Betting strategy dilemma

For a while I've been flat betting, where my wager + what I would win equals twice my unit amount.  so a -110 wager would be for example 524 to win 476 at 500 a unit.  It's really useful for money management, as every bet is weighted equally and you know how many you need to win to get back to even.  I find it useful for mlb and hockey as it lets you play rl's and pl's with big odds for small amounts, so losing them doesn't kill your bank roll (at least not right away).  But now I'm thinking that because the basis of sports betting is betting on games where you think the odds misrepresent the true odds of winning, doesn't this style of betting go against that?  I suppose that always flat betting the same amount might as well.  Because now you're not betting amounts based on what you think the odds are, but what the oddsmaker gives you.  So I'm basically torn between the very useful and safe money management of flat betting and the idea of simply risking more or less depending on what you think your actual odds are.
I hope some of this makes sense, it's been floating around in my head for a bit, so if not just ignore it :)

I think betting systems and the labachere method is a much better way to controll bankroll.

Individuals can make any system succeed or fail.  Use whatever method is successful for you.  Flat betting is less risky and minimizes gains or losses.  In Kelly criterion, stakes are adjusted according to confidence but may result in bigger gains or losses.