How come posters indicate how many units they're up, but not dollars

[rake922]

If somebody says "I'm up 200 units in MLB this season"


Am I supposed to guess a dollar value on 200 units

[SlickFazzer]

yes.

[gmanea]

it's to have a common ground with others, not everyone bets the same amount per bet.

Typically someone will be 1 unit per game, and can say they are up 20 units it is easy to relate to someone else. 1 Unit may be only $100 or it may be $1000 or any other amount, but speaking in dollars doesn't mean as much. If I tell you I am up $10,000 that might not be much for me but could be a lot for someone else.

[LT Profits]

Because units are constant and dollars vary depending on what sized better you are.

If two guys that bet 2% of BR per play are +$1,000, but one started with a 10K bankroll and the other started with a 100K bankroll, the first guy (+5 units) is obviously doing better than the second guy (+.5 unit).

[topgame85]

Its an easy way for you to translate how much you would be up if you followed that persons plays, just multiply what you bet a game by units up or down and you get what your figure would be like

[mundane]

u wanna see dollars instead of units??? 'hope this helps u out!



im showing off now coz nba season is already ended. 'can't wait for the next season!

[topgame85]

haha

[bettilimbroke999]

Nice stack mundane!

[topgame85]

Better declare that cake!

[mundane]

real sportsbook in a casino is where i bet at my friends! no name, no paper trail

[bettilimbroke999]

real sportsbook in a casino is where i bet at my friends! no name, no paper trail

They dont make you declare winnings over 600 like racetrack?

[rake922]

in vegas?

[Ganchrow]

Gross dollars don't really tell you all that much.

For example, if dodif is up $10,000 betting $10,000 a pop, and you're up $10,000 betting $100 a pop, which record is more meaningful?

That's why people often phrase results in terms of units -- you're up 100 units (that's $10,000 / $100 = 100 units), while dodif is up 1 unit (that's $10,000 / $10,000 = 1 units).

But if you want to take it a step further, gross units don't tell you all that much either. For example, if you've wagered 100 units over the course of a season and you're up 5 units, while JJGold has wagered 200 units over the course of a season and he's also up 10 units (for simplicity we'll assume that you've both bet on the same games), then even though you're still both up an equal amount of gross units, your betting has been more successful in that you've returned 10% (that's 10 units won / 100 units wagered = 10%), while he's "only" returned 5% (that's 10 units won / 200 units wagered). This is what's known as "Return on Investment" or simply ROI. (There was a lively discussion about this measure in the Think Tank last week.)

But ROI is also a far from perfect measure as it completely ignores the significance of a a player's record. For example, if you only place bets at +1000, and Wheell only places bets at -1000, then if you both flat bet 1 unit per game and each find yourselves up 10 units after 100 games, then that's an ROI of 10% for both of you.

But which record is more significant, meaning which record is more likely to be the product of skill rather than chance?

The answer, it should be easy to see, is that the bets placed at -1000 are more significant than the bets placed at +1000.

Why?

Think about it this way, if you bet at -1000 then the only way to be up after 10 units or more after 100 bets would be if you were to winn all of your bets. The probability of this occurring strictly by chance (ignoring juice) would be 0.00726% (that's 90.909%¹⁰⁰).

For the player betting at +1000 his probability of being up 10 or more units after 50 bets is (once again ignoring juice) about 42.505% (that's 1-BINOMDIST(10-1, 100, 9.0909%, TRUE) in Excel ... we get the "10" in the "10-1" because that's how many games the player woudl need to win to be up 10 units, we get the 9.0909% because that'sthe no-vig implied probability of a line +1000, i.e., 100/(1000+100)).

Of course there are even more complicated methods for judging the success of a record than this, for instance when dealing with multiple prices and multiple bet sizes or when dealing with dependent events (for example, when wagering on both a run line and a money line). Such methods are frequently discussed in the Think Tank.

Anyone who's interested in this should certainly feel free to discuss.

[20Four7]

Rake:

In my baseball thread the very first post is that 1 unit for me is $100. So if I am up 10.74 units then that is simply 10.74 x $100. I know others who have done the same.

I don't think anyone cares what the unit size is, units translate equally. So if LT is +35.87 units and his bet size is $10 his +money is less than me but he's doing far far better than me. (No lt I don't think you bet $10).

[fiveteamer]

My head hurts everytime Ganchrow makes a post.

[Bet Shooter]

I think the ideal way to list would be to have a win loss record with win percentage and then units. I think that would cover it all....no? ie

54-24-2 (67%) +37.22 Units. (I wish )

Something like that.

[fiveteamer]

A lot of people here post their winning %. That shit means nothing to me.

[betplom]

If somebody says "I'm up 200 units in MLB this season"


Am I supposed to guess a dollar value on 200 units

Guys like the attention, plus its an ego thing.
It's deceptive and can make results look more flattering than they are.

It's like telling a girl your Kok is 9 inches long, but not telling her you measured starting from your anus or its 12' long but you used centimetres as the unit of measure !

[Ganchrow]

It's like telling a girl your Kok is 9 inches long, but not telling her you measured starting from your anus

Actually, the proper way to measure is by starting from the base of the spine.

[rake922]

Ganch if somebody hypothetically bet a truckload on the celts to win the finals, does their unit size now change for baseball?

[LT Profits]

I list winning percenatage in all sports, but it is really only meaningful in the 11/10 sports (foots, hoops). There is no disgrace in being 40%, +100 units in MLB or NHL. Winning percentage means virually nothing in the Money Line sports, so I list it more as an FYI.

[SlickFazzer]

I list winning percenatage in all sports, but it is really only meaningful in the 11/10 sports (foots, hoops). There is no disgrace in being 40%, +100 units in MLB or NHL. Winning percentage means virually nothing in the Money Line sports, so I list it more as an FYI.

Second that notion.

[pavyracer]

I post my winnings in dollars because this is what my book likes. He doesn't like to deal with units.

[Ganchrow]

Ganch if somebody hypothetically bet a truckload on the celts to win the finals, does their unit size now change for baseball?

The best way to consider it would probably be that he had bet a larger number of units on the finals.

[Ganchrow]

I list winning percenatage in all sports, but it is really only meaningful in the 11/10 sports (foots, hoops).

A major problem with this would be if bet size were to vary substantially between games.

[rake922]

The best way to consider it would probably be that he had bet a larger number of units on the finals.

but for example, why should 1 unit still be 100 bucks if his bank is now enormous?

[Bet Shooter]

but for example, why should 1 unit still be 100 bucks if his bank is now enormous?

My recommendation is, to use a similar approach as trading the markets. You should risk a FIXED small % of your total bankroll on any one idea up to a max % for each day. This $ amount will increase as your bankroll increases and will shrink as you hit a cold period (usually known as a drawdown in the markets). With this type of money management you will never be stopped out of the game. And if you actually end up winning in the long run, then your bets will get larger as your Bank Roll gets larger.

GL

[rake922]

Yea but you can't have it both ways.... Why would somebody still be saying "i'm up X amount of units" .... when the value of units is changing.

[Bet Shooter]

Yea but you can't have it both ways.... Why would somebody still be saying "i'm up X amount of units" .... when the value of units is changing.

Good question....Gaunch?

[Ganchrow]

If you structure bets as some multiple of a fixed dollar amount then while you might decide to bet more units per game your unit size by definition will still remain unchanged. This is where looking at ROI might come in to play.

If you structure your bets as some variable percent of bankroll (which is gneerally recommended) then your your unit size won't change as units don't correspond to actual dollars. This however would imply you'd generally be looking bankroll growth - or the logarithm of bankroll - rather than just expected value. This is where a bankroll management system such as Kelly comes in to play.

Either way a unit should remain fixed as either a percent of bankroll or as a fixed dollar amount.

The fact is that units won or lost is by itself a pretty poor measure of the sucess (or lack thereof) of an advantage bettor.

[seaborneq]

Win-Loss is the best indicator of success if betting units remain constant for the individual. However, for the board to relate to each other, units just make it that much easier. I just don't understand the 10units philosophy on certain games against the spread as if some games are, dare I say, "LOCKS".

[Ganchrow]

Win-Loss is the best indicator of success if betting units remain constant for the individual.

... and if prices remain constant as well.

However, for the board to relate to each other, units just make it that much easier. I just don't understand the 10units philosophy on certain games against the spread as if some games are, dare I say, "LOCKS".

The concept is straightforward ... an advantage bettor attempting to maximize the expected growth of his bankroll will, all else being equal, bet more on a game with a higher edge than on a gme with a lower edge (So he's bet more on a game at -110 with a 5% edge than he would on a game at 4% with a -110 edge). And similarly, again all else being equal, bet more more on games with shorter odds than longer odds (so he'd bet more on a game with a 5% edge at +100 than he would with a 5% edge at +200.)