Money Management Opinions

**doublej95** · 01-13-11, 01:45 PM

2% to 4%

**Regul8er** · 01-13-11, 01:46 PM

2-3% should suffice.
I know the importance of proper money management, but by no means do I follow the way I should.

**VegasInsider** · 01-13-11, 01:47 PM

Exactly. Thank you

**Double Bogey** · 01-13-11, 01:47 PM

1% to 5%, nothing over 5%

**Fishhead** · 01-13-11, 01:47 PM

Never more then 5.23%

**FourLengthsClear** · 01-13-11, 01:48 PM

Do you hit at 48% on -110 lines or at 55% at -105?

**Fishhead** · 01-13-11, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Fishhead

Never more then 5.23%

Most of my ACTUAL wagers are less than 1% of my bankroll.........

**Sawyer** · 01-13-11, 01:50 PM

Depends on odds..

But %2-3 is a good number as general.

**VegasInsider** · 01-13-11, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by FourLengthsClear

Do you hit at 48% on -110 lines or at 55% at -105?

We'll just say it's someone hitting over the +EV mark on plays that are -110.

The answer is roughly 3% within these parameters. But you're right, it makes a big difference depending on the juice.

**Fishhead** · 01-13-11, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Sawyer

Depends on odds..

But %2-3 is a good number as general.

This is the correct answer for most people aged 30-50

**VegasInsider** · 01-13-11, 01:52 PM

Every single one of you that posted just proved my point. For someone with a $100K bankroll and trying to win long-term...anywhere from 1% to 5% is proper money management. Never higher than 5% is the classic rule, as Fishhead stated.

**doublej95** · 01-13-11, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Fishhead

Most of my ACTUAL wagers are less than 1% of my bankroll.........

mine are actually under 2% of my bankroll, i figure on 2% of my bankroll but bet smaller on a more even number i like.

I see a lot of people say Kelly is the way to go but I think using Kelly can be dangerous to a bankroll during a losing streak.

**urge2kill** · 01-13-11, 01:54 PM

Depends on the odds and your edge.

**urge2kill** · 01-13-11, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by doublej95

I see a lot of people say Kelly is the way to go but I think using Kelly can be dangerous to a bankroll during a losing streak.

How so?

**doublej95** · 01-13-11, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by urge2kill

How so?

ok I'm hitting 58% in the NBA right now so if i use kelly to determine my bet's this is what it comes up with:

The odds are in your favor, but read the following carefully:
According to the Kelly criterion your optimal bet is about 11.8% of your capital, or $117.00.
On 58% of similar occasions, you would expect to gain $106.36 in addition to your stake of $117.00 being returned.
But on those occasions when you lose, you will lose your stake of $117.00.
Your fortune will grow, on average, by about 0.64% on each bet.

that is based on a $1000 bankroll, I can play up to 4-5 games a night, one bad night going 0-4 can wipe out 47.2% of your bankroll. Just my opinion but that is to aggressive and not my style. Even the kelly calculator suggest a less aggressive approach.

The Kelly criterion is maximally aggressive — it seeks to increase capital at the maximum rate possible. Professional gamblers typically take a less aggressive approach, and generally won't bet more than about 2.5% of their bankroll on any wager. In this case that would be $25.00

**FourLengthsClear** · 01-13-11, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by doublej95

ok I'm hitting 58% in the NBA right now so if i use kelly to determine my bet's this is what it comes up with:

The odds are in your favor, but read the following carefully:
According to the Kelly criterion your optimal bet is about 11.8% of your capital, or $117.00.
On 58% of similar occasions, you would expect to gain $106.36 in addition to your stake of $117.00 being returned.
But on those occasions when you lose, you will lose your stake of $117.00.
Your fortune will grow, on average, by about 0.64% on each bet.

that is based on a $1000 bankroll, I can play up to 4-5 games a night, one bad night going 0-4 can wipe out 47.2% of your bankroll. Just my opinion but that is to aggressive and not my style.

Kelly is about maximising return and, yes is therefore going to lead to steep losses if you hit a cold streak.
Many people however use half-Kelly, quarter-Kelly or whatever proportion they are comfortable with.

The other thing is that "hitting 58% right now" is not sufficient to be using in a Kelly calculation. If you are not calculating your edge on a game by basis then a historical average sample size needs to run into the thousands.

**urge2kill** · 01-13-11, 02:20 PM

If you're realy 58% ATS aren't you more likely to go 4-0 than 0-4? Also, should you be reducing your bankroll after each bet? In which case you wouldn't be risking 47% of your roll because the bet sizes decrease with each bet. I don't really know much about Kelly other than the basics.

**doublej95** · 01-13-11, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by urge2kill

If you're realy 58% ATS aren't you more likely to go 4-0 than 0-4? Also, should you be reducing your bankroll after each bet? In which case you wouldn't be risking 47% of your roll because the bet sizes decrease with each bet. I don't really know much about Kelly other than the basics.

0-4, 0-2, 0-3, 0-5, 0-and whatever happens to all of us at one point. my point was that using Kelly aggressively can be dangerous and the 2%-4% is a better approach for many.