Flat betting in Baseball....
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have a Bachelor's in Journalism and have won numerous national sports writing awards so unless you are a fellow English/journalism major, being lectured by you on this topic is like having Larry the Cable Guy explain economics to Allen Greenspan.
I have a Bachelor's in Journalism and have won numerous national sports writing awards so unless you are a fellow English/journalism major, being lectured by you on this topic is like having Larry the Cable Guy explain economics to Allen Greenspan.
hey vanzack, do you middle any bets? or do you consider middling a waste of EV?
Have you read the entire thread? We already covered this in great detail.
hey vanzack, do you middle any bets? or do you consider middling a waste of EV?
Have you read the entire thread? We already covered this in great detail.
Example: Pretend the over/under is 8 and I bet the over, but through out the day it goes up to 10 (probably will never happen in baseball) and I bet the under. So I have a possibility to win both bets if the game hits 9 runs. Or if it hits 8 I would push and win the under. Or if it hits 11 I win one bet but lose the other losing the only the juice.
Example: Pretend the over/under is 8 and I bet the over, but through out the day it goes up to 10 (probably will never happen in baseball) and I bet the under. So I have a possibility to win both bets if the game hits 9 runs. Or if it hits 8 I would push and win the under. Or if it hits 11 I win one bet but lose the other losing the only the juice.
I just set up the Vanzack/lawstyle formula for flatbetting and applied it to my betting results. The results, if it does not disprove the premise that this flatbetting is better than the alternative of always risking the same amount, certainly makes it worse of an option for me.
Here's what I found out.
So far this season:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +14.9 UNITS
Flat-betting = +14.02 UNITS
OK, not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless.
Then I went to the last month and a half of last season, when I began implementing my current method of betting:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +23.59 UNITS
Flat-betting = +20.89 UNITS
So, as you can see, as the statistical model is enlarged, the difference is magnified. As far as I am personally concerned, flat betting results in LESS PROFIT.
Now I am not saying this is an absolute condemnation of the flat betting theory. The next logical question would be: Do I bet more dogs or favs? I would guess it's about the same, but I don't know what the exact average is. Just about the only formula I don't have is one that can average the moneylines in a column to give an average moneyline. This is tricky because of the middle ground of numbers between -100 and +100 which prevents you from flat out taking an average. I am too lazy to come up with a corrective formula, but if someone already has one, I would be more than happy to run it on my numbers and let you know if I bet dogs and favs equally or what.
But for now, I will not bet flat betting as defined in this column and I have proven it is definitely not for all.
I just set up the Vanzack/lawstyle formula for flatbetting and applied it to my betting results. The results, if it does not disprove the premise that this flatbetting is better than the alternative of always risking the same amount, certainly makes it worse of an option for me.
Here's what I found out.
So far this season:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +14.9 UNITS
Flat-betting = +14.02 UNITS
OK, not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless.
Then I went to the last month and a half of last season, when I began implementing my current method of betting:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +23.59 UNITS
Flat-betting = +20.89 UNITS
So, as you can see, as the statistical model is enlarged, the difference is magnified. As far as I am personally concerned, flat betting results in LESS PROFIT.
Now I am not saying this is an absolute condemnation of the flat betting theory. The next logical question would be: Do I bet more dogs or favs? I would guess it's about the same, but I don't know what the exact average is. Just about the only formula I don't have is one that can average the moneylines in a column to give an average moneyline. This is tricky because of the middle ground of numbers between -100 and +100 which prevents you from flat out taking an average. I am too lazy to come up with a corrective formula, but if someone already has one, I would be more than happy to run it on my numbers and let you know if I bet dogs and favs equally or what.
But for now, I will not bet flat betting as defined in this column and I have proven it is definitely not for all.
All right, I have a very serious post returning this back to the original discussion. VANZACK, I want you especially to read this.
I just set up the Vanzack/lawstyle formula for flatbetting and applied it to my betting results. The results, if it does not disprove the premise that this flatbetting is better than the alternative of always risking the same amount, certainly makes it worse of an option for me.
Here's what I found out.
So far this season:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +14.9 UNITS
Flat-betting = +14.02 UNITS
OK, not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless.
Then I went to the last month and a half of last season, when I began implementing my current method of betting:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +23.59 UNITS
Flat-betting = +20.89 UNITS
So, as you can see, as the statistical model is enlarged, the difference is magnified. As far as I am personally concerned, flat betting results in LESS PROFIT.
Now I am not saying this is an absolute condemnation of the flat betting theory. The next logical question would be: Do I bet more dogs or favs? I would guess it's about the same, but I don't know what the exact average is. Just about the only formula I don't have is one that can average the moneylines in a column to give an average moneyline. This is tricky because of the middle ground of numbers between -100 and +100 which prevents you from flat out taking an average. I am too lazy to come up with a corrective formula, but if someone already has one, I would be more than happy to run it on my numbers and let you know if I bet dogs and favs equally or what.
But for now, I will not bet flat betting as defined in this column and I have proven it is definitely not for all.
You just said you won more units in your system, all right now you have to look at how many units did you risk with your system and how many units would you have risked using flat betting system, then you take the ROI from that and the higher is your correct answer...at least thats how I see it as an investment...is it the same to win 100 units putting in risk 1000 units than winning 80 units putting in risk 750 units?
All right, I have a very serious post returning this back to the original discussion. VANZACK, I want you especially to read this.
I just set up the Vanzack/lawstyle formula for flatbetting and applied it to my betting results. The results, if it does not disprove the premise that this flatbetting is better than the alternative of always risking the same amount, certainly makes it worse of an option for me.
Here's what I found out.
So far this season:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +14.9 UNITS
Flat-betting = +14.02 UNITS
OK, not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless.
Then I went to the last month and a half of last season, when I began implementing my current method of betting:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +23.59 UNITS
Flat-betting = +20.89 UNITS
So, as you can see, as the statistical model is enlarged, the difference is magnified. As far as I am personally concerned, flat betting results in LESS PROFIT.
Now I am not saying this is an absolute condemnation of the flat betting theory. The next logical question would be: Do I bet more dogs or favs? I would guess it's about the same, but I don't know what the exact average is. Just about the only formula I don't have is one that can average the moneylines in a column to give an average moneyline. This is tricky because of the middle ground of numbers between -100 and +100 which prevents you from flat out taking an average. I am too lazy to come up with a corrective formula, but if someone already has one, I would be more than happy to run it on my numbers and let you know if I bet dogs and favs equally or what.
But for now, I will not bet flat betting as defined in this column and I have proven it is definitely not for all.
You just said you won more units in your system, all right now you have to look at how many units did you risk with your system and how many units would you have risked using flat betting system, then you take the ROI from that and the higher is your correct answer...at least thats how I see it as an investment...is it the same to win 100 units putting in risk 1000 units than winning 80 units putting in risk 750 units?
All right, I have a very serious post returning this back to the original discussion. VANZACK, I want you especially to read this.
I just set up the Vanzack/lawstyle formula for flatbetting and applied it to my betting results. The results, if it does not disprove the premise that this flatbetting is better than the alternative of always risking the same amount, certainly makes it worse of an option for me.
Here's what I found out.
So far this season:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +14.9 UNITS
Flat-betting = +14.02 UNITS
OK, not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless.
Then I went to the last month and a half of last season, when I began implementing my current method of betting:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +23.59 UNITS
Flat-betting = +20.89 UNITS
So, as you can see, as the statistical model is enlarged, the difference is magnified. As far as I am personally concerned, flat betting results in LESS PROFIT.
Now I am not saying this is an absolute condemnation of the flat betting theory. The next logical question would be: Do I bet more dogs or favs? I would guess it's about the same, but I don't know what the exact average is. Just about the only formula I don't have is one that can average the moneylines in a column to give an average moneyline. This is tricky because of the middle ground of numbers between -100 and +100 which prevents you from flat out taking an average. I am too lazy to come up with a corrective formula, but if someone already has one, I would be more than happy to run it on my numbers and let you know if I bet dogs and favs equally or what.
But for now, I will not bet flat betting as defined in this column and I have proven it is definitely not for all.
The reason that happened is because you are better at winning bets on underdogs than favorites, at least so far. Since the method you initially used values bets on dogs more, you profited by betting your way. Like I said above, flat betting doesn't guarantee profit, but if you don't know whether you're better at betting dogs or favorites, it's the safe way to go. If you suck at picking favorites and are great at picking dogs, then do what you're doing. If you are about equal, flat bet, and you won't have to worry about it.
All right, I have a very serious post returning this back to the original discussion. VANZACK, I want you especially to read this.
I just set up the Vanzack/lawstyle formula for flatbetting and applied it to my betting results. The results, if it does not disprove the premise that this flatbetting is better than the alternative of always risking the same amount, certainly makes it worse of an option for me.
Here's what I found out.
So far this season:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +14.9 UNITS
Flat-betting = +14.02 UNITS
OK, not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless.
Then I went to the last month and a half of last season, when I began implementing my current method of betting:
Risking 1 unit per every bet = +23.59 UNITS
Flat-betting = +20.89 UNITS
So, as you can see, as the statistical model is enlarged, the difference is magnified. As far as I am personally concerned, flat betting results in LESS PROFIT.
Now I am not saying this is an absolute condemnation of the flat betting theory. The next logical question would be: Do I bet more dogs or favs? I would guess it's about the same, but I don't know what the exact average is. Just about the only formula I don't have is one that can average the moneylines in a column to give an average moneyline. This is tricky because of the middle ground of numbers between -100 and +100 which prevents you from flat out taking an average. I am too lazy to come up with a corrective formula, but if someone already has one, I would be more than happy to run it on my numbers and let you know if I bet dogs and favs equally or what.
But for now, I will not bet flat betting as defined in this column and I have proven it is definitely not for all.
The reason that happened is because you are better at winning bets on underdogs than favorites, at least so far. Since the method you initially used values bets on dogs more, you profited by betting your way. Like I said above, flat betting doesn't guarantee profit, but if you don't know whether you're better at betting dogs or favorites, it's the safe way to go. If you suck at picking favorites and are great at picking dogs, then do what you're doing. If you are about equal, flat bet, and you won't have to worry about it.
Anyway, the difference is minimal. Just ask these Covers folk. In the one week that I have posted here this year, I was already getting edgy complaints asking about why I was playing so many favs. The result? I am up 13+ units on money lines using a system that apparently is more profitable for me than flat betting.
Anyway, the difference is minimal. Just ask these Covers folk. In the one week that I have posted here this year, I was already getting edgy complaints asking about why I was playing so many favs. The result? I am up 13+ units on money lines using a system that apparently is more profitable for me than flat betting.
again thanks for all of your time
again thanks for all of your time
Lawstyle, if I am better at dogs, it is by a small margin. I have run testing to see how I profited at all kinds of different odds and I ran profits at every level, whether it was -180 or better or +180 or better and everything in between.
Anyway, the difference is minimal. Just ask these Covers folk. In the one week that I have posted here this year, I was already getting edgy complaints asking about why I was playing so many favs. The result? I am up 13+ units on money lines using a system that apparently is more profitable for me than flat betting.
If you claim that flat betting if less profitable for you even though you are winning mostly favorites, the math does not add up. Flat betting essentially means betting more than 1 unit on favorites and less than 1 unit on underdogs. If you are up 13 units on favorites with your current system, imagine if you had been flat betting. You would have bet more on each one of those favorites and been up by a lot more than 13 units.
But the key part in my answer is to consider that flat-betting lowers the amount risked in the long run compared to your method, especially if you are betting more dogs than favorites, or if you are betting 1 unit on underdogs and *Whatever* to win 1 unit on favorites. Therefore, while you may have profited more by not flat betting, you have risked more by not flat betting too. Just increase your unit size in your flat-betting simulation, and you will find that you have profited as much if not more than your method, while risking the same amount.
Lawstyle, if I am better at dogs, it is by a small margin. I have run testing to see how I profited at all kinds of different odds and I ran profits at every level, whether it was -180 or better or +180 or better and everything in between.
Anyway, the difference is minimal. Just ask these Covers folk. In the one week that I have posted here this year, I was already getting edgy complaints asking about why I was playing so many favs. The result? I am up 13+ units on money lines using a system that apparently is more profitable for me than flat betting.
If you claim that flat betting if less profitable for you even though you are winning mostly favorites, the math does not add up. Flat betting essentially means betting more than 1 unit on favorites and less than 1 unit on underdogs. If you are up 13 units on favorites with your current system, imagine if you had been flat betting. You would have bet more on each one of those favorites and been up by a lot more than 13 units.
But the key part in my answer is to consider that flat-betting lowers the amount risked in the long run compared to your method, especially if you are betting more dogs than favorites, or if you are betting 1 unit on underdogs and *Whatever* to win 1 unit on favorites. Therefore, while you may have profited more by not flat betting, you have risked more by not flat betting too. Just increase your unit size in your flat-betting simulation, and you will find that you have profited as much if not more than your method, while risking the same amount.
Hot Forum Topics
- 🤢🥴💩_ Fubah's risky baseball bets _🥶😲🥵 457,393
- Sunday 10/04/2026 687
- NFL LOCKED IN! 104,332
- ***Macwesties * Sun. Oct. 04, 2026 * Week #4 * NFL Football Plays*** 8,520
- This Seattle Line Is Begging for a Discussion 2,822
- NCAA FOOTBALL. 151 33,496
- __________ 📌 🏈 ?? Fubah's NFL 2026: Week 04 🚩🚩🚩🚩 13,228
- Lions vs Panthers in game live SNF 1,871
- Sunday nFl Wk 4 8,149
- NFL THREAD * 151 * 16,847
Warning - External Link
Report User
This post is spam
Delete Post
Remove Thread
Scan Results
Login/Register
Accounts are free and easy to create.
Search
