Posted:
#276
Quote Originally Posted by nccashman:
ethan why would you resurrect this piece of shit thread?
Flat betting in Baseball....
Posted:
#278
Vanzack, I don’t quite understand why your method described reflects true flat-betting and equates the value of all wagers. Why do you ensure the wager + return equal 2? I am good with #s and will appreciate a mathematical explanation as to why this particular formula produces equal value. I fully understand the validity of what you presented in terms of big dogs not being equal in value to even lines.
Just for illustrative purposes, I took some time to demonstrate how your method (in a given example) actually is less profitable in the long-run. I am not dismissing your theories but just presenting something that you could dissect and prove wrong. Please show me how, mathematically, your system wins in the long-run.
Thanks man.
Let’s say you have a 50 cent edge exploited by accurately predicting the winning % (an corresponding line) compared to the line offered.
Method #1: Betting 1 unit on all plays AKA what some call “flat-betting”.
1) You make 100 bets on selection 1 which offers a -150 line. You predict the line being -200 (or a 66.7% chance of winning). Since you have 50 cents in your favour (ie: you predict the team winning more than the odds dictate), you pull the trigger – betting 1 unit @ -150.
So 66.7% of the bets you make win 0.67 units (on the -150 line being offered).
Profit = (.67 * 0.67) – (.33 * 1) = .4489 - .333 = .116 profit. Over 100 plays, that equals about 11.6 units of profit.
2) You make 100 bets on selection 2 which offers a +150 line. You predict the line being +100 (or a 50% chance of winning).
So 50% of the bets you make win 1.5 units (on the +150 line being offered).
Profit = (.5 * 1.5) – (.5 * 1) = .75 - .5 = .25 profit. Over 100 plays, that equals about 25 units of profit.
TOTAL PROFIT = 11.6 + 25 = 36.6
Method #2: Vanzack’s method of flat-betting.
1) -150 bet: Using your strategy, you would wager 1.2 to win 0.8.
Profit = (.67 * 0.8) – (.33 * 1.2) = .536 - .396= .14 profit. Over 100 plays, that equals about 14 units of profit.
2) +150 bet: Using your strategy, you would wager 0.8 to win 1.2.
Profit = (.5 * 1.2) – (.5 * 0.8) = .6 - .4 = .2 profit. Over 100 plays, that equals about 20 units of profit.
TOTAL PROFIT = 14 + 20 = 34
Posted:
#281
Quote Originally Posted by HeyRube:
IM WITH BETJAMAICA....I GET PAID IMMEDIATELY...WITH AN ISSUED ATM CARD GODD AT ANY ATM MACHINE...SMALL FEE...LIKE A BUCK OR SOMETHING
i thought about opening a matchbook account i just like to go get my money every tuesday...cash.... none of the mail a check in a few weeks bullshit like i got with wsex and bookmaker
Posted:
#282
Quote Originally Posted by CleverCapper:
Just for illustrative purposes, I took some time to demonstrate how your method (in a given example) actually is less profitable in the long-run.
I highlighted the key words in your post above. Your example is selective and not reality. If you can isolate a 50 cent TRUE advantage you should bet as much as you can all the time.
You are leaving out the part about losing and thinkin you have an advantage when you really dont.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Posted:
#284
Well you are saying your way of betting is better because you oppose
others who believe traditional flat betting (always 1 unit) is more
profitable in the long-run. It is beyond just opinion or whose
selection of betting sizes is better.
The fact I threw in a 50 difference is not relevant to my illustration. You can illustrate a 1, 2, 3, etc... cent difference in computed line and line being offered and the results are the same. The fact that I chose 50 cents was just to show (using larger and clearer figures) that your flat betting is not as profitable.
All I am asking is you at least defend WHY adding the risk and win amount together is more profitable. I am not trying to one-up you here. After reading through the entire thread I cannot find any proof to your reasoning.
My illustration does indeed account for losses. It assumes that over hundreds of thousands of plays, a small edge between my calculated line and the line being offered exists. The idea I presented showed how my calculated was just another way of presenting my calculated chances of team A winning over team B. Do I ever show team A winning 100% of the time? Obviously not. Meaning I don't expect to not lose.
Assuming you follow proper money management (ie: bet sizes consistently <1.5% of total bankroll) you insulate your bankroll.
So I am not asking you if flat betting is more profitable. I am asking you prove why your method of flat betting is more profitable than the traditional (betting 1 unit on everything) method of flat betting.
Please prove it mathematically.
The fact I threw in a 50 difference is not relevant to my illustration. You can illustrate a 1, 2, 3, etc... cent difference in computed line and line being offered and the results are the same. The fact that I chose 50 cents was just to show (using larger and clearer figures) that your flat betting is not as profitable.
All I am asking is you at least defend WHY adding the risk and win amount together is more profitable. I am not trying to one-up you here. After reading through the entire thread I cannot find any proof to your reasoning.
My illustration does indeed account for losses. It assumes that over hundreds of thousands of plays, a small edge between my calculated line and the line being offered exists. The idea I presented showed how my calculated was just another way of presenting my calculated chances of team A winning over team B. Do I ever show team A winning 100% of the time? Obviously not. Meaning I don't expect to not lose.
Assuming you follow proper money management (ie: bet sizes consistently <1.5% of total bankroll) you insulate your bankroll.
So I am not asking you if flat betting is more profitable. I am asking you prove why your method of flat betting is more profitable than the traditional (betting 1 unit on everything) method of flat betting.
Please prove it mathematically.
Posted:
#285
Quote Originally Posted by CleverCapper:
Well you are saying your way of betting is better because you oppose others who believe traditional flat betting (always 1 unit) is more profitable in the long-run. It is beyond just opinion or whose selection of betting sizes is better.
The fact I threw in a 50 difference is not relevant to my illustration. You can illustrate a 1, 2, 3, etc... cent difference in computed line and line being offered and the results are the same. The fact that I chose 50 cents was just to show (using larger and clearer figures) that your flat betting is not as profitable.
All I am asking is you at least defend WHY adding the risk and win amount together is more profitable. I am not trying to one-up you here. After reading through the entire thread I cannot find any proof to your reasoning.
My illustration does indeed account for losses. It assumes that over hundreds of thousands of plays, a small edge between my calculated line and the line being offered exists. The idea I presented showed how my calculated was just another way of presenting my calculated chances of team A winning over team B. Do I ever show team A winning 100% of the time? Obviously not. Meaning I don't expect to not lose.
Assuming you follow proper money management (ie: bet sizes consistently <1.5% of total bankroll) you insulate your bankroll.
So I am not asking you if flat betting is more profitable. I am asking you prove why your method of flat betting is more profitable than the traditional (betting 1 unit on everything) method of flat betting.
Please prove it mathematically.
Well you are saying your way of betting is better because you oppose others who believe traditional flat betting (always 1 unit) is more profitable in the long-run. It is beyond just opinion or whose selection of betting sizes is better.
The fact I threw in a 50 difference is not relevant to my illustration. You can illustrate a 1, 2, 3, etc... cent difference in computed line and line being offered and the results are the same. The fact that I chose 50 cents was just to show (using larger and clearer figures) that your flat betting is not as profitable.
All I am asking is you at least defend WHY adding the risk and win amount together is more profitable. I am not trying to one-up you here. After reading through the entire thread I cannot find any proof to your reasoning.
My illustration does indeed account for losses. It assumes that over hundreds of thousands of plays, a small edge between my calculated line and the line being offered exists. The idea I presented showed how my calculated was just another way of presenting my calculated chances of team A winning over team B. Do I ever show team A winning 100% of the time? Obviously not. Meaning I don't expect to not lose.
Assuming you follow proper money management (ie: bet sizes consistently <1.5% of total bankroll) you insulate your bankroll.
So I am not asking you if flat betting is more profitable. I am asking you prove why your method of flat betting is more profitable than the traditional (betting 1 unit on everything) method of flat betting.
Please prove it mathematically.
Look - this is a long thread and I have said what you are asking many times - but this is the highlights:
1. I never said my way of flat betting is more profitable than any other way of betting.
2. You are asking a question that is not relevant. There is nothing to prove. I cant prove that my method of flat betting is more profitable than the traditional betting method because that is not my point.
How about doing me a favor? Go back and calculate your numbers with a 50 cents to the losing side instead of the winning side - and report your results. You are going to lose a ton, just as you won a ton if you are winning.
You are missing the point here - IF you want to flat bet - and IF you define flat betting (as most do) as having equal weight on all games - my way is the only way. READ THAT AGAIN. And again.
Im not saying more profitable. Im not saying it is better than anything else. I am simply stating a fact - IF YOU WANT EQUAL WEIGHT ON EACH GAME YOU HAVE TO BET AS I SUGGEST.
If you do "traditional flat betting" - all you are doing is putting more weight on games that are farther away from +100. In other words, your +200 and -200 games have much more value than your -120 and +120 games. If that is what you want, or if for some reason you do better on your bigger dogs and bigger favs, then by all means have at it. But if you have an even distribution across higher and lower lines, then you are doing yourself no good - and indeed not flat betting - if you use this method.
Please just think about it before you come at me with your next post. You are thinking about this all wrong, and in fact is the pitfall that most fall in to in this thread.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Posted:
#286
Clevercapper - let me give you a very simple illustration:
You want to flat bet, or have equal weight to all bets.
You bet 2 different lines whenever they appear. Any team that is -120 you bet, and any team that is -400 you bet.
Now, lets look at "the traditional" way of flat betting:
You would bet 120 to win 100 on the -120 fav
You would bet 400 to win 100 on the -400 fav
Now - is one of those games more important than the other - thus defeating the purpose of flat betting? Or do they have equal weight?
In the above example, if this person won their -400 bets at a higher (weighted) rate than their -120 bets then this might make sense, but otherwise it doesnt.
Pretty simple actually.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
to hear it!!!
Posted:
#294
Van, Iv read your thread on heading parlays and just made it through this one. My question is, is hedging a parlay and selling a bet pregame essentially the same thing. A guess a question of personal prefereance on wether you would like to take less gauranteed money or let the bet ride for a bigger payout. Isnt your advice to not hedge because you are diminishing your EV. arnt you doing the same thing by selling your wagers. Let me know if im missing something......... 
Posted:
#296
I live in Vegas, and all of you have no idea of what flat betting is and how non profitable that patern can be, you must move your money when the odds are right or you will just be chasing your tail all season long trying to make a dollar or two, think about it, your excel programs will not work against the books in vegas, to win its all about moving your bet when the time is right and that my friends is how you will eventually beat the odds.
there might still be hope for you 
Posted:
#298
Quote Originally Posted by ILL:
vanzack i have a question for ya, i'm not that experienced with baseball betting but am trying it out this year..
anyway, my local offers all run lines at 10% juice. that is, if the cubs are -1.5 at +150 and the cardinals are +1.5 at -170, it doesn't matter - i get the cubs -1.5 at 10% and cardinals +1.5 at 10%.
i realize that this is a huge fuck up on his part, but he does not realize this.
my question is, what would be the best way to exploit this advantage? it seems as if i should just bet every single +1.5 run line every single day, since +1.5 run lines usually are like -150 and up, but i'm getting it at 10%.
anyway, any advice is valued and appreciated.
Play on Road Division rival underdogs at +1.5
Dang Man,he is an idiot for taking the risk being a local and and idiot at not knowing what he is doing....
You might need to shun the idiot......
He that does not know he does not know and thinks he knows is a fool .....shun him....
BookerT
Hot Forum Topics
