Wagering mistake I've been making a lot recently....

Illusion · 12-10-07, 04:10 AM

Every so often I do not double check my selection before I confirm a bet and accidently bet the opposite side of I wanted.

SBR Lou · 12-10-07, 04:13 AM

I've been following the advice in Dan Perkins articles... (alright that wasn't nice)

Well let's see. Sometimes if I really like a side, I'll be a little biased in my weekly evaluation if it's not a number I bet early. I'll lean more to that side even as new information may come in because I'll want to trust my initial reaction.

Dark Horse · 12-10-07, 04:23 AM

Mistake I've made is to try to compensate for losses by working harder on the numbers instead of staying loose, relaxed, intuitive, and in the moment. Like athletes we have to stay in a flow, and can't get uptight when things don't go our way. A subtle thing that can make all the difference.

donjuan · 12-10-07, 04:28 AM

Hello confirmation bias.

Destroyer · 12-10-07, 04:46 AM

.

imgv94 · 12-10-07, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Destroyer

Last, one other mistake I've learned from this season is never ever double down on the betting amounts for next week's action after taking a loss. That is by far the worst mistake that I committed, which has destroyed over 80% of my bankroll.

Money Management is just as or maybe even more important than picking winners. No one is immune to losing streaks.. I've learned that it is possible to lose four weeks straight.

Live to fight another day..

prop · 12-10-07, 05:12 AM

Its for sure more important.
Two people could start with same sized bankroll.
Player 1 makes only -EV bets
Player 2 makes only +EV bets

If player 2 sucks at money management and player 1 bets 1% of bankroll per game he'll last hell of a lot longer than play 2.

So its possible that a player making only -EV bets can have a lot more $ than a player who makes only +EV bets.

But meanwhile if player 2 made only +EV bets and bets 1% of his bankroll per game its highly unlikely he'll ever go bust.

So money management is ofcourse more important than making +EV bets but the later starts to become important a little ways in and is vital long term.

Ganchrow · 12-10-07, 05:58 AM

Here's a question:

Two players each start with $10,000, flat-betting (risking) $200 per wager.

Player 1 makes only bets at odds of and is a +EV bettor. He has a 20% edge on each bet (i.e., he expects to win 24% of his bets, which would be the edge equivalent of a player hitting at about 62.86% at ).
Player 2 makes only bets at and is a -EV bettor. His expectation is to pay 5% vig on each bet (i.e., he expects to win 57% of his bets, which would be the vig equivalent of coin-flip betting at a line set ).

If each player places 250 bets (stopping earlier than that only if he runs out money), which player is more likely to go bankrupt at some point during that series?

prop · 12-10-07, 07:04 AM

I'd love to learn this stuff, seriously.

I'm not sure how their wins effect the out but by if my very armature math (probably wrong):

Player 1 loses his first 50 bets like one in 5000ish times
Player 2 loses his first 50 bets one in more than a Quadrillion times?

so I'm pretty sure player one goes broke more often.

HedgeHog · 12-10-07, 09:03 AM

Ganch:

Player 1 is more likely to bust because his losing streaks will be much longer than Player 2. Player 1 should use your Kelly Calculator for better money management and erase the chance of bankruptcy. That said, I would still rather be Player 1 and take the additional risk of busting . Both players start with 10k, but #1 figures to double his bankroll to $20,000 after 250 bets, while #2 would lose a fourth of his bankroll and stand at $7500 (if percentages held true). Correct?