- Besides the obvious ML and Totals wagers, what are your thoughts on the other wager types? (Run Line, 5 inning lines, prop bets, any specifics you like/dislike and why?)
Thanks again.
Personally one area I think I'm going to spend a lot of time on this year with spreadsheets is the Run/No Run in the 1st inning prop bet. This one has always seemed appealing to me.
Also...
- Besides the obvious ML and Totals wagers, what are your thoughts on the other wager types? (Run Line, 5 inning lines, prop bets, any specifics you like/dislike and why?)
Thanks again.
Personally one area I think I'm going to spend a lot of time on this year with spreadsheets is the Run/No Run in the 1st inning prop bet. This one has always seemed appealing to me.
KeyElement I would like to pick your brain on a few questions if you don't mind. First off, I really enjoyed reading your initial post, it was insightful and made sense. So a couple questions...
- I understand the basic wager is a 5 unit standard bet. Why the sliding scale from 1 unit to a maximum of 7 units? I guess to be specific, why are most bets 5 units, and the maximum you can go upwards 2, while the most you can go down is 4 to 1 unit (or 0/passing a bet if you look at it like that)? I am trying to get a better feel for why you set up your scale in this way.
- Without going too much into your handicapping, (I'm not asking for you to give away your secrets) how do you personally go about declaring a wager less or more than the standard 5 units? What makes a 6 unit wager better than a 5 unit wager, but not quite a 7 unit wager? What makes a game worth a 2 unit wager for instance, but not a 3 unit wager? Why would you put a minimal 1 unit wager on a game instead of just pass on it?
Thanks in advance and BOL today.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
Quote Originally Posted by ChasingTheOdds:
KeyElement I would like to pick your brain on a few questions if you don't mind. First off, I really enjoyed reading your initial post, it was insightful and made sense. So a couple questions...
- I understand the basic wager is a 5 unit standard bet. Why the sliding scale from 1 unit to a maximum of 7 units? I guess to be specific, why are most bets 5 units, and the maximum you can go upwards 2, while the most you can go down is 4 to 1 unit (or 0/passing a bet if you look at it like that)? I am trying to get a better feel for why you set up your scale in this way.
- Without going too much into your handicapping, (I'm not asking for you to give away your secrets) how do you personally go about declaring a wager less or more than the standard 5 units? What makes a 6 unit wager better than a 5 unit wager, but not quite a 7 unit wager? What makes a game worth a 2 unit wager for instance, but not a 3 unit wager? Why would you put a minimal 1 unit wager on a game instead of just pass on it?
ChasingTheOdds - Ok, Back home now. I use 5 units as a standard so a reduction up or down is only 20% of the basic wager, which is better money management than a 1, 2, 3 system or similar which would imply that the next step up is worth double or triple a basic play. A handicappers W-L record or ROI almost never justify a progression like that. In an attempt to simplify a complex problem I will just say that my computed win probability % has to exceed the risk-reward payback odds. A lot of guys state flatly "I will not lay over -140" and that is not a bad rule of thumb but some of the same guys can not tell you why they adopted it. The very simple fact of the matter is that -140 pays back (reward) 71.4 cents on the dollar (risk). It requires a win probability of 58.33% just to pass the break even point, and that is very high in baseball. Even if we take best case-worst case scenarios in each league, per current public opinion, we are talking about Angels versus Astros and Nationals versus Marlins. Should the Angels and Nationals win over 58.33% versus those opponents? Yeah, probably, but it doesn't mean they will win them all, nor does it mean they have a 58.33% probability versus every team, every day. That, mathematically is why anything over -140 is dangerous ground. Long story, short version; win probability versus payback determines the "value" of any play. A play under 5 units, especially 3 or 2, may not have a 51% or better probability of a win, but the payback is so far over the required probability it has value. Example: at +190 a team needs a win probability of only 34.5% to pass the break even point, so if their computed win probability is 41% should I not play them? I should and I will, but perhaps at 2, 3, or 4 units.
As for the others. I will have 5 inning plays, sides and totals, and if I like the 5 inning Over or Under that in itself is and indication of how I feel about 1st inning scoring probability. Other than that I don't delve into props a great deal. You see odds inflated in prop categories, 20,30, sometimes 40 cent lines and that is bad news right there, but the other and more important reason is that it would require yet more demands on my time and I simply don't have that time available.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
ChasingTheOdds - Ok, Back home now. I use 5 units as a standard so a reduction up or down is only 20% of the basic wager, which is better money management than a 1, 2, 3 system or similar which would imply that the next step up is worth double or triple a basic play. A handicappers W-L record or ROI almost never justify a progression like that. In an attempt to simplify a complex problem I will just say that my computed win probability % has to exceed the risk-reward payback odds. A lot of guys state flatly "I will not lay over -140" and that is not a bad rule of thumb but some of the same guys can not tell you why they adopted it. The very simple fact of the matter is that -140 pays back (reward) 71.4 cents on the dollar (risk). It requires a win probability of 58.33% just to pass the break even point, and that is very high in baseball. Even if we take best case-worst case scenarios in each league, per current public opinion, we are talking about Angels versus Astros and Nationals versus Marlins. Should the Angels and Nationals win over 58.33% versus those opponents? Yeah, probably, but it doesn't mean they will win them all, nor does it mean they have a 58.33% probability versus every team, every day. That, mathematically is why anything over -140 is dangerous ground. Long story, short version; win probability versus payback determines the "value" of any play. A play under 5 units, especially 3 or 2, may not have a 51% or better probability of a win, but the payback is so far over the required probability it has value. Example: at +190 a team needs a win probability of only 34.5% to pass the break even point, so if their computed win probability is 41% should I not play them? I should and I will, but perhaps at 2, 3, or 4 units.
As for the others. I will have 5 inning plays, sides and totals, and if I like the 5 inning Over or Under that in itself is and indication of how I feel about 1st inning scoring probability. Other than that I don't delve into props a great deal. You see odds inflated in prop categories, 20,30, sometimes 40 cent lines and that is bad news right there, but the other and more important reason is that it would require yet more demands on my time and I simply don't have that time available.
Good reply, thanks. I'll have to look into the 5 inning totals vs. the Run/No Run 1st Inning and see how the variance stacks up against the increased juice.
Using your example on a +190 team needing a win probability of only 34.5% for break even but with a win probability of 41%... I guess what I'm trying to say, if there is value to be had, (anywhere) aren't you just costing yourself money by betting less than standard over the long term?
The only argument I can think of against me is that what I said is correct over the long term, but short term and bankroll wise, maybe waiting on the law of averages to even out can dwindle a bankroll and betting a fraction of the standard unit minimizes that variance?
Probably not as clear as I was trying to say it but I think you catch the point I'm trying to make.
Good reply, thanks. I'll have to look into the 5 inning totals vs. the Run/No Run 1st Inning and see how the variance stacks up against the increased juice.
Using your example on a +190 team needing a win probability of only 34.5% for break even but with a win probability of 41%... I guess what I'm trying to say, if there is value to be had, (anywhere) aren't you just costing yourself money by betting less than standard over the long term?
The only argument I can think of against me is that what I said is correct over the long term, but short term and bankroll wise, maybe waiting on the law of averages to even out can dwindle a bankroll and betting a fraction of the standard unit minimizes that variance?
Probably not as clear as I was trying to say it but I think you catch the point I'm trying to make.
how much or whether you flat bet, add juice, or whatever, won't matter in the long run. Either you are betting lines with positive expectation and it will yield a positive result at the end of the season or you aren't,and the end result will reflect that.
as far as grading plays, if you're going to do it, I think the way you do it is correct. I've never really thought about it like that but I think you're right. Doubling or tripling your risk on a play is probably not a good idea. Thanks for that insight.
However, I don't think its needed to grade bets. Like a said, if you think a line has value (positive expectation), it either does or it doesn't. And if it does, you should play it at the max that your bankroll allows imo.
how much or whether you flat bet, add juice, or whatever, won't matter in the long run. Either you are betting lines with positive expectation and it will yield a positive result at the end of the season or you aren't,and the end result will reflect that.
as far as grading plays, if you're going to do it, I think the way you do it is correct. I've never really thought about it like that but I think you're right. Doubling or tripling your risk on a play is probably not a good idea. Thanks for that insight.
However, I don't think its needed to grade bets. Like a said, if you think a line has value (positive expectation), it either does or it doesn't. And if it does, you should play it at the max that your bankroll allows imo.
Checked out this post after finding your Astros play today. (I found that one by searching "Harrell" to see if anyone else noticed how well he's pitched recently.)
Thanks for the OG post here, it confirmed and clarified a lot of stuff I've been wondering, like "Why do the bookies suggest betting this way, when I think betting that way sucks." As a poker player who recreationally bets sports, I've always thought "ROI is the only stat that counts at the end of the day," so it's nice to see someone else who thinks that way.
Checked out this post after finding your Astros play today. (I found that one by searching "Harrell" to see if anyone else noticed how well he's pitched recently.)
Thanks for the OG post here, it confirmed and clarified a lot of stuff I've been wondering, like "Why do the bookies suggest betting this way, when I think betting that way sucks." As a poker player who recreationally bets sports, I've always thought "ROI is the only stat that counts at the end of the day," so it's nice to see someone else who thinks that way.
Hot Forum Topics
