above hitting a dog harder if I think the number's more off, nor a favorite. I do vary unit size some. I also will parlay frequently above -250 or so to reduce risk of catastrophic loss, again to decrease variance... probably not most profitable way to do it long term, but it allows you to fear variance less and up your unit size.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

I like fixed returns betting as well - a monte carlo simulation run in Fixed Odds Sports Betting on it vs. Level staking found it showed similar returns with less variance.

But I'm not above hitting a dog harder if I think the number's more off, nor a favorite. I do vary unit size some. I also will parlay frequently above -250 or so to reduce risk of catastrophic loss, again to decrease variance... probably not most profitable way to do it long term, but it allows you to fear variance less and up your unit size.

All you're doing is an approximation of Kelly staking :-) Fixed win stake regardless of odds, varying a little on value.

[Noleafclover]

Kelly would advise stronger variance. I'll bet most things for 1unit, some for 2.

[TwoWays]

too much math. all-in is what you need to know. See, no numbers necessary.

[I/O]

Deadest time of the year for the sports world and the forums yet many recent new signups here

[jjgold]

In Europe most bettors put the risk amount first

USA to win amount

[Boner_18]

"Juice doesn't matter if you just pick winners."

-Brock Landers