Author: 
[MLB Betting] Topic: Flat betting in Baseball.... 
vanzack 


Posted: 3/31/2010 5:45:35 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by NJDevils:
good point but , and this may the wrong wrong way to think, when i win with a big dog i would like to have it have more importance than hitting a small dog
A lot said on this early in the thread if you have some time to read it.....
What you are basically saying is that you do better on big dogs and big favs (weighted) than you do on small dogs and small favs. If you could somehow know that that is the case  then you are doing the right thing. But if you have an even distribution  or the opposite is true  you are not doing yourself any favors.



vanzack 


Posted: 3/31/2010 5:48:49 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
van
Can I ask you how much volume you "trade" (moneywise) in what you might consider a typical day in baseball.
Hutch  if you want to PM me I will answer this.....
The truth is that no matter how I answer this question it will cause 100 posts of nonsense in return. Ive learned to stay away from these types of answers.
But as a concept  the amount shouldnt matter. Some might say that locking up $.50 of profit on a $5 wager isnt good  but to me its the same 10% as making 5k on 50K. Its all relative  and your ROI shouldnt change because your amounts change.....



baba16 


Posted: 3/31/2010 5:58:30 PM Anyone has any idea what strategy morrisson system is about MLB ?



HutchEmAll 


Posted: 3/31/2010 6:15:21 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by vanzack:
Hutch  if you want to PM me I will answer this.....
The truth is that no matter how I answer this question it will cause 100 posts of nonsense in return. Ive learned to stay away from these types of answers.
But as a concept  the amount shouldnt matter. Some might say that locking up $.50 of profit on a $5 wager isnt good  but to me its the same 10% as making 5k on 50K. Its all relative  and your ROI shouldnt change because your amounts change.....
You're right....people will go bananas...and it's not a big deal. I think I can figure it out knowing what I know about your unit size.



Sox 


Posted: 3/31/2010 10:17:07 PM Van, are you calculating back in the % of the team winning the game? You say that if you were to bet to win the same amount for each game then one would have more weight than the other especially the further away from zero you get....but once you calculate the % of those teams winning back in they should be directly proportional to one another.
Yes, on a given night I want a dog that is +180 to win over a dog that is +120 but when you calucalte back in the % of those dogs winning (which was determined by you capping the game and finding value) there isn't more weight on one over the other because the greater dog is going to have a lower % of winning.




vanzack 


Posted: 4/1/2010 1:34:14 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by Sox:
Van, are you calculating back in the % of the team winning the game? You say that if you were to bet to win the same amount for each game then one would have more weight than the other especially the further away from zero you get....but once you calculate the % of those teams winning back in they should be directly proportional to one another.
Yes, on a given night I want a dog that is +180 to win over a dog that is +120 but when you calucalte back in the % of those dogs winning (which was determined by you capping the game and finding value) there isn't more weight on one over the other because the greater dog is going to have a lower % of winning.
If I am understanding you correctly.....
The weight of winning or losing is allocated in the payoff. So if the actual odds of you winning are the odds that you are betting, than longterm you are going to break exactly even.
But if you do not break exactly as the odds suggest, then you are risking more on the higher odds bets than you are on the lower odds bets, and the amount you are winning or losing overall has more weight on the bets that are farther away from 100 ( your bigger dogs or favs as opposed to your smaller dogs or favs).
This is fine if your bigger dogs and bigger favs win more as a group than your smaller dogs and smaller favs  but it is not putting equal weight on all games  which is my definitino of flat betting.
Did I understand you correctly?



jimmbo 


Posted: 4/1/2010 1:54:19 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by kcdjr25:
who cares if its flat or not, 1 unit to some is a hundred and some its a thousand who cares... if i have a million and bet 50 units50gs, if i lose it mean s nothing just like your post you sir are an behind 


Sox 


Posted: 4/1/2010 4:58:25 PM Yes, I think you're understanding me correctly. However, lets say you have a game at +110 and another one at +200 and weight those games exactly the same. The first game has close to a 50% chance of winning compared to the second game which has about a 33% chance of winning. Wouldn't you actually be putting a lot more weight on the games that are closer to 100 becasue the games that are +200 or so have less of a chance of winning yet you're weighting them the same as a game that has 50% chance of winning?
Does that make any sense? Thx for your time....Good luck this year



KOAJ 


Posted: 4/1/2010 6:36:57 PM 14 page vanzack threads
you should bump the hedging one also
good stuff. 70 degrees in jersey today and my last draft was last night. very excited for baseball season



h0nghyquang 


Posted: 4/1/2010 11:46:41 PM Confused 



KOTBO 


Posted: 4/2/2010 12:41:44 AM Vanzak if youravatar had a shorter nose it could be..................................Simon bar Sinister.......Gl Bro this season.. 


misfits 


Posted: 4/2/2010 10:01:14 AM been wonderin when this thread would appear again. if im not mistaken this is the season where you will make most of your money since baseball has so much line movement which allows for many more opportunities of buying and selling. good luck this season van 


steveshane67 


Posted: 4/4/2010 12:32:42 PM heres some numbers for those of you confused by this "system"
take two lines, 120 and +150, assuming 10% juice, you have odds of 52.07% of winning the 120 game and 38.82% of winning the +150 game.
when you flat bet the 120 game you wager 109 to win 91, for the +150 game you wager 80 to win 120. with the "ML system" you wage 120 to win 100 and wager 100 to win 150.
next you figure out the expected value of each game (odds of winning * amount you can win  odds of losing * amount you can lose). the expected value of the 120 game flat betting is $4.86, and $5.45 "ML" betting. the expected value of the +150 game flat betting is $2.30 and $2.87 "ML" betting.



lordspoint 


Posted: 4/4/2010 1:06:57 PM I only read post #1 (sorry)
But I thought flat betting meant that you would win or lose the same amount regardless of whether you bet the dog or the fav



IGot5OnIt 


Posted: 3/8/2012 4:32:56 PM 



lewlew 


Posted: 3/8/2012 5:35:44 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by vanzack:
I suggest that if you are serious about making money betting, you make a change.
who r these people making money?
surely they dont waste time here posting!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 


JicJac 


Posted: 6/25/2013 7:34:36 PM awesome Thread



dimndimn 


Posted: 6/26/2013 12:00:42 PM good info vanzack, Thank you.
Props to JicJac for bumping this. 


vanzack 


Posted: 6/26/2013 5:01:56 PM 5 year old thread. Nostalgic to read again.



Stew Baker 


Posted: 6/26/2013 6:16:21 PM Van
If one uses the formula, and one bets a +100 dog for 1 unit, and a +150 dog for .8 units, are those bets supposed to be weighted the same? What EV are you presuming for each bet respectively? If the presumed EVs are the same for each bet, say 5%, or whatever, and you use the Kelly to determine relative risk amount for the two bets, the risk amount for the two bets is going to be the same. What is the discrepancy here? What exactly does it take for a +100 dog and a +150 dog to be "weighted the same"? 



Pendo 


Posted: 8/13/2013 4:46:37 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by vanzack:
I actually do flat bet.
The one thing about Kelly that is critical is actually predicting the edge you have, and if you are flawed in this you have a flawed system  and I just havent been able to do this consistently.
So I flat bet....
Vastly greater Payoffs hit when you invest the time to learn to do.
@Stew Baker: "use the Kelly to determine relative risk amount for the two bets, the
risk amount for the two bets is going to be the same. What is the
discrepancy here? What exactly does it take for a +100 dog and a +150
dog to be "weighted the same"?"
Exactly what vansack should like to know: At that point in time he'd also adapt to being lucky being greater than being "smart."
What it takes for +100 dogs' coefficient to equate to +150 pups is as follows: League Officials, teams' owners & players, Refs/Umps, and the books' own line makers to personally phone Mr. Vansack up and dissuade him from using their numbers and instead to continue to "toy with his formula over time" utilizing his calculations of "how his gut feels" that day statistically adjusted over time for "some feel (vansack has) is the true expectation."



Ktrain 


Posted: 8/13/2013 5:19:10 PM 

