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

[UntilTheNDofTimE]

I need to leave SBR in the last month we've had like 5 threads that just have made me go wtf

Lets review
1) -110/-110 is 10% Juice
2) You can minimize your risk by betting 2x on Team B and 1x on Team A on the same game.
3) You cant beat the book even given 0% juice
4) Theoretical hold has no significance to the line offered and the lines dont matter in regards to win probability.
5) In this thread apparent -150 is the same as +110 so we should always lay RISK instead of TO WIN

[UntilTheNDofTimE]

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?

Can i put this in my signature as well?
Durito over the last month youve became my fav poster.

[james4512]

theres very few lifelong winners that bet heavy chalk, so do yourself a favor and dont bet it

[Sawyer]

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?

I'm impressed by your IQ

I don't say +140 dogs have same winning rate as -140 bets. Read again, I hope you can understand. If you can't, then there's nothing I can do for you you lay more wood, why? because of odds. Who's setting the odds? End of discussion I guess..

The funny thing is, betting public thinks chalk bets are safe. So you bet more on a game with short odds. I'm sure books love this betting mentality

[UntilTheNDofTimE]

I'm impressed by your IQ I don't say +140 dogs have same winning rate as -140 bets. Read again, I hope you can understand. If you can't, then there's nothing I can do for you The funny thing is, betting public thinks chalk bets are safe. So you bet more on a game with short odds. I'm sure books love this betting mentality

By stating you should Flat Risk vs bet to win you basically did say -140 is the same as +140. If you cant understand that then there's nothing i can do for you.

[Sawyer]

No, I didn't say -140 is same as +140, LoL! Of course, you can won't place the same amount on a +400 bet and a -110 bet. What I wanted to say here is, our mentality should be always based on what you can afford to risk. Don't focus on winning amount. Focus on what you're risking. If odds are juicy, you will lose more if you lose your bet. If there's a -150 game on board, and you really liked it, then lay 100 units to win 66 units. You don't need to lay 150. Odds can be misleading.

Of course, everyone has a different strategy/way. This is my opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree but maybe you can catch some points in my words, I'll be happy in this case since this is a forum and we're all here to share our knowledge.

Have a great day everyone!

Regards,

Sawyer

[UntilTheNDofTimE]

I dont disagree with you there in the bet within your means but here is where people attack you. You offer a small daily sample size and you have your dogs winning. In this case yes your strategy was effective that day. But over a large sample size it dosent make much sense to not take advantage of extracting maximum value.

[LT Profits]

Sawyer,

Something that I keep stressing that you are apparently not getting: If your -150 bets are losing at almost the same regularity as your -130 bets (or smaller favorites), then the -150s you are betting are probably -EV to begin with and should not be bet at all. If you make only +EV bets, then the higher priced favorites will win with much more frequency than lower priced favorites, that is just a mathematical fact in an efficient market.

[Fiasco]

Sawyer seems to be looking more short term, his critics more long term.

Short term you can lose more -150 bets than -130 and still be making all +ev wagers.

[LT Profits]

Sawyer seems to be looking more short term, his critics more long term.

Short term you can lose more -150 bets than -130 and still be making all +ev wagers.

Correct. But he seems to be saying he bets risk ALL the time, so we need to look at long-term repercussions.

[Karayilan9]

theres very few lifelong winners that bet heavy chalk, so do yourself a favor and dont bet it

You'd be surprised how many make it betting chalk, chalk doesn't mean a bet is priced short and doesn't mean you'll lose long term.

[Flight]

LT is right

It's not really about the odds, but more the probability of win. Of course the two are tied together. -200 no-vig wins 66% of the time. If you bet 100 games at -200, you can expect to win 67 games and lose 33 games.

If you are having trouble winning at that rate, then you are making -EV bets.

Another misconception is that players who only select certain lines are doomed to lose or destined to win. I hear all the time that heavy chalk players will lose. It is simply not true. In fact many times you have lower vig at long odds. Theoretical hold differs greatly from game to game. There is great opportunity at higher than -200 because the vig can drop significantly.

You need to be able to calculate your edge, and you need to be aware of the book's theoretical hold.

Your argument that betting favorites To Risk instead of To Win isn't necessarily all that wrong. If you are betting around -4.5% EV on all your bets, all you are doing is lowering your unit size for chalk games. Basically, you are deviating from optimum betting strategy, thereby worsening an already -EV proposition.

I liked LT's Slam Dunk!!

[Dark Horse]

I'm impressed by your IQ

I don't say +140 dogs have same winning rate as -140 bets. Read again, I hope you can understand. If you can't, then there's nothing I can do for you you lay more wood, why? because of odds. Who's setting the odds? End of discussion I guess..

So why not assure yourself of winnings by taking all +140 dogs and all -130 faves?

(based on your point that there is no difference between -150 faves and -130 faves)

[Jive]

It is all about philosophy and there are pros and cons to both approaches, and I actually combine the two schools of thought when making my bets because my approach is "I don't like one game being more important than another." If I have split two wagers in a day--one at -150 and one at -130--I will lose the one with the higher juice about half the time. (That speaks more to my poor capping ability, perhaps, but that is a different discussion.) Of course, when betting to win, I will be down more for the day if my higher juiced bet is the loser. If betting based on risk, I would be down more on the day if my lower juiced bet is the loser. Either way, one game is more important to my closing balance than the other.

I didn't like this uncertainty, so I decided to figure out which way worked best long haul. My first thought was that since every single sportsbook I use defaults to the "bet to win" mode, that must mean it isn't in my best interest. Maybe they work that way because that is the prevailing style of their players, but I'm paranoid since the one thing I know about books is that they do not want me to win. At the same time, betting to risk means that you need the theoretically riskier bets (as determined by line) to win more than the safer bets. That is counter to our goal of finding value, because the greater weight would actually be in the least likely outcome.

In the end, I decided I want all games to be equal. If I am playing a -150 game and a -110 game, I want the outcome for the day to be the same regardless of what game wins in the event of a split. That isn't going to happen if I bet to win or to risk. So now I'm using what I call a "total at stake (or payout)" philosophy. I wager so that every event has the same net effect on my bankroll.

Just as an example, let's say my "total stake" unit is $10 and I want to bet on a -130 favorite and a +115 underdog. I will wager $5.65 to win $4.35 on the favorite, and $4.65 to win $5.35 on the underdog. In both cases, the total at stake against my bankroll (the difference between what my balance will be after a win and what it would be following a loss) is $10. In this case, if one bet wins and one bet loses, I will be down 30 cents, regardless of which bet is the winner. In the end, I think this is truly flat betting, because every single game means the exact same thing to my bankroll.

I know the thought is that you should wager more on games you have a better chance to win, but that doesn't work for me because I do not win more -150 bets than I do -130 bets. Part of that is because odds aren't reflective of chance to win; they are indications of a public market. Those are not the same thing. And part of it is that I make plenty of mistakes in picking teams with higher juice.

It all comes down to your train of thought and your abilities to work with lines. If betting to risk or betting to win, you aren't playing each game the same. If you are proficient at quantifying your edge, you probably don't want to bet all games the same. I don't have the time to spend to do be very good at that, so I stick with treating all games equal. That means having my bankroll affected the same exact amount by each game, and that won't happen by betting to win or betting at risk. If I go 5-3 tomorrow, I don't want to be worried about whether the right games won--higher juice if betting to win, lower juice if betting at risk--to make me profitable for the day.

[the shadow]

This thread is nothing more than return on investment. All in all sawyer will have a higher roi, but the other boys will make more cash because they are betting more. Do like 2% of 100 or 1% of 50?(actually they may have the same roi) sorry!!

[donjuan]

Sawyer won't have a higher ROI because it will be negative. But besides that if you flat bet, you'll have a lower ROI as you aren't betting more on your higher eROI bets.

[PAULYPOKER]

He said she said I said put it to bed because it is dead in the water argument for both sides

[RaisyDaisy]

Seriously, betting dogs is more profitable in the long run.

[dogman]

LT,

What do you think of Jive's post, is there any downfall to the way he plays his wages compared to the bet to win approach?

[Sawyer]

Sawyer won't have a higher ROI because it will be negative. But besides that if you flat bet, you'll have a lower ROI as you aren't betting more on your higher eROI bets.

What makes you think it will be negative? You didn't see my record I guess

[Sawyer]

Many people here are getting fooled by Vegas. Odds are misleading, then bet your house/car on -250, -300 because they will win more often, LoL!

It's not about odds' winning percentage, it's all about bettor's winning percentage. Of course, you may not place the same stake on a +500 and -150 but there isn't a dramatical difference between -120 and -160. I place same amount on a +120 and -120. Same goes for -130 and -160 as well. -160 don't make me think hmmm this bet will win, it's a banker, no. It's -160 according to bookie only. Don't get fooled by odds. That's what I wanted to say but some people didn't understand, LoL!

[LT Profits]

Many people here are getting fooled by Vegas. Odds are misleading, then bet your house/car on -250, -300 because they will win more often, LoL!

It's not about odds' winning percentage, it's all about bettor's winning percentage. Of course, you may not place the same stake on a +500 and -150 but there isn't a dramatical difference between -120 and -160. I place same amount on a +120 and -120. Same goes for -130 and -160 as well. -160 don't make me think hmmm this bet will win, it's a banker, no. It's -160 according to bookie only. Don't get fooled by odds. That's what I wanted to say but some people didn't understand, LoL!

[LT Profits]

LT,

What do you think of Jive's post, is there any downfall to the way he plays his wages compared to the bet to win approach?

Jive's approach is just as bad because he is still underbetting favorites. The argument that "you don't know which plays will win" simply does not hold water with winning bettors because if you are making only +EV bets, then the winning percentage of the bigger favorites will be pretty close to the winning percentage at those odds over the entire population. As I have said repeatedly, if Sawyer's bigger favorites are winning at fairly close to the same rate as his smaller favorites, then the big favorites he is betting are -EV and should not be bet at all.

An advantage bettor cares only about absolute profit (screw ROI...lol), so risking more on bigger favorites is appropriate.

[djiddish98]

http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicapper-think-tank/11994-introduction-betting-lines-percentages.html

Some good literature on the topic of implied probabilities.

If -160 offered the same (implied) % chance of winning as -130, then -160 would never exist in the market, because no one would be willing to accept it. Why pay 30 cents more for the same deal?

[Sawyer]

No, chances are not same always of course. It would be impossible. Sometimes, a -160 may have a better chance to win then -130 but not always. it's not a logical approach to lay more money if odds are more juicy.

If odds are -250, don't lay 250. Just lay 100 to win 40. How would you feel after winning -110 and -130 but losing -250? You go 2-1 but you lost 50$! Yeah, I know -250, -300 will win more often then -130 but still it's not a profitable proposition and your bankroll will take serious damage if you eat too much chalk.

But majority of bettors are greedy. They're concantrated on winning only, the amount that they will win. First, control your risk/stake. As long as you hit a good rate, profits will come.

[djiddish98]

As long as all my bets had a positive expected value, I have no problem losing 50 dollars in the short term.

I believe someone posted this verbatim earlier in a reply and it validates the points that others have made.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicapper-think-tank/29841-maximizing-expected-growth-kelly-criterion-part-ii.html#post258665

"Once again, we keep returning to the same simple but often overlooked point – expected value isn’t everything. Due to the fact that longer odds (for a given edge) imply greater a probability of loss, the Kelly bettor will bet less on longer odds and more on shorter odds. Any time an advantage player loses money he’s giving up opportunity cost as that represents money he can’t wager on +EV propositions down the line. As such the Kelly player will (for a given edge) always seek to minimize his loss probability over time by selecting the shorter odds bet, even though that necessitates risking more to win the same amount."

Why risk the same amount on two events that have significantly different probabilities of winning, even if they have the same edge?

I don't bet kelly because my bankroll is too small and I'm still trying to figure out my edge. However, the principles in the article make sense.

[Sawyer]

The problem is you can't know which game will win and which game won't win. Even if you have a crystall ball and you can predict the probabilities of winning perfectly, you should comeup with different probabilities then oddsmaker. Sometimes, you may think +110 pick has a better chance to win then a -120. That's what we call "Value Bet" in sports betting.

I have 6 MLB Total plays for today..can you tell me which one has more probability to win? I can't. In fact, nobody can.

cle-det over8½ -110
bos-oak under9 -105
chc-pit under8½ -120
mil-fla over9 -120
stl-cin over8 +100
ari-la over8 -115

Maybe +100 will win and -120 will lose, who knows? Not to mention, odds are different in each book. You can pick my +100 at -110 in another book. -110 has more chance to win then? Well, I picked it at +100? What about that?

[wrongturn]

sawyer, let it drop. if you are not confident your -120 bet has more chance to win than your +100 bet, then why bother with -120. you are right that most people have no clue on the winning odds so it is better to bet less, but that does not mean your argument makes sense.

[LT Profits]

sawyer, let it drop. if you are not confident your -120 bet has more chance to win than your +100 bet, then why bother with -120. you are right that most people have no clue on the winning odds so it is better to bet less, but that does not mean your argument makes sense.

THANK YOU!

[djiddish98]

Probability of winning isn't the same thing as placing a winning bet. In the long run, those -120 bets (assuming this is the market implied probability for the event) would win [120/(120+100)] ~ 54.55% of the time, vs your +100, which is expected to win 50% of the time. So if the above is true, you can expect your -120 bets to win more often than your +100 bets in the long run. Which bet will actually win today? No idea - I think there's some confusion with the terminology.

And you can easily come up with a market consensus of the implied probability based on pooling all the big books' odds together. This is why I feel line shopping is important. The total gambling market might say that Cle-Det Over 8.5 should be -115, but one book is still putting out -110.

As of the time of writing this post, it looks like you paid more than the current market implied probability for all these bets except for 1. Granted, things are still far from closing so they might swing your way by close.

cle-det over8½ -110 (paid what is currently the market implied prob of about 52.38%)

Greek - 05/3106:29 PMo8.5 -115u8.5 -105
Bookmaker -06/0101:14 AMo8.5 -120u8.5 +100
5dimes - 05/3111:38 PMo8.5 -115u8.5 +105
Pinnacle - 05/3105:58 PMo8.5 -115u8.5 +104

bos-oak under9 -105 (paid -105 for a bet that is currently looking at a market implied prob of ~+105; I'm too lazy to average it all out)

Greek - 05/3101:43 PMo9 -110u9 -110
5dimes - 06/0103:47 AMo9 -110u9 +100
Pinnacle o9 -113u9 +102

[Dark Horse]

The problem is you can't know which game will win and which game won't win. Even if you have a crystall ball and you can predict the probabilities of winning perfectly, you should comeup with different probabilities then oddsmaker.

What you fail to understand centers around the use of the word 'even' above. It suggests a contradiction.

You don't need a crystal ball to determine the probabilities of winning. It's not about winning individual games, but about repeating an edge over and over and over again.

From everything you've said it is clear that you haven't yet learned how to determine your edge. For that reason, you are correct to stick to flat betting. But do not confuse that with the best approach. You are fighting with a blunt sword.

[Sawyer]

Dork Horse,

I'm confident with my sword and I already determined my edge, (I would not bet if I don't have an edge) managed to hit %61 over 200+ bets in NBA this year (documented in Statfox forum).

I may consider the wise opinions of a succesful handicapper (with a winning record) but what's your record and you're telling me all these bs?

Probability of winning isn't the same thing as placing a winning bet. In the long run, those -120 bets (assuming this is the market implied probability for the event) would win [120/(120+100)] ~ 54.55% of the time, vs your +100, which is expected to win 50% of the time. So if the above is true, you can expect your -120 bets to win more often than your +100 bets in the long run.

Another wrong statement. How you can be so confident that -120 bets will give a better return then +100? Odds are different in each book. You can pick my +100 at -110 in another book. -110 has more chance to win then? Well, I picked it at +100? What about that? You're getting fooled by odds.

You can't know which bet will win and which bet won't win. Oddsmaker may offer +120 for a bet but it doesn't mean it has %45.45 probability. Maybe it has %55 chance to win in your opinion, that's what we call "edge", what about that?

[Dad]

Is that Winnie Cooper from Wonder Years?

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.

[djiddish98]

Another wrong statement. How you can be so confident that -120 bets will give a better return then +100? Odds are different in each book. You can pick my +100 at -110 in another book. -110 has more chance to win then? Well, I picked it at +100? What about that?

Take the no-vig average of all the books on the market, or the big boys at least (as mentioned above).

You're missing a lot of the language that people are using to phrase their answers. I said the market line of -120 implies a higher probability of winning than +100. If this wasn't the case, no one would pay -120 for a 50% chance bet, and everyone would pay +100 for a 54.55% probable bet.

You can certainly argue that just because one book has -120 and +100 doesn't mean the +100 is less probable to win - it could be that the book in question is way off the mark. I'm not talking about individual books; I'm talking about the market as a whole.

[wrongturn]

Sawyer, find all your -120 bets in your record and check their cumulative result. If it is +, then your argument is wrong. If it is -, then your argument is irrelevant because you should not have bet them. If you say, well, i don't know if they are going to win for me at end or not, then you need to avoid them, so your argument is still irrelevant.