A great read on money management heading into football season...

spliff · 07-28-07, 10:17 PM

thanks for the heads up, great thread. I rarely check Covers out, is it much like Sbr? I see you have a shit load of posts there!

pags11 · 07-28-07, 10:38 PM

yeah, it's one of the best threads I've ever read on money management...

SBR's a much nicer, controlled place than covers...covers has a lot of good info., but you have to sift through the BS...it's basically downtown compared to SBR being the 'burbs...

shrax4 · 07-28-07, 11:28 PM

And I believe in risking more of your bankroll on each game than you have heard before. I suggest risking 10% of your ORIGINAL bankroll on each game with no more than 13% on great games and 7% on borderline games. Risking 100% of your bankroll on a given day is not taboo, but probably necessary to hit your goal.

Great article for juice reduction, but for money management??? No way.

austintx05 · 07-28-07, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by shrax4

Great article for juice reduction, but for money management??? No way.

don't question vanzack, he will take you to school

Arilou · 07-29-07, 06:41 AM

That advice is flat out stupid. Your original bankroll has nothing to do with what you should wager now and 7% on a borderline game is beyond stupid - it implies you're over 57% on marginal plays. I'm often an advocate of 'be aggressive' for those who are playing for the money, but this is rediculous.

vanzack · 07-29-07, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Arilou

That advice is flat out stupid. Your original bankroll has nothing to do with what you should wager now and 7% on a borderline game is beyond stupid - it implies you're over 57% on marginal plays. I'm often an advocate of 'be aggressive' for those who are playing for the money, but this is rediculous.

Guys - that thread is very long and the original post is not indicative of the true message. I dont blame you for not reading the whole thread as it is novel length, but later I clarify that the original post is just an example, but an important one.

The example stated in the first post is for someone who has an aggressive goal of doubling their money. It was an attempt to point out that in order to acheive most peoples goals, when spelled out, it means betting way more than you should.

You might think it is stupid to wager 10% of your bankroll on a game but the point of the post was to show that if your goal is X, your wagers must be Y, and that sometimes your "Y" is much bigger than you would expect.

I dont advocate any set bankroll amount that is arbitrary (like the common 2% of bankroll advice given). I give a simple system that allows a bettor to decide based upon his goals how much he should bet. If your goal is to grow your bankroll from 1k to 4k over 20 bets, betting 2% is useless and arbitrary. I simply give the math (not complicated but often not considered) on how to reach your goals.

If you have the time, you should read the whole thread, it has a lot of good input from many posters and is almost 2 years old.

pags11 · 07-30-07, 01:00 AM

arilou,

I've read a lot of vanzack's stuff, and haven't ready anything yet I deem stupid...have some respect dude...

MonkeyF0cker · 07-30-07, 07:56 AM

Vanzack... With all due respect, I appreciate the point you were trying to make in that thread. However, it sort of comes across poorly. As aggressive as your NFL system is, the jist of the thread makes it seem as though every capper should have plays on every game each week. I really don't think you meant to come across this way. However, it does to some extent.

I honestly don't think an end goal is necessary. In fact, I think it is generally detrimental. If you try to meet an end goal, you usually try to chase a purely financial outcome rather than making wagers based on research and value. On the contrary, if you make your wagers based on varied research which leads to a pick with value, then that should be your goal - no matter how many or how few of them you find each week or season.

Also, the % of wins means little in the broader spectrum. It all depends what you're betting on. If I'm a 40% capper but am only wagering on +200 or above, I'm making at least a 20% return. Someone who's a 56% capper averaging -130 per wager loses 1%. Yes, lower juice makes a huge impact in the long run and on that point I'll ride with you all day. However, a "losing" capper can also destroy a "winning" capper.

There is no need to wager 10% of your roll on any given bet or put your entire roll on the line any given Sunday to double your roll for the season. I believe anywhere from 2-4% is the proper amount - both to safeguard yourself from catastrophy and give you a decent return. If you're a successful capper and you stick to a regimen of bets of value and confidence each week, you should see providential returns throughout the season. Whether it is double, triple, or half of your bankroll depends on how well you analyze the value and balance your picks. But putting pressure on yourself to meet a financial goal only creates a poor decision-making environment. And for most, it can only lead to a losing scenario - especially @ 10% of their bankroll. Although, I definitely agree that you should be willing to lose any investment you make. However, the end goal is to make a profit.

Overall, I thought it was a decent post about the importance of reducing juice. You did a good job of exemplifying how much juice effects your return in the long run. Although, I think the aggressive bankroll strategy may have led some astray.

vanzack · 07-31-07, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by MonkeyF0cker

Vanzack... With all due respect, I appreciate the point you were trying to make in that thread. However, it sort of comes across poorly. As aggressive as your NFL system is, the jist of the thread makes it seem as though every capper should have plays on every game each week. I really don't think you meant to come across this way. However, it does to some extent.

I honestly don't think an end goal is necessary. In fact, I think it is generally detrimental. If you try to meet an end goal, you usually try to chase a purely financial outcome rather than making wagers based on research and value. On the contrary, if you make your wagers based on varied research which leads to a pick with value, then that should be your goal - no matter how many or how few of them you find each week or season.

Also, the % of wins means little in the broader spectrum. It all depends what you're betting on. If I'm a 40% capper but am only wagering on +200 or above, I'm making at least a 20% return. Someone who's a 56% capper averaging -130 per wager loses 1%. Yes, lower juice makes a huge impact in the long run and on that point I'll ride with you all day. However, a "losing" capper can also destroy a "winning" capper.

There is no need to wager 10% of your roll on any given bet or put your entire roll on the line any given Sunday to double your roll for the season. I believe anywhere from 2-4% is the proper amount - both to safeguard yourself from catastrophy and give you a decent return. If you're a successful capper and you stick to a regimen of bets of value and confidence each week, you should see providential returns throughout the season. Whether it is double, triple, or half of your bankroll depends on how well you analyze the value and balance your picks. But putting pressure on yourself to meet a financial goal only creates a poor decision-making environment. And for most, it can only lead to a losing scenario - especially @ 10% of their bankroll. Although, I definitely agree that you should be willing to lose any investment you make. However, the end goal is to make a profit.

Overall, I thought it was a decent post about the importance of reducing juice. You did a good job of exemplifying how much juice effects your return in the long run. Although, I think the aggressive bankroll strategy may have led some astray.

Thanks for the comments.

A couple of notes - that post is 2 years old and at the time I believe it was made in response to someone who asked me how to double their money with those parameters. IF someone wants to double their money with those parameters, it is the ONLY way to do it. I was simply making a point that most who gamble dont understand that their goals are way out of line with their execution, but that gets lost because by itself the thread is somewhat out of context.

I will take issue with your statement that goals are unnecessary. I think for the average gambler they are very necessary as a tool to set up success. Not in a rah rah motivational goal type of situation, but in a "this is what I have to do to reach my goal" type of analysis.

I still also take issue with throwing out arbitrary numbers like the age old 2-4% of your bankroll. Why? That might be fine for you but bad for someone with less or more aggressive goals. If I need to double my money by tomorrow, and I dont care if I have zero tomorrow, then betting 2-4% is not for me.

This is why goals are so important to setting up your individual plan to make money.

Your comments about ML plays are obviously correct. The winning percentage was in the context of football where there is a spread.

MonkeyF0cker · 07-31-07, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by vanzack

Thanks for the comments.

A couple of notes - that post is 2 years old and at the time I believe it was made in response to someone who asked me how to double their money with those parameters. IF someone wants to double their money with those parameters, it is the ONLY way to do it. I was simply making a point that most who gamble dont understand that their goals are way out of line with their execution, but that gets lost because by itself the thread is somewhat out of context.

I will take issue with your statement that goals are unnecessary. I think for the average gambler they are very necessary as a tool to set up success. Not in a rah rah motivational goal type of situation, but in a "this is what I have to do to reach my goal" type of analysis.

I still also take issue with throwing out arbitrary numbers like the age old 2-4% of your bankroll. Why? That might be fine for you but bad for someone with less or more aggressive goals. If I need to double my money by tomorrow, and I dont care if I have zero tomorrow, then betting 2-4% is not for me.

This is why goals are so important to setting up your individual plan to make money.

Your comments about ML plays are obviously correct. The winning percentage was in the context of football where there is a spread.

Yeah I'll agree to some extent about wager/bankroll % as a product of your aggression. However, I just think that having a financial goal often leads many to take unneccessary shots on picks where they don't find much value and subsequently wouldn't be making normally. That, in turn, creates a higher % loss for most. My goal is always to find a balance between maximizing gain and minimizing loss. In general, the old 2%-4% range fits that bill to me and usually at the end of the season, I've met or exceeded the very goal that you've described.

MonkeyF0cker · 07-31-07, 03:47 PM

Also, if your unit size is 4% of your original bankroll, you only need to make slightly less than 1.5 units per week to double your roll by the end of the regular season....