Good stuff Jack Bauer. Right on the money with everything.
The key to remember is that what might work for someone might not work for someone else. For my first year and a half betting baseball, I risked 1 unit on everything. It made the most sense to me and, like you said, it helped me navigate through testy times without losing more than I had to. It was only a month ago, when I had months and months of logged data to analyze, that the numbers proved that it is in my best interest to win 1 unit (in my case 2) on favs. But if I didn't have the data to test this on, it would have been pretty foolish to switch to it.
Good post.
0
Good stuff Jack Bauer. Right on the money with everything.
The key to remember is that what might work for someone might not work for someone else. For my first year and a half betting baseball, I risked 1 unit on everything. It made the most sense to me and, like you said, it helped me navigate through testy times without losing more than I had to. It was only a month ago, when I had months and months of logged data to analyze, that the numbers proved that it is in my best interest to win 1 unit (in my case 2) on favs. But if I didn't have the data to test this on, it would have been pretty foolish to switch to it.
obviously money management is paramount to success but what about the actual handicapping. i would love some insight into that as well. thanks for all the great posts.
0
obviously money management is paramount to success but what about the actual handicapping. i would love some insight into that as well. thanks for all the great posts.
As stated before I would like to write a bit on the Kelly Criterion as it applies to sports handicapping.
The Kelly Criterion can be applied by the wagerer to optimize one's return when an expected win percentage (probability) is known (perceived).
The formula is:
f* = bp - q
Where
f* = the fraction of current bankroll
b = the odds received
p = the probability of win
q = the probablity of loss
That's all well and good, but what the hell does it mean to me the bettor? Let's look at an example.
Using a Pythagorean prediction model we predict that the NY Mets have a 58% chance of winning the game today with a lay price of -120. Punching these numbers into the Kelly formula gives us:
f* = (.833) odds received(.58) win probablity - (.42) loss probability
(.833) odds received
f* = .075 or 7.5% of our total bankroll
Pretty aggressive risk strategy. That is why the 1/2 Kelly or 1/4 Kelly are more frequently applied. Using the 1/4 Kelly we would be risking 1.875% of our total bankroll on this individual play. That's a little easier to swallow.
I would not recommend applying the Kelly Criterion unless you have a valuation model that has thousands of plays logged and gives you a good indicator of it's accuracy in predicting winners.
Stick to betting a flat percentage of your bankroll until you have a mathematical justification for risking more on a given play.
I believe it was Jessica Biel in Summer Catch that said :"If you want big rewards you've got to take big risks"
Why do I know that? aargh.......
Good luck all......
0
As stated before I would like to write a bit on the Kelly Criterion as it applies to sports handicapping.
The Kelly Criterion can be applied by the wagerer to optimize one's return when an expected win percentage (probability) is known (perceived).
The formula is:
f* = bp - q
Where
f* = the fraction of current bankroll
b = the odds received
p = the probability of win
q = the probablity of loss
That's all well and good, but what the hell does it mean to me the bettor? Let's look at an example.
Using a Pythagorean prediction model we predict that the NY Mets have a 58% chance of winning the game today with a lay price of -120. Punching these numbers into the Kelly formula gives us:
f* = (.833) odds received(.58) win probablity - (.42) loss probability
(.833) odds received
f* = .075 or 7.5% of our total bankroll
Pretty aggressive risk strategy. That is why the 1/2 Kelly or 1/4 Kelly are more frequently applied. Using the 1/4 Kelly we would be risking 1.875% of our total bankroll on this individual play. That's a little easier to swallow.
I would not recommend applying the Kelly Criterion unless you have a valuation model that has thousands of plays logged and gives you a good indicator of it's accuracy in predicting winners.
Stick to betting a flat percentage of your bankroll until you have a mathematical justification for risking more on a given play.
I believe it was Jessica Biel in Summer Catch that said :"If you want big rewards you've got to take big risks"
Statistical analysis is king in my book, but the queen gets a vote in certain sports. In my own personal experience, baseball should be bet on a purely statistical basis comparing your own line to the line posted by LVSC. Not so much with basketball and football however.
The key point though is creating your own line. If you are not creating your own line and contrasting/comparing it to the posted lines available, you might as well be flipping coins.
Las Vegas Sports Consultants do not post a line based on the team they believe will win. They post a line based on their perception of the gambling public's perception of who will win/cover.
The above is a common misconception to most gamblers.
When you place a wager, you are not betting against the house, you are betting against the average sports-bettors opinion as perceived by the house.
The next step is evaluating the (perceived) value in your line comparison. e.g. If you have the Florida Marlins -130 @ home in your prediction model and the posted line is Florida +110, you have .40 cents of value. Depending on your risk:reward model this may or may not be worth a wager.
I use baseball as an example as we are in season, but the same approach can be applied to any sport.
Got to run right now....be back soon....
0
A bit on my handicapping philosophy.....
Statistical analysis is king in my book, but the queen gets a vote in certain sports. In my own personal experience, baseball should be bet on a purely statistical basis comparing your own line to the line posted by LVSC. Not so much with basketball and football however.
The key point though is creating your own line. If you are not creating your own line and contrasting/comparing it to the posted lines available, you might as well be flipping coins.
Las Vegas Sports Consultants do not post a line based on the team they believe will win. They post a line based on their perception of the gambling public's perception of who will win/cover.
The above is a common misconception to most gamblers.
When you place a wager, you are not betting against the house, you are betting against the average sports-bettors opinion as perceived by the house.
The next step is evaluating the (perceived) value in your line comparison. e.g. If you have the Florida Marlins -130 @ home in your prediction model and the posted line is Florida +110, you have .40 cents of value. Depending on your risk:reward model this may or may not be worth a wager.
I use baseball as an example as we are in season, but the same approach can be applied to any sport.
Jack....great post,and i'm certainly a nobody on here,but have been doing this for 3 years and have made a profit tailing others.Baseball seems to be the only sport that you HAVE TO jump around and go with the hot capper,to where football and roundball you can tail the same capper throughout the season.I have found that most people lose by chasing a late game after starting out 0-1 or 0-2,or as you say,they wager different amounts.I think it's just the law of averages that says you will win your small bets and lose your big ones.A guy today went 4-3,so he posted "another winning record" for the day,but 2 of his losses were -175.I totaled up his units and 4-3 earned him a minus 2.17 units,so his "winning record" post was deceptive.Thanks for the informative post and you seem like a knowledgeable guy.
0
Jack....great post,and i'm certainly a nobody on here,but have been doing this for 3 years and have made a profit tailing others.Baseball seems to be the only sport that you HAVE TO jump around and go with the hot capper,to where football and roundball you can tail the same capper throughout the season.I have found that most people lose by chasing a late game after starting out 0-1 or 0-2,or as you say,they wager different amounts.I think it's just the law of averages that says you will win your small bets and lose your big ones.A guy today went 4-3,so he posted "another winning record" for the day,but 2 of his losses were -175.I totaled up his units and 4-3 earned him a minus 2.17 units,so his "winning record" post was deceptive.Thanks for the informative post and you seem like a knowledgeable guy.
Im brand new to this forums but have been betting on sports for a number of years now. Thanks for all the great insite and info its really helping me become a better capper.
0
Im brand new to this forums but have been betting on sports for a number of years now. Thanks for all the great insite and info its really helping me become a better capper.
I mentioned the Queen in my previous post but didn't have the time to explain it. Here goes.....
As previously stated, I rely heavily on statistical analysis to predict winners, but that is not the entire basis for a play. Sports are played by humans (and sub-humans, see: Mike Vick) and therefore subjective analysis must be added to the equation. The emotion factor: motivation, should be taken into account as well.
Game 6 of this year's NBA Finals was a perfect example of motivational factors that dictated my play as opposed to any statistical prediction.
The Game 6 line was a complete joke as far as I was concerned. The Lakers knew that it would have been close to impossible to win two in Boston, so why bother with the first one? They were making their offseason plans on the plane trip east.
So what weight should you give to each factor when making your analysis?
I believe it depends on the sport you are handicapping. Motivation is far less important than statistics in non-contact sports. It can also only take you so far in contact sports. I don't care how bad the Buffalo Bills wanted to beat the New England Patriots last year, they just didn't have the talent to get the job done. On the flip side of that, the New York Giants were supremely motivated for the Superbowl with a talent level that definitely was below that of the Patriots.
I also weight motivational/emotional factors heavier in college athletics than I do the pros as the college athlete is far more susceptible to "bulletin board" material than the thicker skinned pros.
The bottom line is, each game must be handicapped on it's own individual merit. If your statistical analysis points you in one direction, but you believe the opposition has more motivation to win, you may want to just sit out.
Good luck and a quote from the Great One:
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."
0
I mentioned the Queen in my previous post but didn't have the time to explain it. Here goes.....
As previously stated, I rely heavily on statistical analysis to predict winners, but that is not the entire basis for a play. Sports are played by humans (and sub-humans, see: Mike Vick) and therefore subjective analysis must be added to the equation. The emotion factor: motivation, should be taken into account as well.
Game 6 of this year's NBA Finals was a perfect example of motivational factors that dictated my play as opposed to any statistical prediction.
The Game 6 line was a complete joke as far as I was concerned. The Lakers knew that it would have been close to impossible to win two in Boston, so why bother with the first one? They were making their offseason plans on the plane trip east.
So what weight should you give to each factor when making your analysis?
I believe it depends on the sport you are handicapping. Motivation is far less important than statistics in non-contact sports. It can also only take you so far in contact sports. I don't care how bad the Buffalo Bills wanted to beat the New England Patriots last year, they just didn't have the talent to get the job done. On the flip side of that, the New York Giants were supremely motivated for the Superbowl with a talent level that definitely was below that of the Patriots.
I also weight motivational/emotional factors heavier in college athletics than I do the pros as the college athlete is far more susceptible to "bulletin board" material than the thicker skinned pros.
The bottom line is, each game must be handicapped on it's own individual merit. If your statistical analysis points you in one direction, but you believe the opposition has more motivation to win, you may want to just sit out.
I like the post on statistical analysis, I do that myself and have made some profits doing it, but I'm wondering if you have any tips on creating lines. I keep having to jump through different formulas to create 'good' lines.
0
I like the post on statistical analysis, I do that myself and have made some profits doing it, but I'm wondering if you have any tips on creating lines. I keep having to jump through different formulas to create 'good' lines.
Good points on this thread re money management. I have read other posts suggesting betting 15% of your bankroll. This is absolute suicide. The 1% to 2% flat betting method works best.
One point that has not been mentioned is "shopping" for lines. This is super important and can make a big difference in long term profitability.
0
Good points on this thread re money management. I have read other posts suggesting betting 15% of your bankroll. This is absolute suicide. The 1% to 2% flat betting method works best.
One point that has not been mentioned is "shopping" for lines. This is super important and can make a big difference in long term profitability.
It's taken me a long time to read through this thread, and I appreciate many of the posts. I must say, however, that I'm a skeptic when it comes to handicapping that is not statistical in origin. Any human behavior can be mapped statistically if there are enough data points to reference. Even each of the above mentioned examples that 'defy' statistics can be included in a formula if you understand the means by which to measure.
My personal opinion is that these 'exceptions' are actually excuses for gamblers to justify making otherwise irrational decisions or to go against what logic would otherwise suggest. When a gambler invokes 'instinct' or 'art' or some other immeasurable unknown he is attempting to demonstrate that he is above nature, above math, God-like. Perhaps those who fall within this category should change your name to Barack.
Before Pareto's Law, people would have said that the notion that 20% of the people do 80% of the work was foolish; in reality we know that it is more like 10/90. And yet, Pareto's law is measurable, and regularly proven.
Thoughts?
0
It's taken me a long time to read through this thread, and I appreciate many of the posts. I must say, however, that I'm a skeptic when it comes to handicapping that is not statistical in origin. Any human behavior can be mapped statistically if there are enough data points to reference. Even each of the above mentioned examples that 'defy' statistics can be included in a formula if you understand the means by which to measure.
My personal opinion is that these 'exceptions' are actually excuses for gamblers to justify making otherwise irrational decisions or to go against what logic would otherwise suggest. When a gambler invokes 'instinct' or 'art' or some other immeasurable unknown he is attempting to demonstrate that he is above nature, above math, God-like. Perhaps those who fall within this category should change your name to Barack.
Before Pareto's Law, people would have said that the notion that 20% of the people do 80% of the work was foolish; in reality we know that it is more like 10/90. And yet, Pareto's law is measurable, and regularly proven.
Hot Forum Topics
