Van, so are you saying that for you personally, you would rather lock in the small profits than count on the questionable ROI of 5%? If so, I can respect that. I just don't know if your strategy is for all of us. For example, I bet on games where I identify an ROI of 10% or greater. While I need more time and data to see how accurate this number is, it has gained me very legitimate profits since last year. Every bet I make on average, is netting me upwards of 8% ROI so I would have to see a major line movement to sell that profit away.
Van, so are you saying that for you personally, you would rather lock in the small profits than count on the questionable ROI of 5%? If so, I can respect that. I just don't know if your strategy is for all of us. For example, I bet on games where I identify an ROI of 10% or greater. While I need more time and data to see how accurate this number is, it has gained me very legitimate profits since last year. Every bet I make on average, is netting me upwards of 8% ROI so I would have to see a major line movement to sell that profit away.
I always thought I was good at math and puzzles but for the life of me I am having a hard time with the math on this one. Could you so kindly break it down for this moron. How did you get to this +180 dog: risk .72 to win 1.28.
Thanks
X = desired midpoint of your wager (unit size)
Y = line (entered without decimal or + or - sign, example 120 or 140)
(X*2)/((Y/100)+1) = risk for a dog
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by tep:
Van
I always thought I was good at math and puzzles but for the life of me I am having a hard time with the math on this one. Could you so kindly break it down for this moron. How did you get to this +180 dog: risk .72 to win 1.28.
Thanks
X = desired midpoint of your wager (unit size)
Y = line (entered without decimal or + or - sign, example 120 or 140)
Flat betting to me is betting the same amount, let's say $100, on every wager/proposition no matter the odds.
+130 @$100
-130 @$100
-260 @$100
+310 @$100
etc.
Flat-betting is great, that's what I do, because it allows you to concentrate more on the +/1 of a certain proposition winning as opposed to is 160 to much to pay or will I go up to 170 on this? Who cares....think that side wins? Yes? Then flat bet it.
At least that's what flat betting is to me.
It is easier when the odds are listed in decimals instead of +/- as well.
That is how I bet, but I don't really understand how vanzacks system is better? I know I'm not the brightest guy in the world, so can someone explain to me in betting for dummies terms how this system is better, thanks.
Quote Originally Posted by HeadOverHeart:
Flat betting?
Flat betting to me is betting the same amount, let's say $100, on every wager/proposition no matter the odds.
+130 @$100
-130 @$100
-260 @$100
+310 @$100
etc.
Flat-betting is great, that's what I do, because it allows you to concentrate more on the +/1 of a certain proposition winning as opposed to is 160 to much to pay or will I go up to 170 on this? Who cares....think that side wins? Yes? Then flat bet it.
At least that's what flat betting is to me.
It is easier when the odds are listed in decimals instead of +/- as well.
That is how I bet, but I don't really understand how vanzacks system is better? I know I'm not the brightest guy in the world, so can someone explain to me in betting for dummies terms how this system is better, thanks.
Van, so are you saying that for you personally, you would rather lock in the small profits than count on the questionable ROI of 5%? If so, I can respect that. I just don't know if your strategy is for all of us. For example, I bet on games where I identify an ROI of 10% or greater. While I need more time and data to see how accurate this number is, it has gained me very legitimate profits since last year. Every bet I make on average, is netting me upwards of 8% ROI so I would have to see a major line movement to sell that profit away.
I hardly ever find lines off that big - but if you can and you are doing it - great - dont change it.
The sure profits for me add up because of the sheer amount of baseball games in a season.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by lanastasis:
Van, so are you saying that for you personally, you would rather lock in the small profits than count on the questionable ROI of 5%? If so, I can respect that. I just don't know if your strategy is for all of us. For example, I bet on games where I identify an ROI of 10% or greater. While I need more time and data to see how accurate this number is, it has gained me very legitimate profits since last year. Every bet I make on average, is netting me upwards of 8% ROI so I would have to see a major line movement to sell that profit away.
I hardly ever find lines off that big - but if you can and you are doing it - great - dont change it.
The sure profits for me add up because of the sheer amount of baseball games in a season.
You have a noble goal, but your math is flawed and therefore you are destined to be a loser.
Sorry, but you have no understanding of the math I am presenting and worse than that is you are stubborn about your flawed logic being correct.
Every assumption you have made is wrong. Dogs, favs, it doesnt matter - I am putting equal weight on all bets I make - and therefore flat betting.
In order for you to win you will need to do better on your -200 and +200 bets as a group than you do on your -110 and +110 bets as a group. Does this somehow make sense to you? Are you better percentagewise when you bet at -200 or +200 than -110 or +110?
Because I know you dont realize it, but you are betting more on every bet that is farther away from 100 and you dont even know it.
One thing is for sure my friend, we both have an ass for an avatar.
No comment on the fact that you called me a loser except...check the posts and you will see that I am clearly a winner. Why? because I rarely lay chalk. I bet on dogs. This is a CLEAR way to make money in baseball. You have confused some poor souls on here with your number crunching. I have said and will say again, I do indeed understand that you are 'weighting' your plays equally. I do not see this as an advantageous way to bet baseball. It's much easier than crunching numbers. Bet dogs and pick your spots on favs, use good money management and you will come out ahead in baseball wagering.
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
You have a noble goal, but your math is flawed and therefore you are destined to be a loser.
Sorry, but you have no understanding of the math I am presenting and worse than that is you are stubborn about your flawed logic being correct.
Every assumption you have made is wrong. Dogs, favs, it doesnt matter - I am putting equal weight on all bets I make - and therefore flat betting.
In order for you to win you will need to do better on your -200 and +200 bets as a group than you do on your -110 and +110 bets as a group. Does this somehow make sense to you? Are you better percentagewise when you bet at -200 or +200 than -110 or +110?
Because I know you dont realize it, but you are betting more on every bet that is farther away from 100 and you dont even know it.
One thing is for sure my friend, we both have an ass for an avatar.
No comment on the fact that you called me a loser except...check the posts and you will see that I am clearly a winner. Why? because I rarely lay chalk. I bet on dogs. This is a CLEAR way to make money in baseball. You have confused some poor souls on here with your number crunching. I have said and will say again, I do indeed understand that you are 'weighting' your plays equally. I do not see this as an advantageous way to bet baseball. It's much easier than crunching numbers. Bet dogs and pick your spots on favs, use good money management and you will come out ahead in baseball wagering.
That is how I bet, but I don't really understand how vanzacks system is better? I know I'm not the brightest guy in the world, so can someone explain to me in betting for dummies terms how this system is better, thanks.
If you bet that way, simply put, you are betting more on favs or dogs the farther you get away from 100.
So if you bet 2 games today, and one is -110 and one is +200, the +200 has much more relative weight and therefore is more important than the -110 game.
I cant put it any simpler than that.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by Super_Dave:
That is how I bet, but I don't really understand how vanzacks system is better? I know I'm not the brightest guy in the world, so can someone explain to me in betting for dummies terms how this system is better, thanks.
If you bet that way, simply put, you are betting more on favs or dogs the farther you get away from 100.
So if you bet 2 games today, and one is -110 and one is +200, the +200 has much more relative weight and therefore is more important than the -110 game.
One thing is for sure my friend, we both have an ass for an avatar.
No comment on the fact that you called me a loser except...check the posts and you will see that I am clearly a winner. Why? because I rarely lay chalk. I bet on dogs. This is a CLEAR way to make money in baseball. You have confused some poor souls on here with your number crunching. I have said and will say again, I do indeed understand that you are 'weighting' your plays equally. I do not see this as an advantageous way to bet baseball. It's much easier than crunching numbers. Bet dogs and pick your spots on favs, use good money management and you will come out ahead in baseball wagering.
I did not call you a loser as in you are a loser in life. You will lose longterm with your math. If you want to argue with math, be my guest, but you will lose.
And your theory of betting dogs is not a good one either because you discount any value in favorites as being non existent. There is value in favorites all the time. The only way your theory holds up is if EVERY SINGLE MLB GAME WAS OVERVALUED TO THE DOG, and we all know this is simply not the case.
For those looking for soundbytes in a readers digest version of how to bet baseball for dummies - your statement of only betting dogs might work - but for anyone serious it is as useless as tits on a bull.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by nccashman:
One thing is for sure my friend, we both have an ass for an avatar.
No comment on the fact that you called me a loser except...check the posts and you will see that I am clearly a winner. Why? because I rarely lay chalk. I bet on dogs. This is a CLEAR way to make money in baseball. You have confused some poor souls on here with your number crunching. I have said and will say again, I do indeed understand that you are 'weighting' your plays equally. I do not see this as an advantageous way to bet baseball. It's much easier than crunching numbers. Bet dogs and pick your spots on favs, use good money management and you will come out ahead in baseball wagering.
I did not call you a loser as in you are a loser in life. You will lose longterm with your math. If you want to argue with math, be my guest, but you will lose.
And your theory of betting dogs is not a good one either because you discount any value in favorites as being non existent. There is value in favorites all the time. The only way your theory holds up is if EVERY SINGLE MLB GAME WAS OVERVALUED TO THE DOG, and we all know this is simply not the case.
For those looking for soundbytes in a readers digest version of how to bet baseball for dummies - your statement of only betting dogs might work - but for anyone serious it is as useless as tits on a bull.
I hardly ever find lines off that big - but if you can and you are doing it - great - dont change it.
The sure profits for me add up because of the sheer amount of baseball games in a season.
That's why I am an absolute person for baseball and don't care for wagering on other sports. I will probably shy away from selling off picks for now but you raise some very informative points that could be useful at some point. I still mean to crunch the math about your original premise.
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
I hardly ever find lines off that big - but if you can and you are doing it - great - dont change it.
The sure profits for me add up because of the sheer amount of baseball games in a season.
That's why I am an absolute person for baseball and don't care for wagering on other sports. I will probably shy away from selling off picks for now but you raise some very informative points that could be useful at some point. I still mean to crunch the math about your original premise.
"Flat Betting" is defined as a bet where the outcome of each bet is equally important to the bettor's funds. Therefore, if you bet a team at -1000 at 100$ a unit, then according to the definition of flat betting, the bet would be:
Risk $181.50 to win $18.50
But if you bet a team at +2000 at 100$ a unit, the bet would be:
Risk $9.50 to win $190.50.
If you had to pick 1 to win and 1 to lose, which would you pick to win? Well, both have equal weights, and a 1-1 result either way would result in a winning night by the same margin, so neither pick is more important.
Therefore, vanzack is right.
If a bettor bets 3 games using "flat betting" correctly, then no single bet will be more important than another single bet. Whereas if a bettor were to put exactly one unit on each bet, than underdogs would be the more valued play, since a win would result in a reward over 1 unit. If the bet were on a favorite, then the reward would be under 1 unit. Therefore, the bettor would be valuing the underdog bet more.
Intuitively, the 190$ bet would seem more important than the 9$ bet to win, but you have to factor in the amount of the possible reward to determine a bets importance. A formula for calculating flat bets:
FOR A FAVORITE: Bet Size = 2U/((100/ODDS) + 1)
FOR AN UNDERDOG: Bet Size = 2U/((ODDS/100) + 1))
where U = Unit Size and ODDS = the absolute value of the odds, or the odds without the negative sign in front if there is a negative sign.
Go Obama
some math:
"Flat Betting" is defined as a bet where the outcome of each bet is equally important to the bettor's funds. Therefore, if you bet a team at -1000 at 100$ a unit, then according to the definition of flat betting, the bet would be:
Risk $181.50 to win $18.50
But if you bet a team at +2000 at 100$ a unit, the bet would be:
Risk $9.50 to win $190.50.
If you had to pick 1 to win and 1 to lose, which would you pick to win? Well, both have equal weights, and a 1-1 result either way would result in a winning night by the same margin, so neither pick is more important.
Therefore, vanzack is right.
If a bettor bets 3 games using "flat betting" correctly, then no single bet will be more important than another single bet. Whereas if a bettor were to put exactly one unit on each bet, than underdogs would be the more valued play, since a win would result in a reward over 1 unit. If the bet were on a favorite, then the reward would be under 1 unit. Therefore, the bettor would be valuing the underdog bet more.
Intuitively, the 190$ bet would seem more important than the 9$ bet to win, but you have to factor in the amount of the possible reward to determine a bets importance. A formula for calculating flat bets:
FOR A FAVORITE: Bet Size = 2U/((100/ODDS) + 1)
FOR AN UNDERDOG: Bet Size = 2U/((ODDS/100) + 1))
where U = Unit Size and ODDS = the absolute value of the odds, or the odds without the negative sign in front if there is a negative sign.
OK thanks van, so say I'm betting 2 games today and the 1st is +200 and the 2nd is -110. If I usually bet $100 per game. How much should I wager on each of these games/.
OK thanks van, so say I'm betting 2 games today and the 1st is +200 and the 2nd is -110. If I usually bet $100 per game. How much should I wager on each of these games/.
"Flat Betting" is defined as a bet where the outcome of each bet is equally important to the bettor's funds. Therefore, if you bet a team at -1000 at 100$ a unit, then according to the definition of flat betting, the bet would be:
Risk $181.50 to win $18.50
But if you bet a team at +2000 at 100$ a unit, the bet would be:
Risk $9.50 to win $190.50.
If you had to pick 1 to win and 1 to lose, which would you pick to win? Well, both have equal weights, and a 1-1 result either way would result in a winning night by the same margin, so neither pick is more important.
Therefore, vanzack is right.
If a bettor bets 3 games using "flat betting" correctly, then no single bet will be more important than another single bet. Whereas if a bettor were to put exactly one unit on each bet, than underdogs would be the more valued play, since a win would result in a reward over 1 unit. If the bet were on a favorite, then the reward would be under 1 unit. Therefore, the bettor would be valuing the underdog bet more.
Intuitively, the 190$ bet would seem more important than the 9$ bet to win, but you have to factor in the amount of the possible reward to determine a bets importance. A formula for calculating flat bets:
FOR A FAVORITE: Bet Size = 2U/((100/ODDS) + 1)
FOR AN UNDERDOG: Bet Size = 2U/((ODDS/100) + 1))
where U = Unit Size and ODDS = the absolute value of the odds, or the odds without the negative sign in front if there is a negative sign.
Go Obama
My money is with a guy with a PI avatar in any discussion of math.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by lawstyle:
some math:
"Flat Betting" is defined as a bet where the outcome of each bet is equally important to the bettor's funds. Therefore, if you bet a team at -1000 at 100$ a unit, then according to the definition of flat betting, the bet would be:
Risk $181.50 to win $18.50
But if you bet a team at +2000 at 100$ a unit, the bet would be:
Risk $9.50 to win $190.50.
If you had to pick 1 to win and 1 to lose, which would you pick to win? Well, both have equal weights, and a 1-1 result either way would result in a winning night by the same margin, so neither pick is more important.
Therefore, vanzack is right.
If a bettor bets 3 games using "flat betting" correctly, then no single bet will be more important than another single bet. Whereas if a bettor were to put exactly one unit on each bet, than underdogs would be the more valued play, since a win would result in a reward over 1 unit. If the bet were on a favorite, then the reward would be under 1 unit. Therefore, the bettor would be valuing the underdog bet more.
Intuitively, the 190$ bet would seem more important than the 9$ bet to win, but you have to factor in the amount of the possible reward to determine a bets importance. A formula for calculating flat bets:
FOR A FAVORITE: Bet Size = 2U/((100/ODDS) + 1)
FOR AN UNDERDOG: Bet Size = 2U/((ODDS/100) + 1))
where U = Unit Size and ODDS = the absolute value of the odds, or the odds without the negative sign in front if there is a negative sign.
Go Obama
My money is with a guy with a PI avatar in any discussion of math.
Vanzack, my point was flat-betting is risking the same amount of money on every single play regardless of odds. $100 flat-betting is putting $100 on every game you play, whether they are +160 dogs or -170 favorites.
What my example was trying to say to you was that when you bet based on the juice, 160 to win 100, 230 to win 100, etc., it limits you're ability to pull the trigger on favorites that have a great shot at winning. Now, I am not just talking baseball here, where you need to take dogs on a regular basis, but all sport for flat-betting.
For example, Chelsea v. Wigan today was Chelsea -500. Now, a juice better would say, "no way in hell am I laying 500 to win 100.....too chalky." A flat-better would say, "well, I am $100 flat on everything, and Chelsea won't lose this game, have about a 95% chance of winning, here is $100 to win $20 (or $1000 to win $200, whatever the flat bet is)."
Bang........if you win, 95% chance of doing so, you're golden with a little extra dosh. If you happen to lose on a shocker, you are only down one flat-bet amount.
That was my point and why flat-betters generally come out ahead in the long-run......one less variable to worry about.
Vanzack, my point was flat-betting is risking the same amount of money on every single play regardless of odds. $100 flat-betting is putting $100 on every game you play, whether they are +160 dogs or -170 favorites.
What my example was trying to say to you was that when you bet based on the juice, 160 to win 100, 230 to win 100, etc., it limits you're ability to pull the trigger on favorites that have a great shot at winning. Now, I am not just talking baseball here, where you need to take dogs on a regular basis, but all sport for flat-betting.
For example, Chelsea v. Wigan today was Chelsea -500. Now, a juice better would say, "no way in hell am I laying 500 to win 100.....too chalky." A flat-better would say, "well, I am $100 flat on everything, and Chelsea won't lose this game, have about a 95% chance of winning, here is $100 to win $20 (or $1000 to win $200, whatever the flat bet is)."
Bang........if you win, 95% chance of doing so, you're golden with a little extra dosh. If you happen to lose on a shocker, you are only down one flat-bet amount.
That was my point and why flat-betters generally come out ahead in the long-run......one less variable to worry about.
But if you bet a team at +2000 at 100$ a unit, the bet would be:
Risk $9.50 to win $190.50.
If you had to pick 1 to win and 1 to lose, which would you pick to win? Well, both have equal weights, and a 1-1 result either way would result in a winning night by the same margin, so neither pick is more important."
That is a very good point, and something that seems to make total sense, but something I have never thought about lol
I think I kinda get it now, thanks to "
Risk $181.50 to win $18.50
But if you bet a team at +2000 at 100$ a unit, the bet would be:
Risk $9.50 to win $190.50.
If you had to pick 1 to win and 1 to lose, which would you pick to win? Well, both have equal weights, and a 1-1 result either way would result in a winning night by the same margin, so neither pick is more important."
That is a very good point, and something that seems to make total sense, but something I have never thought about lol
OK thanks van, so say I'm betting 2 games today and the 1st is +200 and the 2nd is -110. If I usually bet $100 per game. How much should I wager on each of these games/.
+200 you bet 66.67
-110 you bet 95.20
Excel spreadsheet instructions above in thread if you want to calculate it yourself.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by Super_Dave:
OK thanks van, so say I'm betting 2 games today and the 1st is +200 and the 2nd is -110. If I usually bet $100 per game. How much should I wager on each of these games/.
+200 you bet 66.67
-110 you bet 95.20
Excel spreadsheet instructions above in thread if you want to calculate it yourself.
Copy and paste that into some cell in a spreadsheet. In cell A1, type your unit size. In cell B1, type your odds (-115, -200, +300, whatever...). In the cell with that formula should appear the appropriate bet size
Copy and paste that into some cell in a spreadsheet. In cell A1, type your unit size. In cell B1, type your odds (-115, -200, +300, whatever...). In the cell with that formula should appear the appropriate bet size
Can you guys explain how you calculate ROIs in baseball? I'm a finance guy and understand ROI very well, but don't understand how you are calculating that number in baseball. I would imagine its a function of the amount wagered relative to your bankroll and the expected return on the investment. Apologize if this has been covered in other threads. If so, please direct me to that thread. I would really appreciate it.
Also, with respect to flat betting. What do you think about the concept of always betting x% of your bankroll? for example, i always bet 2% of my bankroll on each play. i plan to use that as my "1 unit" and modify my fave/dog bets to make them actually "flat bets" per vanzacks post. however, what do you guys think of the 2% concept? it creates a dynamic unit size and grows when you're winning and ideally provides a shock absorber when on a bad streak.
thanks.
Van, lawstyle and/or lanastasis:
Can you guys explain how you calculate ROIs in baseball? I'm a finance guy and understand ROI very well, but don't understand how you are calculating that number in baseball. I would imagine its a function of the amount wagered relative to your bankroll and the expected return on the investment. Apologize if this has been covered in other threads. If so, please direct me to that thread. I would really appreciate it.
Also, with respect to flat betting. What do you think about the concept of always betting x% of your bankroll? for example, i always bet 2% of my bankroll on each play. i plan to use that as my "1 unit" and modify my fave/dog bets to make them actually "flat bets" per vanzacks post. however, what do you guys think of the 2% concept? it creates a dynamic unit size and grows when you're winning and ideally provides a shock absorber when on a bad streak.
maybe i've had a long day, but i'm having real trouble understanding this Vanzack. I know you're knowledge is there, but why don't you post plays? Are you in the business of selling off lines for definite money-making instead of just plays? or do you lock them in and when there is no line movement you just play what lean your originally had if there's no certain opportunity to sell it off?
...as for this flat betting, at this point i usually bet 1 unit on each game in every sport. Whether it is a ML dog with the points they get ATS, my total bet is one unit, which often is set to win more than 1 unit back. In baseball, I am trying to limit plays and only take games in situations with + juice that I like, but I'm not sure how the system would work for this.
So here's a hypothetical situation:
If my unit is $1, and i'm betting the Twins at +141 today (which i have), and I also bet the Padres at +109 on Saturday (a loss but good for this hypothetical i think). Putting $1 on both the Twins and the Padres would end up being $1 to win $1.41 on the Twins, and $1 to win $1.09, correct? Because I did this, the $0.32 difference from each one winning means that I am truly NOT flat betting because there is a difference?
So by this model, I should be betting to win $1 on both, which would be $0.71 on the Twins (rounded) at +141 to win that $1, and $0.92 on the Padres (rounded) at +109 to win $1. I did this by dividing what i am looking to win ($1) by the juice because it is +, while I would do the opposite and divide the juice of a favorite (say -160) by the $1.
Is that even correct? I've officially confused myself
maybe i've had a long day, but i'm having real trouble understanding this Vanzack. I know you're knowledge is there, but why don't you post plays? Are you in the business of selling off lines for definite money-making instead of just plays? or do you lock them in and when there is no line movement you just play what lean your originally had if there's no certain opportunity to sell it off?
...as for this flat betting, at this point i usually bet 1 unit on each game in every sport. Whether it is a ML dog with the points they get ATS, my total bet is one unit, which often is set to win more than 1 unit back. In baseball, I am trying to limit plays and only take games in situations with + juice that I like, but I'm not sure how the system would work for this.
So here's a hypothetical situation:
If my unit is $1, and i'm betting the Twins at +141 today (which i have), and I also bet the Padres at +109 on Saturday (a loss but good for this hypothetical i think). Putting $1 on both the Twins and the Padres would end up being $1 to win $1.41 on the Twins, and $1 to win $1.09, correct? Because I did this, the $0.32 difference from each one winning means that I am truly NOT flat betting because there is a difference?
So by this model, I should be betting to win $1 on both, which would be $0.71 on the Twins (rounded) at +141 to win that $1, and $0.92 on the Padres (rounded) at +109 to win $1. I did this by dividing what i am looking to win ($1) by the juice because it is +, while I would do the opposite and divide the juice of a favorite (say -160) by the $1.
Is that even correct? I've officially confused myself
Anyone who brings politics to a betting thread should be totally ignored,especially if you are for the elitist. Not to mention his support for Hamas through his pastor of 20 years. They are the ones who like to kill person right?
[Quote: Originally Posted by vanzack]
Anyone who brings politics to a betting thread should be totally ignored,especially if you are for the elitist. Not to mention his support for Hamas through his pastor of 20 years. They are the ones who like to kill person right?
Can you guys explain how you calculate ROIs in baseball? I'm a finance guy and understand ROI very well, but don't understand how you are calculating that number in baseball. I would imagine its a function of the amount wagered relative to your bankroll and the expected return on the investment. Apologize if this has been covered in other threads. If so, please direct me to that thread. I would really appreciate it.
Also, with respect to flat betting. What do you think about the concept of always betting x% of your bankroll? for example, i always bet 2% of my bankroll on each play. i plan to use that as my "1 unit" and modify my fave/dog bets to make them actually "flat bets" per vanzacks post. however, what do you guys think of the 2% concept? it creates a dynamic unit size and grows when you're winning and ideally provides a shock absorber when on a bad streak.
thanks.
Good question. It has nothing to do with your bankroll. And also, it only applies to cappers who create their own moneyline.
For example, Cleveland is -129 on Matchbook right now. Say my capping says the Tribe should be -159. Without getting into the mathematics behind it (save for the actual formula), I have identified a potential ROI of 15% (.146....).
The formula to find this is the following: 100/X+1 X = the moneyline
To find the percent ROI between one moneyline and the other, run the above formula for both moneylines and then subtract the difference and the decimal difference is the percent. For example, if you get a number of 0.146 -- that's 15% ROI.
Quote Originally Posted by badmofo:
Van, lawstyle and/or lanastasis:
Can you guys explain how you calculate ROIs in baseball? I'm a finance guy and understand ROI very well, but don't understand how you are calculating that number in baseball. I would imagine its a function of the amount wagered relative to your bankroll and the expected return on the investment. Apologize if this has been covered in other threads. If so, please direct me to that thread. I would really appreciate it.
Also, with respect to flat betting. What do you think about the concept of always betting x% of your bankroll? for example, i always bet 2% of my bankroll on each play. i plan to use that as my "1 unit" and modify my fave/dog bets to make them actually "flat bets" per vanzacks post. however, what do you guys think of the 2% concept? it creates a dynamic unit size and grows when you're winning and ideally provides a shock absorber when on a bad streak.
thanks.
Good question. It has nothing to do with your bankroll. And also, it only applies to cappers who create their own moneyline.
For example, Cleveland is -129 on Matchbook right now. Say my capping says the Tribe should be -159. Without getting into the mathematics behind it (save for the actual formula), I have identified a potential ROI of 15% (.146....).
The formula to find this is the following: 100/X+1 X = the moneyline
To find the percent ROI between one moneyline and the other, run the above formula for both moneylines and then subtract the difference and the decimal difference is the percent. For example, if you get a number of 0.146 -- that's 15% ROI.
Vanzack, Gwarner brins up a good question. Wouldn't betting all bets to win 1 unit be flat betting as well? I don't know if I am just really missing something.
Vanzack, Gwarner brins up a good question. Wouldn't betting all bets to win 1 unit be flat betting as well? I don't know if I am just really missing something.
Who cares....think that side wins? Yes? Then flat bet it.
Hot Forum Topics
