Why Americans always lay to win? "Risk" is much better option in my opinion..

[Dark Horse]

Odds? Come on, odds are misleading. Anything can misfire.

Anything can misfire. But if you shoot from the hip it doesn't really matter, because the bull's eye will remain free of bullet holes.

No matter how you twist or turn it, if you study what people are trying to tell you here, you will end up a better gambler.

[Karayilan9]

Lay under 2 Buy over 2

[Sawyer]

Anything can misfire. But if you shoot from the hip it doesn't really matter, because the bull's eye will remain free of bullet holes.

No matter how you twist or turn it, if you study what people are trying to tell you here, you will end up a better gambler.

You will end up a better sports bettor if you don't place different amounts on each game What makes you think a -140 bet has a more chance to win then -150? Odds can be misleading and placing different amounts/stakes is a big mistake in my opinion. I'm strong believer in flat betting. But you're not betting flat as long as you lay x to win since your stakes will be different.

But if you bet on +EVEN odds, then our stakes will be always same since we will be risking the same amounts.

[Dark Horse]

What makes you think a -140 bet has a more chance to win then -150?

You don't understand. Not I, but the oddsmaker thinks that a -150 favorite has a greater chance of winning than a -140 favorite.

I can compare this opinion to my own opinion, also translated into a winning expectation/odds.

This allows me to determine if I have an edge. And if I do indeed have an edge I can calculate how much I want to bet, based on that edge.

It's beautiful. But a little more sophisticated than a simple evaluation if a team is going to win or lose, while shrugging off odds as irrelevant.

[Sawyer]

Let's examine my previous MLB 1st Inning bets which I posted in SBR Forum. (Baseball Thread)

5/10

det vs ny 130 to win 100
fla vs chi 115 to win 100

5/11

CWS VS MIN YES -110 (Risked 110)
SEA VS BAL YES +110(Risked 100)
TB VS LAA NO -105 (Risked 105)
PHI VS COL YES +120 POSTPONED (and it was no play next day)
HOU VS STL YES +110 (Risked 100)
CIN VS PIT YES -105 (Risk 105)

5/12

tor vs bos 100 to win 100
sea vs bal 110 to win 100
hou vs stl 105 to win 100
nyy vs det 120 to win 100
phi vs col 105 to win 100
tb vs laa 130 to win 100
lad vs ari 130 to win 100

5/13

fla vs byn 130 to win 100

Next Day

100 to win 110 was vs col POSTPONED
100 to win 100 cle vs bal
120 to win 100 tex vs tor
100 to win 105 stl vs cin
120 to win 100 oak vs laa

Next Day

100 to win 110 was vs col

Results

Win: 14
Lost: 6
Profit: +730
Profit if 100$ risked per game: 707.3

If you're laying to win 100, then you risked 2335.
Net profit was +730 so return was 3065.

If you risk 100 straight, you risked 2000 since 20 bets placed.
Net Profit was +707.3.

Which one is better in your opinion?

Risked 2335 for +730 Net Profit or,
Risked just 2000 for +707.3 Net Profit.

I'll be happy if you answer

[Dark Horse]

Pull up the Kelly calculator and see how much you would have made if you had adjusted that 70% winning ratio downwards to 56%. You'll probably be happy with your answer.

[Sawyer]

Don't talk about theories, I gave you a REAL sample, example above.
You didn't reply my question.

Which one is better in your opinion?

Risking 2335 for +730 Net Profit or,
Risking 2000 for +707.3 Net Profit.

Thanks.

[ufuque]

In flat betting ( as almost every professional sportspunter use it) you have to limit your risk amount at a certain point . (%1-%2 of your bankroll) At this point , Sawyer is right, you should not risk different amounts for every bet. Your risk amount has to be same for all your bets.If you do not do that it is not flat betting

[durito]

In flat betting ( as almost every NO professional sportspunter use it) you have to limit your risk amount at a certain point . (%1-%2 of your bankroll) At this point , Sawyer is right, you should not risk different amounts for every bet. Your risk amount has to be same for all your bets.If you do not do that it is not flat betting

fyp

[wrongturn]

does not make sense. if you don't expect -160 bets to have higher win rate than -110 bets, then nobody should have placed any -160 bets in the first place.

[Dark Horse]

No demagogy please. Let's not talk about theories, I gave you a REAL sample, example above.
You didn't reply my question.

Which one is better in your opinion?

Risking 2335 for +730 Net Profit or,
Risking 2000 for +707.3 Net Profit.

Thanks.

Risking 2335 for +730 Net Profit or,
Risking 2000 for +707.3 Net Profit.


And, for the record:
demagogue also demagog ( ) n. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

nice...


not.

[gangeriver]

what is normal in America? they drive automatic Maserati and automatic Ferrari, they drink bourbon , no regular food! they prefer fast food
if a NBA match score was 99-77, between 99 and 77 would read 22 on the scoreboard
come on man they use naturally lay to win.this is not strange!
Sawyer your question is wrong You should ask "Why americans don't use decimal system" now they will ask "whatt does it meeeaannn????" "what is the decimal system?"

[richyrich8478]

i personally take a good amount of risks. It also pays off really really big to take some risks. favorites don't win all the time and not even close to all the time... take some risks on baseball games and wactch ur account rise like crazy, just don't be an idiot

[HedgeHog]

Bet the same flat amount per game regardless of win % expectation? Glad I don't have to defend an American for coming up with this idiotic theory.

[Sawyer]

Bet the same flat amount per game regardless of win % expectation? Glad I don't have to defend an American for coming up with this idiotic theory.

You can't know which bet will win and which bet won't win

Many times, you'll cash your -110, -120 but get burned by -150, -140.

[the shadow]

I have a feeling the kelly boys are on their way

[LT Profits]

Don't talk about theories, I gave you a REAL sample, example above.
You didn't reply my question.

Which one is better in your opinion?

Risking 2335 for +730 Net Profit or,
Risking 2000 for +707.3 Net Profit.

Thanks.

It is a REAL fact that if you had used Kelly, your results would have been better than both choices you gave.

[LT Profits]

To put it in simplest terms, if you bet TO WIN, you are maximizing profit. if you bet RISK, you are minimizing risk at the cost of taking less profit. Both cases assume all bets are +EV (as they should always be). I'll take the more money option thank you.

[JoeVig]

Many times, you'll cash your -110, -120 but get burned by -150, -140.

Dear God, how many times are you going to repeat this proposition?

[LT Profits]

Dear God, how many times are you going to repeat this proposition?

Not to mention the fact that if he is getting burned by -140s and -150s, those were probably -EV bets to begin with.

[seaborneq]

Win and everything else is a minor proposition. Doesn't matter what, how, or who you bet on as long as you win. There is an old saying here in Alabama about the Football coaches' jobs, "Nothing matters but winning". Same as in gambling.

[Dark Horse]

Many people go to the track and successfully pick winners, but end up not making money. It's all about value. If a horse goes off at 12 to 1 and you think it should be 3 to 1, would you walk away from that?

This, I believe, is roughly what Sawyer is saying: 'I think I'm pretty good at picking winners, but I don't know how to assign value, and as a result I'm uncomfortable with favorites larger than (based on sample) -130. What do I do?'

But he's not quite reached the point where he can clearly define the question - a prerequisite for finding a clear answer -, and so he's still dancing around the issue; touching upon its different elements without seeing how they connect. I would recommend him for his stubbornness, though. The seed of contrarianism.

[M@ximo]

Some people say they're betting flat but If you're laying x to win, then you're not betting flat!

Let's say you got 3 bets..

Bet A -110
Bet B +100
Bet C -150
Bet D -130

If you lose Bet C and Bet D, your loss will be,

-150
-130
+100
+100

P/L: -80$!

but if you bet flat, using "risk" option,

+91
+100
-100
-100

Your loss wil be only -9$.

So don't lay 120 to win 100 or 110 to win 100. Just place 100$ to win 91$ (1.91, -110 American) or 100$ to win 80 (1.80, -125 American). This way, you will reduce the devastating effect of juice when you lost a bet.

Use Decimal odds! Don't lay x to win.. Always bet flat+straight.

I like to bet on the risk.., easier to take control of the losses and the winnings

[losturmarbles]

so where do we sign up for winnie cooper's math class?

[pilike]

lol

[trixtrix]

calling justin7.. why is this thread in the think tank?

sawyer, instead of flat betting, won't your problem be better solved if you just NOT bet the -150/-160 games at all?

[mathdotcom]

this thread should be in the toilet tank along with a pile of shit on top of it

[Dark Horse]

Sawyer is thoroughly convinced that he's right, going so far as to make the same argument elsewhere, but this time making no distinction between -150 and -120 lines. lol (and yet I didn't get the impression that he would use this stunning insight to blindly bet the +140 dogs; since they are, in his marvelous universe, as likely to win as +110 dogs).

No worries. Disinformation has its place in sports betting. In fact, it should be considered profitable.

[pats3peat]

agreed, i always use risk

[terpkeg]

One quick point: My argument is based on the assumption that ALL bets made by both Sawyer and myself are +EV. Therefore, I would have no problem laying more to win more.

You are saying that you have no problem Risking more. That is fine, but why not make your play size determined on the risk amount?

I agree with Sawyer and I think this statement is where the difference of opinion is generated. Obviously if every bet you make is plus even, you should be risking more of your bankroll. But, this has no determination on whether you are betting to win or risk.

Example, a line is -300, but you believe it should be -800, using whatever predetermined money management theory you have established, you think you should be betting 3% of your bankroll. Betting to win, you are risking 9% of your bankroll. How is this a good money management? The basis of money management is how much you can afford to risk on a specific play and still make it valuable. If in fact, the line should be -800, you should be risking 9% of your roll only if that is the predetermined amount that you figured to be a safe and wise play. If 9% is the correct play, then you should be risking 9%, not to win 9%, risking 27%.

LT, you are just saying that you should risk a higher percentage of your roll on favorites than on underdogs. This makes sense because of variance. Despite the same percentage of perceived value, a favorite is given 60% to win when it should be 80%, or dog is given 10% chance to win when it should be 30%, you RISK more on the favorite because despite the value in the dog, the chance of you losing a consecutive number of plays and damaging your bankroll is much higher.

The debate comes down to actually recognizing what you are doing. When you bet to win, your risk amount is constantly changing. I have become more disciplined and a more successful gambler over the last two years since I have switched to the Risk mindset. I find it much easier to control my money management. It used to be difficult for me to adjust my win amounts and I was leaving myself overexposed on large favorites despite the fact that I may have perceived a +EV situation (and it may have very well been there) which would lead to tilt.

[LT Profits]

You are saying that you have no problem Risking more. That is fine, but why not make your play size determined on the risk amount?

I agree with Sawyer and I think this statement is where the difference of opinion is generated. Obviously if every bet you make is plus even, you should be risking more of your bankroll. But, this has no determination on whether you are betting to win or risk.

Example, a line is -300, but you believe it should be -800, using whatever predetermined money management theory you have established, you think you should be betting 3% of your bankroll. Betting to win, you are risking 9% of your bankroll. How is this a good money management? The basis of money management is how much you can afford to risk on a specific play and still make it valuable. If in fact, the line should be -800, you should be risking 9% of your roll only if that is the predetermined amount that you figured to be a safe and wise play. If 9% is the correct play, then you should be risking 9%, not to win 9%, risking 27%.

LT, you are just saying that you should risk a higher percentage of your roll on favorites than on underdogs. This makes sense because of variance. Despite the same percentage of perceived value, a favorite is given 60% to win when it should be 80%, or dog is given 10% chance to win when it should be 30%, you RISK more on the favorite because despite the value in the dog, the chance of you losing a consecutive number of plays and damaging your bankroll is much higher.

The debate comes down to actually recognizing what you are doing. When you bet to win, your risk amount is constantly changing. I have become more disciplined and a more successful gambler over the last two years since I have switched to the Risk mindset. I find it much easier to control my money management. It used to be difficult for me to adjust my win amounts and I was leaving myself overexposed on large favorites despite the fact that I may have perceived a +EV situation (and it may have very well been there) which would lead to tilt.

I defer to Kelly Calculator. Even if you cannot determine your approximate edge on each game (or are not comfortable doing so) and assume you have the same edge on all of your plays, your RISK still increases as the odds go up.

So if you have 2 plays, one at -120 and one add -170, and you assign each the exact same edge of 2%, you would be risking 2.3% of BR on the -120 and 3.3% of BR on the -170.

In other words, even if your plays all gave the same edge, you are still losing money by equalizing your risk regardless of the odds.

[Sawyer]

Odds can be misleading. Sometimes, odds are not real! Oddsmaker think so but odds are always right? I don't think so.
A -150 bet doesn't have a higher chance to win then -130. It's one of the biggest misconseptions of betting public..

I don't use Kelly Kamikaze Criterion either..Flat betting or "a unit staking system with a narrow range" (not like 1-10) is much better in my opinon. Many touts in this industry release plays such as 1000* DIME LOCK OF THE YEAR, 500* SUPERB LOCK OF THE MILLENNIUM, these are BS man. I don't understand european tipsters using 1-10 sick unit system either. If you're more confident with one pick (9/10) wtf you bet less confident one (6/10) too? This is BS

[u21c3f6]

Odds can be misleading. Sometimes, odds are not real! Oddsmaker think so but odds are always right? I don't think so.
A -150 bet doesn't have a higher chance to win then -130. It's one of the biggest misconseptions of betting public..

I don't use Kelly Kamikaze Criterion either...

No, odds are not always right. If they were, then no one would be able to make any substantial money (other than the books).

However, over a reasonable size sample of wagers made at -150 and -130, I would think that most if not all would find that they cash more -150 than -130 wagers. In addition, to use Kelly properly you have to have some idea of your edge. It is not just about odds. If you have a reasonable idea of what your edge is (and there is a good chance that it is different for different odds), then Kelly gives you the undisputed mathematical optimum wager for bankroll growth. Of course full-Kelly is not for the weak of heart and watch out if you over-estimate your edge.

Joe.

[durito]

Odds can be misleading. Sometimes, odds are not real! Oddsmaker think so but odds are always right? I don't think so.
A -150 bet doesn't have a higher chance to win then -130. It's one of the biggest misconseptions of betting public..

D

Then give me -130 on every game that closes between -140 and -160 at pinnacle. Ok? I won't win right?


Can I put that quote in my signature?

[Dark Horse]

Sawyer, put your money where your mouth is. The book is giving you 20 cents for free. You should blindly bet the +140 dogs (opposite -150 faves), since they are as good as the +120 dogs (opposite -130 faves). Cha-ching!!!


Now that you've given away this great secret, I hope the books don't adjust their lines. In which direction would they adjust their lines, in your opinion, since it doesn't really make any difference anyway?