[Ferrari355]

I’d like to get everyone’s opinion. Let’s say someone was to always bet the exact same amount while being extremely selective on how many bets are made (100-200 a year) would betting 5% of their bankroll be unwise? Thoughts?

[gauchojake]

When I think of bankroll management, I think of SBR.

[lakerboy]

5% is nothing. I usually bet 50%

[mjsuax13]

Is this EGrecu?

[pologq]

in my opinion only if you adjust the 5% as you go. some leave it as the original number no matter if their roll goes down.

let's say roll is $1K. 5% is $50.

let's say a week later you are down to $800. your bets should be down to $40. don't stay at $50.

[Optional]

Technically the calculation of your "bankroll" is supposed to be your entire net wealth. Which is why a fraction of 1% is often cited as the "correct" amount.

But if you have allocated an amount you can afford to lose as a bankroll, I'd think 5% is a sensible number.

If you are looking for the best % to maximize possible bankroll growth whilst lowering risk of ruin, then you should start by reading up on the Kelly Criterion.

[lakerboy]

in my opinion only if you adjust the 5% as you go. some leave it as the original number no matter if their roll goes down.

let's say roll is $1K. 5% is $50.

let's say a week later you are down to $800. your bets should be down to $40. don't stay at $50.

Interesting.

The thing is though if you start winning a week later which is probably gonna happen if you were down because you should start winning you aren't capitalizing. This is what books want you to do.

[biggie12]

Interesting.

The thing is though if you start winning a week later which is probably gonna happen if you were down because you should start winning you aren't capitalizing. This is what books want you to do.

wrong lakerboy

This method is the best to have the lowest ROR

[pologq]

personally i don't adjust my bet amounts for 2 weeks. then i reassess and adjust up or down. i give myself a little to get out of a funk. if i am hitting, i don't overreact (to me) right away and start betting more.

[Madison]

5% is nothing. I usually bet 50%

Be prepared to refresh your bankroll regularly. I call BULLSHIT!!!

[d2bets]

I’d like to get everyone’s opinion. Let’s say someone was to always bet the exact same amount while being extremely selective on how many bets are made (100-200 a year) would betting 5% of their bankroll be unwise? Thoughts?

"Extremely selective" is for losers.

Winners bet as many wagers as possible. 100-200 per year is nothing. 100-200 per week is kind of light too.

When you say "unwise", it kind of depends on your goals. What is your goal? To minimize losses?

[Nate rasta]

If you guys are betting on an event let's say ufc.and you like fighter at +220. Would you bet it at your unit price or bet it to win your unit price

[d2bets]

If you guys are betting on an event let's say ufc.and you like fighter at +220. Would you bet it at your unit price or bet it to win your unit price

Maybe something in between.

I'd say you should keep your returns similar.

110/100 (210 return) would be $65.62 to win $144.36.

[iwantcougars]

If you guys are betting on an event let's say ufc.and you like fighter at +220. Would you bet it at your unit price or bet it to win your unit price

on plus bets (150+) i bet one unit so i can be able to middle/hedge live if the opportunity arose

[Optional]

"Extremely selective" is for losers.

Winners bet as many wagers as possible. 100-200 per year is nothing. 100-200 per week is kind of light too.

When you say "unwise", it kind of depends on your goals. What is your goal? To minimize losses?

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

And they can all be "correct".

Some people can think of ways to profit without having to chase volume and turn it into a full time job.

[d2bets]

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

And they can all be "correct".

Some people can think of ways to profit without having to chase volume and turn it into a full time job.

I get that, but the only way to truly make serious cash without taking on massive risk/variance is through volume advantage betting. It's true though that it can take on the characteristics of a full-time job.

[Nate rasta]

I always felt like less volume would raise my winning percentage.At least only playing games that I had a opinion on

[d2bets]

I always felt like less volume would raise my winning percentage.At least only playing games that I had a opinion on

Key word.

And it depends if your winning percentage is above break-even. If it is, volume is generally more important than win %.

Assuming -110 wagers for a year, I'd rather win 55% over 1000 wagers than 60% over 100 wagers.

[texhooper]

"Extremely selective" is for losers.

Winners bet as many wagers as possible. 100-200 per year is nothing. 100-200 per week is kind of light too.

When you say "unwise", it kind of depends on your goals. What is your goal? To minimize losses?

I’ve also seen you advocate betting the max on every play. So are you making over 200 max plays a week?

[OldBill]

ok extermely selective is the best way to go but always bet within your means like if you work you sure as hell do not have $500 a week to bet ............... so in nfl say you have $200 per week this would be $3400 for the season

and you always have 2 or more games that just jump off the page at you luckily you live where you can bet at sports books in casinos

bet the 4 games you know you have that edge do parlay 2 3 n 4 games in game wagers too like ne time t d you can rack up lots making 3 parlay in one game $10 could win you $500

but lets say yu stay in that max 5% range always you will stay ahed of the books

guaranteed this is how the sharps n wise guys stay ahead of the books but thye are wagering way more than anybody in here and vegas will limit there action

they the runners also and willm adjust spreads talking to each other one sharp i knew personally got his runners to pay people to place wagers for him like $2000 at 10 differnt books and never got limited bets all sports all year long but a lonely life out there had few friends

no family at all like wife n children some relatives but never close with them ..

[d2bets]

I’ve also seen you advocate betting the max on every play. So are you making over 200 max plays a week?

Yes. Probably more than that, actually. On a good CBB Saturday, I probably end up placing more than 100 wagers and maybe something around 100k in play. Of course it depends on what your book's max is. Mine just tend to be less than what I'd want.

[d2bets]

ok extermely selective is the best way to go but always bet within your means like if you work you sure as hell do not have $500 a week to bet ............... so in nfl say you have $200 per week this would be $3400 for the season

and you always have 2 or more games that just jump off the page at you luckily you live where you can bet at sports books in casinos

bet the 4 games you know you have that edge do parlay 2 3 n 4 games in game wagers too like ne time t d you can rack up lots making 3 parlay in one game $10 could win you $500

but lets say yu stay in that max 5% range always you will stay ahed of the books

guaranteed this is how the sharps n wise guys stay ahead of the books but thye are wagering way more than anybody in here and vegas will limit there action

they the runners also and willm adjust spreads talking to each other one sharp i knew personally got his runners to pay people to place wagers for him like $2000 at 10 differnt books and never got limited bets all sports all year long but a lonely life out there had few friends

no family at all like wife n children some relatives but never close with them ..

Guaranteed you're wrong. Sharps and wise guys bet a ton of games. If you only bet a few nice plays in a day, it's very easy to lose. If you bet 100 nice plays, it's very difficult to lose.

Misconception that sharps and wise guys can just hone in on a few wagers and know they are going to win. Nah. They're just looking for a good 56-57% play. Knowing that means the wager will lose 43-44% of the time. Over 3 wagers, the chance of being behind is fairly high. Over 100, it's fairly low. More wagers = less variance = good.

[Nate rasta]

Interesting

[veriableodds]

Guaranteed you're wrong. Sharps and wise guys bet a ton of games. If you only bet a few nice plays in a day, it's very easy to lose. If you bet 100 nice plays, it's very difficult to lose.

Misconception that sharps and wise guys can just hone in on a few wagers and know they are going to win. Nah. They're just looking for a good 56-57% play. Knowing that means the wager will lose 43-44% of the time. Over 3 wagers, the chance of being behind is fairly high. Over 100, it's fairly low. More wagers = less variance = good.

Agree here, have had multiple years betting 3200-6000 wagers per year easy. Per range wager was 1/2% - 1.25%. Takeaway from this strategy all wager are created =.(ex: guy up by 5 strokes into final day in golf, team has 25% more wins so therefore statistically you should wager more are all FALSE perceptions)

[Nate rasta]

Key word.

And it depends if your winning percentage is above break-even. If it is, volume is generally more important than win %.

Assuming -110 wagers for a year, I'd rather win 55% over 1000 wagers than 60% over 100 wagers.

I could be missing something but I don't agree with pushing for more volume bets. I feel like I would have a lot more success betting say 35 games a week that I felt good about versus betting 70 games a week that I might be just throwing darts at the board

[JIBBBY]

100% every bet. Live free or die hard! ..

[d2bets]

I could be missing something but I don't agree with pushing for more volume bets. I feel like I would have a lot more success betting say 35 games a week that I felt good about versus betting 70 games a week that I might be just throwing darts at the board

There are way more than 35 total mispricings on the gambling board per week. Just a question of how hard you wanna work.

Larger point is you don't need to pass up 55% plays and only take 60% plays. I'd rather hit 57% at higher volume than 60% at lower volume.

[lakerboy]

I could be missing something but I don't agree with pushing for more volume bets. I feel like I would have a lot more success betting say 35 games a week that I felt good about versus betting 70 games a week that I might be just throwing darts at the board

The thing is that the games you feel good about will probably win at the same rate as the ones you don't think you know about.

[veriableodds]

There are way more than 35 total mispricings on the gambling board per week. Just a question of how hard you wanna work.

Larger point is you don't need to pass up 55% plays and only take 60% plays. I'd rather hit 57% at higher volume than 60% at lower volume.

Im out if game now but just glancing today nba,nhl,ncaab see at least 10 rather interesting disparities. LOL not including all those bias dogs

[dpark80]

d2bets, I agree with you 100%. If you want to make money long term, you need to make as many bets as possible where you find an edge against the line. It's like investing in stocks. You want to invest in as many different stocks as possible to diversify your portfolio so you don't see major swings due to one or two stocks.

I do mostly moneyline bets. I've bet on almost every NBA game this season. So far I've bet on 358 games, with an ROI of 11.83%. Probably not a sustainable ROI, but we'll see where it ends up at the end of the season.

"Extremely selective" is for losers.

Winners bet as many wagers as possible. 100-200 per year is nothing. 100-200 per week is kind of light too.

When you say "unwise", it kind of depends on your goals. What is your goal? To minimize losses?