What edge do you have in Sports Betting?

[donjuan]

If by hard core research you mean developing and testing a proper model, then sure.

The "math guys" dominate these markets now. To the point where I know I need to learn a lot more before I even go near some of the bigger ones.

I prefer softcore research myself. Much better for families.

[Data]

You lost me here, Data. Why can't an advantage Kelly bettor have a smaller BR? Do they all start out rich?

A Kelly bankroll includes one's net worth plus future earnings. Even if their net worth is zero the earnings for the next couple of years alone will make up for this.

[durito]

I'd like to hope I am making advantage plays.

I don't have near a million dollar bankroll. I don't see myself having one for several years.

[durito]

A Kelly bankroll includes one's net worth plus future earnings. Even if their net worth is zero the earnings for the next couple of years alone will make up for this.

OK. I see what you are getting at.

By that measure though i'm betting like 1/10,000th kelly

[donjuan]

A Kelly bankroll includes one's net worth plus future earnings. Even if their net worth is zero the earnings for the next couple of years alone will make up for this.

Future earnings from sources outside of gambling...you have to take TVM into account which I highly doubt you are.

[smitch124]

Sure. A correlated parlay would be one where two events show enough correlation to show a profit blindly parlaying them with no opinion on the game. One such example would be large favorites and the over in football. Say a team is -42.5 and the O/U is 45. It should be pretty obvious that parlaying -42.5 and O 45 would show a profit as the majority of the time they win by more than 42 the total will go over 45 and you'll be getting +264 on that. Rarely would the degree of correlation be this high, but you can definitely find events that are correlated and parlay them. However, I'd beware of trying these at Sportsbook.com.

Thanks for your response, I was able to find some other examples here in the think tank archives. I saw mention of parlaying puck lines with totals in Hockey. Underdog +1.5 with a low total of 5 etc. Are there online books that allow this bet?

[Heartman2]

Advantage gamblers talk a big game, but when it comes to posting picks, they can't back it up.

For example: Poster Reno, from majorwager had 30 outs, don best, 100k bankroll and shopped his butt off. He posted several hundred baseball picks and lost big time following the same philosophy you preach, donjuan.

Same exact story for a poster named Rich H. at MW. An advantage gambler who talked a big game but lost miserably when it came to posting his picks.

Have you ever posted any picks donjuan. Or is it all talk. Talk is cheap.

I'm a hard core research gambler and I have 1500 posted, winning picks. I talk the talk, I walk the walk.

The majority of advantage gamblers are full of sh!t in my opinion and NO WHERE NEAR the handicapping level of the research gambler.

[Heartman2]

I challenge any advantage gambler out there in Nascar. If we start with the same money and use the same exact books, I will crush you in a handicapping contest!!!

Why, because my gambling philosophy is superior to yours!

[donjuan]

Advantage gamblers talk a big game, but when it comes to posting picks, they can't back it up.

Because there is no reason to post picks, unless you prefer the adornment of a few randoms online to actual money.

You really don't understand what the term advantage gambler means, but I wouldn't expect you to comprehend much based on your posts so far.

[Bullajami]

A Kelly bankroll includes one's net worth plus future earnings. Even if their net worth is zero the earnings for the next couple of years alone will make up for this.

Why couldn't you have a more defined and conservative bankroll and make advantage Kelly bets based on that amount?

Also, if one's net worth were zero, what would your Kelly bet size be? Would it matter since any fraction of your zero bankroll would be zero?

[donjuan]

Are there online books that allow this bet?

Thremp posted about a soccer one awhile back, but they stopped allowing it after they figured out what he was doing. Often times the books won't allow it once they figure it out.

[Bullajami]

I challenge any advantage gambler out there in Nascar. If we start with the same money and use the same exact books, I will crush you in a handicapping contest!!!

Why, because my gambling philosophy is superior to yours!

Actually its because I'd rather drink the hemlock than watch NASCAR film.

[Heartman2]

So you don't post any picks. That's what I thought donjuan. Just another poster who talks sh!t and can't back it up! You're not at my handicapping level. Not even close.

[donjuan]

So you don't post any picks. That's what I thought donjuan.

Yes, because there is no reason to do so. Money > internet cred.

[durito]

I challenge any advantage gambler out there in Nascar. If we start with the same money and use the same exact books, I will crush you in a handicapping contest!!!

Why, because my gambling philosophy is superior to yours!

dodiff?

[durito]

Thanks for your response, I was able to find some other examples here in the think tank archives. I saw mention of parlaying puck lines with totals in Hockey. Underdog +1.5 with a low total of 5 etc. Are there online books that allow this bet?

I'm not sure what books still allow this.

They all should though, it's not what it appears.

[donjuan]

dodiff?

Good call. Forgot about him. Get ready for some Heartmanification.

[Heartman2]

Dodif is a pile of sh!t. He won because he cheated.

[dwaechte]

Good call. Forgot about him. Get ready for some Heartmanification.

Doesn't have the same ring to it though.

But good call durito, definitely looks like dodif to me. The NASCAR bit was the giveaway.

[smitch124]

I'm not sure what books still allow this.

They all should though, it's not what it appears.

Well, it is something one could back test, only worth it if some books allow it though.

[Data]

Why couldn't you have a more defined and conservative bankroll and make advantage Kelly bets based on that amount?

Because those bets are not going to be Kelly bets.

Also, if one's net worth were zero, what would your Kelly bet size be? Would it matter since any fraction of your zero bankroll would be zero?

Net worth is not a Kelly bankroll but only a part of it.

[Heartman2]

donjuan is Reno!

[donjuan]

Because those bets are not going to be Kelly bets.

Technically they are if you are unwilling to risk any money on advantage bets beyond that amount ever again.

donjuan is Reno!

Who is Reno? The only other sports betting forum I have ever posted on is 2p2.

[Heartman2]

Reno is an advantage gambler from MW who talked sh!t but couldn't back it up!

[durito]

I love how these threads always turn into talk about "posting picks".

Sorry I don't run to the internet every time I find a play.

It's funny though, if you look at some of the contests here from years back, those "math guys" used to do quite well.

[donjuan]

Reno is an advantage gambler from MW who talked sh!t but couldn't back it up!

If you don't actually make +EV bets, you aren't an advantage gambler. Since I have no clue who Reno is and have never seen a single one of his posts, I certainly wouldn't be qualified to comment on that.

[coldhardfacts]

What strikes me about this discussion and others we've had here is not the willingness of some bettors (Durito, DonJuan, DWaecthe, among others) to base their handicapping and their bankrolls primarily if not solely on the work of others, and to place their bets on the basis of line movement and betting trends. Nothing wrong with that, if it works for you. I liken it to a stock trader who follows certain stock trends and makes their investments accordingly, with little or no regard for financial statements or reports.

No, what strikes me is their complete and utter disdain for folks like Heartman and myself who prefer to do our own research and rely on our own judgement in betting on sports, as if no one but the unnamed and unknown "sharps" who cause the lines to move can have a valid opinion.

[durito]

What strikes me about this discussion and others we've had here is not the willingness of some bettors (Durito, DonJuan, DWaecthe, among others) to base their handicapping and their bankrolls primarily if not solely on the work of others, and to place their bets on the basis of line movement and betting trends. Nothing wrong with that, if it works for you. I liken it to a stock trader who follows certain stock trends and makes their investments accordingly, with little or no regard for financial statements or reports.

No, what strikes me is their complete and utter disdain for folks like Heartman and myself who prefer to do our own research and rely on our own judgement in betting on sports, as if no one but the unnamed and unknown "sharps" who cause the lines to move can have a valid opinion.

You've completely misinterpreted.

I base my bets based on my own "research" if you will. I just do not research teams by watching games. However, I respect the market and if I come up with a # that is way off, I generally don't rush to bet it but rather figure what pieced of information I am missing.

[BigCap]

You're still missing the point. To say "I will take high +EV bets with a smaller bankroll compared to low +EV bets with a larger bankroll any day." regardless of the situation(# of plays you're going to be making, exact bankrolls, exact edges) is ridiculous. Sure, your example works(depending on # of plays), but what about if you changed it to a $1 bankroll with a 6% edge, vs a $1,000,000 bankroll with a 5.9% edge?

The numbers I use in my example prove my point. If you change the numbers, than you are ignoring the premise. It is simply a matter of preferring big +EV bets over small +EV bets, essentially regardless of bankroll. It takes a HUGE bankroll with HUGE limits to overcome this. This is why EV is so important.

I'd even prefer a starting bankroll of $1,000 making +8% EV bets with $500 limits, over a $1,000,000 bankroll making +0.5% EV bets with $10,000 limits. My guess is even after 10,000 bets the higher EV bettor would be way ahead.

[BigCap]

Huh?

You can't really make a blanket statement like that. It's all proportional.

I provided a specific example which illustrates my point.

$1,000 starting bankroll making +8% EV bets with $500 limits is better than $1,000,000 starting bankroll making +0.5% EV bets with $10,000 limits. I would even go so far to say that after 10,000 bets I would be way ahead (profit) of the bigger bankroll.

Are you saying my claim above is not correct?

[donjuan]

$1,000 starting bankroll making +8% EV bets with $500 limits is better than $1,000,000 starting bankroll making +0.5% EV bets with $10,000 limits. I would even go so far to say that after 10,000 bets I would be way ahead (profit) of the bigger bankroll.

I'd take the $500 limit bet because it has higher expected growth, not higher expected value. Again, EG is what is important unless you have some strange scenario/utility function.

[donjuan]

What strikes me about this discussion and others we've had here is not the willingness of some bettors (Durito, DonJuan, DWaecthe, among others) to base their handicapping and their bankrolls primarily if not solely on the work of others, and to place their bets on the basis of line movement and betting trends. Nothing wrong with that, if it works for you. I liken it to a stock trader who follows certain stock trends and makes their investments accordingly, with little or no regard for financial statements or reports.

No, what strikes me is their complete and utter disdain for folks like Heartman and myself who prefer to do our own research and rely on our own judgement in betting on sports, as if no one but the unnamed and unknown "sharps" who cause the lines to move can have a valid opinion.

I don't have disdain for actual handicapping. I have disdain for people who watch a game and think they have an edge based solely on that. I also have a disdain for people who don't have a clue about the terms being used such as you with "expected growth" and Heartman with "advantage gambler".

[BigCap]

I'd take the $500 limit bet because it has higher expected growth, not higher expected value. Again, EG is what is important unless you have some strange scenario/utility function.

I can simply change the starting bankroll from $1,000 to $3,500,000 so that the +0.5% EV bets on a $1,000,000 bankroll have higher expected growth. This does not change my preference as I would still prefer the high +EV bets, again essentially regardless of expected growth or bankroll.

[donjuan]

Uh, WTF? The .5% edge has a higher EV and EG at that point. Not only that but you have a much higher bankroll, which is obviously preferable. What is your point?

[coldhardfacts]

I don't have disdain for actual handicapping. I have disdain for people who watch a game and think they have an edge based solely on that. I also have a disdain for people who don't have a clue about the terms being used such as you with "expected growth" and Heartman with "advantage gambler".

I'd be very interested to see where I've ever misused the term "expected growth".