Money Management 101

remmy358 · 09-14-07, 05:56 PM

there's no such thing as a lock that's -110...get real.

let's face it, 99% of us are compuslive gamblers and don't have good money mgt skills because of it.

pokernut9999 · 09-14-07, 06:02 PM

Here is a poll that would be interesting. If there was such a thing called a lock and it was proven such as a fixed game or whatever, how many people would just bet the one LOCK and how many would use it to try and hit parlays or teasers?

My guess is over 50% would get greedy and blow it on a parlay.

nostradamusX · 09-14-07, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by pokernut9999

Here is a poll that would be interesting. If there was such a thing called a lock and it was proven such as a fixed game or whatever, how many people would just bet the one LOCK and how many would use it to try and hit parlays or teasers?

My guess is over 50% would get greedy and blow it on a parlay.

That's why the house always wins. It's basic mathematics. The lock is a putter, not a guarantee.

EJandV · 09-14-07, 07:09 PM

I would parlay it all over the place on my paper and could easily make nothing on it , is a normal occurence just like hitting the single wager is a normal occurence .

The HG · 09-14-07, 08:39 PM

I would parlay the HELL out of that sh*t son. Watch and learn.

raiders72002 · 09-14-07, 08:42 PM

In your 20s it's a Game of the Year
In your 30s it's a lock
40 and above it's a play

jjgold · 09-14-07, 09:35 PM

best money mangt is bet the same amount every game and bet no exotics, 5% of bankroll per bet.

eyeball · 09-15-07, 08:33 AM

Coach I need help

Coach,
So 5% of your bankroll per game? I read a lot no more than 2% because at 5% you can exhuast your bankroll on a loosing steak.... What's the best way to go! So if your bankroll lets say is2,000 $100 per game, which is basically 20 plays....or units?

Don Dollars · 09-15-07, 08:49 AM

A lock?

HedgeHog · 09-15-07, 04:28 PM

Nostradamus:

You should get your tuition returned on the MM 101 class you took. First, the idea of insurance is to offset potential losses, not increase profits--and if you have a 100% lock (fix?) , then you have a guaranteed windfall. Secondly ,the more teams you put in your parlay with the lock, the more you dilute your potential winnings. Here's the math:

In your $20 three team parlay example, you only have a 25% chance of success despite the lock, because you still need to pick two winners on your own. Expected Value is determined by taking the probability of the win (25%) multiplied by the win amount ($120) and then subtracting the probabilty of the loss (75%) multiplied by the loss amount ($20): (.25 x $120) - (.75 x $20) = $15 expected profit. However, if you let the $20 ride straight with the rest of your money on the lock, you'll get back $18.18 profit ($19.05 if you place your bet at a -105 Book).

Reducing your parlay to a two-teamer, keyed with your lock, nets you a slightly better $16 profit per $20--still significantly less than the straight win figures of $18.18 (@-110) or $19.05 (@-105). So if you have a sure thing, bet it straight only.

Art Vandeleigh · 09-15-07, 05:22 PM

I think you're on the right track Mr. Nostradamus, I would recommend to my clients, if I ever had any

, that they divide their bankrolls in two, one part for bets up to let's say +250, and another part of their total bankroll for higher odds wagers (maybe even a 3rd part of bankroll for very high odds if those tempt you).

If you play 100 three game parlays at 6-1 odds, you would need to hit 14 to about break even, and even if you hit say 18 parlays out of 100 for a +26 unit profit, those wins will probably come in bunches, so lots of volatility. If you mix those parlay bets into an all encompassing bankroll the inevitable lengthy losing streaks can really mess with your psyche.

The sillyness of the word "lock" aside, I like the idea of playing your strong games both straight up and in parlays, especially if you have separate bankrolls for both types of bets.

HedgeHog · 09-15-07, 05:54 PM

[QUOTE=remmy358;345567]there's no such thing as a lock that's -110...get real.

Tell that to Tim D., the referee that made enough foul calls to ensure that the games he officiated went Over. Also, star athletes have been paid to shave points. These are "lock" games.

nostradamusX · 09-16-07, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by HedgeHog

Nostradamus:

You should get your tuition returned on the MM 101 class you took. First, the idea of insurance is to offset potential losses, not increase profits--and if you have a 100% lock (fix?) , then you have a guaranteed windfall. Secondly ,the more teams you put in your parlay with the lock, the more you dilute your potential winnings. Here's the math:

In your $20 three team parlay example, you only have a 25% chance of success despite the lock, because you still need to pick two winners on your own. Expected Value is determined by taking the probability of the win (25%) multiplied by the win amount ($120) and then subtracting the probabilty of the loss (75%) multiplied by the loss amount ($20): (.25 x $120) - (.75 x $20) = $15 expected profit. However, if you let the $20 ride straight with the rest of your money on the lock, you'll get back $18.18 profit ($19.05 if you place your bet at a -105 Book).

Reducing your parlay to a two-teamer, keyed with your lock, nets you a slightly better $16 profit per $20--still significantly less than the straight win figures of $18.18 (@-110) or $19.05 (@-105). So if you have a sure thing, bet it straight only.

Good work but the "lock" is not included in my parlay. I should've included that in my initial solution. I'm simply telling the brethen how to cover their a$$es.

nostradamusX · 09-16-07, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandeleigh

If you play 100 three game parlays at 6-1 odds, you would need to hit 14 to about break even, and even if you hit say 18 parlays out of 100 for a +26 unit profit, those wins will probably come in bunches, so lots of volatility.

A beautiful formula! I can't believe I didn't come up with that. I have a strong appreciation (obsession) for mathematics that "regular" people can't see.

No wonder why all the broke cats down at the station survive on parlays. See, I'm not a big parlay guy and I always wondered wy people love them. But you're onto something.

The ideal situation would be to bet everything straight up IMO. But few of us have the bankroll (2000 min) to support that.

HedgeHog · 09-16-07, 10:33 AM

Nos:
OK, so your idea of insurance is a totally unrelated 3-teamer. Now you have to pick 3 winners on your own (no locks) which the average bettor can do only 12.5% of the time (.5x.5x.5 =
.125). Vande gives you an example of hittng 18 out of 100 three teamers for +26 units, which is accurate for someone who can hit 56.5% winners (.565 x .565 x .565 = .18).

If you can hit 56.5% consistenly, then you're a pro. And almost all pros bet primarily straight, shop for the best line, and utilize reduced juice to max profits.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on betting philosophy. Good luck on your plays today, whether they're straight or pars. 'Hog