Wanted to start a thread for beginners and veterans alike to share their thoughts on Sports Handicapping Fundamentals. I will be contributing my thoughts on a daily basis, but would appreciate insight from any and all that visit.
Where do we begin.....
I have been on Covers for a few years and have seen the same fundamental mistakes that doom excellent handicappers committed over and over again.
Poor Money Management is probably the #1 reason 99% of handicappers fail. Does this look familiar?
Boston -7 (3 units)
San Antonio -6 (5 units)
Dallas/Phoenix under 219 (1 unit)
You see this all the time on this site. I can hit 67% of my bets and lose money with this strategy. Now, flat-bet those picks and hit 2-1, you are making money.
Yes, it sounds ridiculously simple, but so many novice handicappers make this simple mistake.
If you are risking 5 units on one play and 1 unit on another play, There is No Point in playing the 1 play bet!!!!!
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Wanted to start a thread for beginners and veterans alike to share their thoughts on Sports Handicapping Fundamentals. I will be contributing my thoughts on a daily basis, but would appreciate insight from any and all that visit.
Where do we begin.....
I have been on Covers for a few years and have seen the same fundamental mistakes that doom excellent handicappers committed over and over again.
Poor Money Management is probably the #1 reason 99% of handicappers fail. Does this look familiar?
Boston -7 (3 units)
San Antonio -6 (5 units)
Dallas/Phoenix under 219 (1 unit)
You see this all the time on this site. I can hit 67% of my bets and lose money with this strategy. Now, flat-bet those picks and hit 2-1, you are making money.
Yes, it sounds ridiculously simple, but so many novice handicappers make this simple mistake.
If you are risking 5 units on one play and 1 unit on another play, There is No Point in playing the 1 play bet!!!!!
Flat-betting is a simple concept. Risking the same amount per play regardless of the line.
For example:
NY Mets -120 (Risking 1.00 for .83) as opposed to
(Risking1.20 for 1)
If you are risking 1.2 units per play, you must risk this amount on a line like: Toronto +115.
Yet this is seldom the case. Most players risk (whatever) to make one unit, and this is a mistake for the beginning handicapper. To borrow a phrase from one of Covers' Experts "keep it simple stupid". If you are risking different amounts on different plays, you need a mathematical justification for such a risk, or you are merely speculating. i.e. gambling.
For example: Your spreadsheets show that a play on Denver -3 has a 59% chance of success, yet Utah +2 has a 55% chance to take the money home. So is Denver worth 5 units, yet Utah is only worth 2? Of course not!!! It's theoretically only a 4% difference in win rate. So with an extra 4% potential, how could one justify a 250% unit increase.
This is a common pitfall that many sports bettors fall into. Of course many experienced bettors fail for exactly the same reason.
Let me repeat, there is no point in wagering 1 unit on any team if you are wagering 5 units on another. The math is simple, and unless you are wagering strictly for action, it is a pointless/fruitless effort.
More to follow........
0
Flat-betting is a simple concept. Risking the same amount per play regardless of the line.
For example:
NY Mets -120 (Risking 1.00 for .83) as opposed to
(Risking1.20 for 1)
If you are risking 1.2 units per play, you must risk this amount on a line like: Toronto +115.
Yet this is seldom the case. Most players risk (whatever) to make one unit, and this is a mistake for the beginning handicapper. To borrow a phrase from one of Covers' Experts "keep it simple stupid". If you are risking different amounts on different plays, you need a mathematical justification for such a risk, or you are merely speculating. i.e. gambling.
For example: Your spreadsheets show that a play on Denver -3 has a 59% chance of success, yet Utah +2 has a 55% chance to take the money home. So is Denver worth 5 units, yet Utah is only worth 2? Of course not!!! It's theoretically only a 4% difference in win rate. So with an extra 4% potential, how could one justify a 250% unit increase.
This is a common pitfall that many sports bettors fall into. Of course many experienced bettors fail for exactly the same reason.
Let me repeat, there is no point in wagering 1 unit on any team if you are wagering 5 units on another. The math is simple, and unless you are wagering strictly for action, it is a pointless/fruitless effort.
This is just the thread for me. Being betting online for about a year now. Stated out with a small deposit of $300. Since have taken the $300 out, and currently sit around $850, more of a hobby then anything ,but I certainly don't need to speed hundreds of dollars learning. After reading your first two post, I am thinking that’s me. I often find myself risking way more then I am comfortable with at the end of the night trying to break even. I most often bet three games a night, doing exactly what you described. Well I can say now that’s corrected. Looking forward to some more helpful hints. Cheers
0
JackBauer
This is just the thread for me. Being betting online for about a year now. Stated out with a small deposit of $300. Since have taken the $300 out, and currently sit around $850, more of a hobby then anything ,but I certainly don't need to speed hundreds of dollars learning. After reading your first two post, I am thinking that’s me. I often find myself risking way more then I am comfortable with at the end of the night trying to break even. I most often bet three games a night, doing exactly what you described. Well I can say now that’s corrected. Looking forward to some more helpful hints. Cheers
We'll start with a theoretical bankroll of $1,000. What should you risk per play? I've seen some on Covers risk more than 10% on a single game. Not exactly sound bankroll management. I went 1-10 on a Saturday this past NCAAF season, it happens. At more than 10% per play, I'd be out of action. So what is a good percentage?
It depends on several factors :
Risk ThreshholdWhat are you comfortable with risking on any given wager.
Handicapping SkillAre you very selective and hit (on average) a higher win percentage with less plays, or do you put your money down on anything with a positive expectation.
Well BeingYour individual psyche has a lot to do with your success in handicapping. Can you handle taking a 1-10 beating?
Depending upon your own self-evaluation as a handicapper, (and let's be honest here, you're only cheating yourself if you're not) your risk per play will vary. Anywhere from 1/2% to 2 1/2% is a good place to start.
Each individual sport can also be a determining factor in your percentage. For example, you might only risk 1/2 to 1% of your bankroll per play on MLB due to the number of games, and 1 1/2 -2% on any given NFL play.
Handicapping is a grind, risking a large percentage of your bankroll on any single play may make you a lot of money in the short-term, but it will break you in the long run. That little bird called Binomial Distribution drops guano on all of us at one time or another. More on that later.....
GL, questions, comments and general harrassment always welcome.
0
Just a little on Bankroll Management.......
We'll start with a theoretical bankroll of $1,000. What should you risk per play? I've seen some on Covers risk more than 10% on a single game. Not exactly sound bankroll management. I went 1-10 on a Saturday this past NCAAF season, it happens. At more than 10% per play, I'd be out of action. So what is a good percentage?
It depends on several factors :
Risk ThreshholdWhat are you comfortable with risking on any given wager.
Handicapping SkillAre you very selective and hit (on average) a higher win percentage with less plays, or do you put your money down on anything with a positive expectation.
Well BeingYour individual psyche has a lot to do with your success in handicapping. Can you handle taking a 1-10 beating?
Depending upon your own self-evaluation as a handicapper, (and let's be honest here, you're only cheating yourself if you're not) your risk per play will vary. Anywhere from 1/2% to 2 1/2% is a good place to start.
Each individual sport can also be a determining factor in your percentage. For example, you might only risk 1/2 to 1% of your bankroll per play on MLB due to the number of games, and 1 1/2 -2% on any given NFL play.
Handicapping is a grind, risking a large percentage of your bankroll on any single play may make you a lot of money in the short-term, but it will break you in the long run. That little bird called Binomial Distribution drops guano on all of us at one time or another. More on that later.....
GL, questions, comments and general harrassment always welcome.
JackBauer - Great information all around. However, I think most threads like this fall on deaf ears because most of the people on this forum are "gamblers" or younger guys who are playing for the fun of it and not treating it like an investment.
Hell, I've been gambling seriously for going on 7 years, and I am JUST starting to think of it as an investment strategy, lol.
Keep up the good work.
0
JackBauer - Great information all around. However, I think most threads like this fall on deaf ears because most of the people on this forum are "gamblers" or younger guys who are playing for the fun of it and not treating it like an investment.
Hell, I've been gambling seriously for going on 7 years, and I am JUST starting to think of it as an investment strategy, lol.
Jack -- I've only heard Vanzack talk about betting up to 10%. This obviously assumes a high degree of proven skill and also being OK w/ blowing one's bank roll. I can see how this works w/ someone who caps very well and maybe only puts a portion of his true bankroll in play at once. And if you do this, it's really not 10% after all.
0
Jack -- I've only heard Vanzack talk about betting up to 10%. This obviously assumes a high degree of proven skill and also being OK w/ blowing one's bank roll. I can see how this works w/ someone who caps very well and maybe only puts a portion of his true bankroll in play at once. And if you do this, it's really not 10% after all.
Speaking of binomial distribution, this is a good article that sums it up. Disregard the other stuff on this page, but the first part of the article is informative.
https://professionalgambler.com/binomial.html
0
Speaking of binomial distribution, this is a good article that sums it up. Disregard the other stuff on this page, but the first part of the article is informative.
lan - PG has some good info. I don't think JR is running the show there anymore however. After his heart-attack last year, I think he handed the reigns to someone else..... Just my speculation though.
Second - please feel free to elaborate.
0
Thanks guys, haven't had much time of late.
lan - PG has some good info. I don't think JR is running the show there anymore however. After his heart-attack last year, I think he handed the reigns to someone else..... Just my speculation though.
jack i have a question? If i know i have the odds in my favor on a wager... for instance like the celtics winning the series over the hawks... also i like the pistons winning the series over the sixers even though they are down 1-0, if i lay a large bet on them, do i still suppose to follow the same moneymangement principles like 1 to 2 and a half percent rule.....to take the pistons for the series right now they are at -600.... that's a example, also u got the jazz who is on fire up 2-0....they series price is higher but again the odds are really in your favor.... with a big enough bankroll you can rake in some big money.... again i'm talking about betting on the series...
0
jack i have a question? If i know i have the odds in my favor on a wager... for instance like the celtics winning the series over the hawks... also i like the pistons winning the series over the sixers even though they are down 1-0, if i lay a large bet on them, do i still suppose to follow the same moneymangement principles like 1 to 2 and a half percent rule.....to take the pistons for the series right now they are at -600.... that's a example, also u got the jazz who is on fire up 2-0....they series price is higher but again the odds are really in your favor.... with a big enough bankroll you can rake in some big money.... again i'm talking about betting on the series...
The question you need to ask is: what is your expected win percentage based on the given odds?
At -600, you need to win roughly 86% of the time to make a profit. If your valuation model points to a higher win percentage than this, then it may be worth a wager, but I would stick with a certain percentage of your total bankroll as some crazy things happen in the playoffs.(see Boston Red Sox v. NY Yankees '04, Boston v. Cleveland '07)
And above all, there are no guarantees in sports wagering.
0
The question you need to ask is: what is your expected win percentage based on the given odds?
At -600, you need to win roughly 86% of the time to make a profit. If your valuation model points to a higher win percentage than this, then it may be worth a wager, but I would stick with a certain percentage of your total bankroll as some crazy things happen in the playoffs.(see Boston Red Sox v. NY Yankees '04, Boston v. Cleveland '07)
And above all, there are no guarantees in sports wagering.
Perusing through the mains on Covers one comes across a multitude of threads with listed plays and bets for so and so amount of units. Most are assumed to win as a base unit unless otherwise clarified.
Below are some examples of various bets (and outcomes) using both methods.
Oakland -120 1.2 to win 1.0
San Francisco +148 1.0 to win 1.48
NY Yankees -210 2.1 to win 1.0
For the above games, there are 4 possible outcomes for the punter: 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-3 with variations in the 2-1, 1-2 range depending on the teams that win.
So 3-0 nets us 3 units, and 0-3 puts us 4.3 units in the red. So what about the other 2 options? Like any answer to a poker question, it depends. In this case, on which team(s) win. I'm only going to focus on two scenarios for purposes of illustration.
The day ends 2-1 with the Yankees losing late netting you a .38 unit profit for the day. Hey, any day in the black is a good day.
Same plays risking 1 unit:
Oakland -120 1.0 to win .83
San Francisco +148 1.0 to win 1.48
NY Yankees -210 1.0 to win .47
Using our 2-1 scenario our profit for the day is 1.31 units. Definitely worth drinking to.
Here's the flipside.....................
0
A bit about unit sizing and risk v. reward......
Perusing through the mains on Covers one comes across a multitude of threads with listed plays and bets for so and so amount of units. Most are assumed to win as a base unit unless otherwise clarified.
Below are some examples of various bets (and outcomes) using both methods.
Oakland -120 1.2 to win 1.0
San Francisco +148 1.0 to win 1.48
NY Yankees -210 2.1 to win 1.0
For the above games, there are 4 possible outcomes for the punter: 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-3 with variations in the 2-1, 1-2 range depending on the teams that win.
So 3-0 nets us 3 units, and 0-3 puts us 4.3 units in the red. So what about the other 2 options? Like any answer to a poker question, it depends. In this case, on which team(s) win. I'm only going to focus on two scenarios for purposes of illustration.
The day ends 2-1 with the Yankees losing late netting you a .38 unit profit for the day. Hey, any day in the black is a good day.
Same plays risking 1 unit:
Oakland -120 1.0 to win .83
San Francisco +148 1.0 to win 1.48
NY Yankees -210 1.0 to win .47
Using our 2-1 scenario our profit for the day is 1.31 units. Definitely worth drinking to.
Betting to win one unit nets you a 1.0 unit profit, whereas risking one unit nets you .3 units.
So which method is more profitable? Again, it depends. I read a post that Lanastasis wrote on tailoring one's risk:reward factor to one's own handicapping style/ability. It's an excellent point. Your risk:reward strategy should be based upon your own valuation model and particular style of handicapping.
If the majority of your plays are on favorites (and you're winning consistently) then your preference may be to risk to win one unit.
I'll reiterate what I wrote in my first post that for the novice handicapper risking a unit on any given play is a better idea until you have increased your handicapping acumen. This will preserve your bankroll as you proceed through the turbulent waters of the sportsbetting ocean.
No risk:reward discussion would be complete without discussing the Kelly Criterion, but I'll have to get to that later.
Good luck
0
Both favorites cover and the dog takes a dive.
Betting to win one unit nets you a 1.0 unit profit, whereas risking one unit nets you .3 units.
So which method is more profitable? Again, it depends. I read a post that Lanastasis wrote on tailoring one's risk:reward factor to one's own handicapping style/ability. It's an excellent point. Your risk:reward strategy should be based upon your own valuation model and particular style of handicapping.
If the majority of your plays are on favorites (and you're winning consistently) then your preference may be to risk to win one unit.
I'll reiterate what I wrote in my first post that for the novice handicapper risking a unit on any given play is a better idea until you have increased your handicapping acumen. This will preserve your bankroll as you proceed through the turbulent waters of the sportsbetting ocean.
No risk:reward discussion would be complete without discussing the Kelly Criterion, but I'll have to get to that later.
Hot Forum Topics
