Looking for a consensus opinion from long-time sports gamblers
Betting moneylines: what do you feel is the "practical MAXIMUM" moneyline odds you would risk (to win $100) - actually risking real money; not merely "posting picks" on a sports-forum - if risking those moneylines bets on a semi-frequent basis?
IOW, what is the practical cutoff line, above which you would definitely NOT recommended exceeding for yourself or advise to others?
TIA
Thanks! You are the first and so far the ONLY covers member on 4 different forums to state a number (as a working rule of thumb)
And true, I tool will occasionally risk high ML odds on a fav, even up to -300, but definitely not frequently. That's playing with fire in a basement filled with oily rags and stacks of old newspapers.
JMO but if your looking to BUILD a bankroll from ML's then just think a - # is not a good way to go +! Especially ML's JMO . You only have to hit at 50% or 45% with Underdogs to build, may be slow but you will build. If picking FAVS you need to win at 60% + rate in order to win which is very rare in ML's to keep that pace on FAVS! YW
-160 is a good cutoff. If it's up at -170 I'll either stay away or go with a -1 or in regulation bet.
It's also not just about one bet like sherriffics is saying. You want to get your average odds as low as possible to decrease your breakeven win %.
There's no reason to ever bet a ML on -300 unless you're throwing it in a parlay.
If you think they're that likely to win, bet them on the puckline (-1.5) for a reasonable price.
If you're even occasionally straight betting -300 favorites I think you don't really understand the betting aspect of hockey and how much randomness is involved.
Very sound points!
I am hoping to find if the general consensus is similar across all sports.
Certainly the size of one's BR would seem to be a key factor.
For wild example, if one had a $50,000 BR then risking -300 to win $100 is no biggie.
But that changes bigtime if the guy ony has a $3,000 BR! Then he would be risking 10% of his entire bankroll on a hopeful bet - and doing so REGULARLY??!
Not for me!
It's not really about bankroll. ROI is ROI. What you're talking about is bet size and yes it's very important as well.
Hockey will be very different in terms of price from a sport like Football or Basketball with point spreads. Baseball is similar to hockey in that regard.
In point spread sports you want to be as close to -110 (or lower) as possible since every bet is theoretically 50/50.
It's good you're asking so you can save yourself from having to learn the hard way like most of us did.
Good idea Doc, here it is...
https://www.covers.com/forum/nhl-betting/ill-give-you-the-holy-grail-of-gambling-11-but-726543
Ok but nobody knows in advance what the final score will be. It is a belief based (usually) on a style of handicapping. So we can't know in advance of any bet what the ROI result will be. Other bettors call this "value" If we believe a given game has better value than the odds then it's a play.
But the size of the BR is a practical consideration when betting on very large moneylines to win $100.
Risk of ruin comes in to play significantly, in my view, whenever the numbers get close to wagering about 8% - 10% of one's BR on any play - no matter how likely one is to believe it "should" win. We could take massive BR risks and get lucky of course. But my question was in regards to doing this on a FREQUENT basis. Regularly, not just on very rare occasions. Is it wise?
-150 should be the absolute Limit. Need to win 60% in order to break even. I assure you that very few cappers here, or touts or anyone consistently wins 60%+ year in year out.
Keep in mid that -120 still requires you to hit almost 55% in order to profit.
Best of luck. 
Good read - I do NOT do this with Sports betting, however, I do this similar Bank Roll mentality (#5) with Casino Black Jack. Ususally play $25 tables, $1000 bankroll, $50 bet to start (5%, not 2.5%). Once I get above $1100, bump bet to $55, and do $5 increments every $100 in profit. Same in reverse, get down to $900, I roll back to $45, and so on. Allows you to better weather the Dealer's hot streaks.
baish, here's an example. Since 2005, if you flat bet (bet $100 to win less than $100) any favorite -200 or higher, you would win 69% of the time, have a -2.1% ROI, and be down nearly $6900.
If you wanted to bet -300 and higher, you'd win 74% of the time, have a -4.1% ROI, and be down over $1500.
If you think you can dodge the losers and just pick the winners because there's "value", go right ahead, but you're starting from a huge disadvantage so you might as well look elsewhere when you see ML numbers like that.
Makes good sense! TY!
Would those numbers apply similarly in other sports like MLB, NBA, and football? That's what I am really looking for. A spectrum across all sports where it settles in to a very similar range of numbers
Thanks!!
Nothing above -135, except for in parlays and perhaps once or twice a season I go with a -140 or -145
Profit isn't too bad if you don't fall into being a degenerate gambler. It can turn you from having a good season to having a very average season.
Parlays I like and I try to go with -125 or better odds and then try for the dogs at + value and then finally throw in a few good parlays.
I have always went for -150 or less on a favorite. Bankroll is bankroll in my opinion. Its not how much you have in a starting bankroll. But managing that bankroll overtime is what matters.
Always window shop different bookies on lines also. If I generally do not have the meeting lines on a ml game that I feel good on. I start going to the player props section. Which is generally always filled with good lines.
Additionally it comes to how many bets I am making over various sporting events in the day. Meaning maybe play 1 to 3 hockey, 1 to 3 basketball, etc.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
