NO ONE will hit close to 58%. But that is the reason getting reduced holds it the key. Simpley because it lowers the win expectation one needs.
Betting BOTH sides at a positive expectation is the ONLY way to gaurantee a profit however. That basically is like going for 2% to a MINUS whatever percents. If you get +105/+105 on both sides of the same game your "vig" is then MINUS 2.5%, meaning you lose nothing on holds either way.
Also that 2% "vig/hold" is only if you hit 100%, it will vary depending on whatever your win rate is. Simply because vig is withheld from winning plays, not losing ones. A guy hitting 0 for 10 "pays" NO vig whatsoever. A guy going 10 for 10 is "paying" 9.09% (@-110) for a 50/50 player it is 4.545% (@-110)
So while seeing 2% hold (about a -104 ((8 cent line))both ways hold) is good, it isn't exactly staggeringly better than getting a -110 both ways number. Because no one hits 100% which is whatthe larger hold is based on, not a realistic one. A 58% player (not possible but for "educational" purposes) at a -110 vig spread will be "paying" about 5.3% in vig to the books.
Basically it has more to do with volume than anything else. If guys are spot betting and playing games on a game by game or team by team basis, that "better" hold will be marginal at best. But if guys are playing thousands of games a year, it will definately add up over time. Either by "losing" less, or having slightly less taken out when you win.
0
NO ONE will hit close to 58%. But that is the reason getting reduced holds it the key. Simpley because it lowers the win expectation one needs.
Betting BOTH sides at a positive expectation is the ONLY way to gaurantee a profit however. That basically is like going for 2% to a MINUS whatever percents. If you get +105/+105 on both sides of the same game your "vig" is then MINUS 2.5%, meaning you lose nothing on holds either way.
Also that 2% "vig/hold" is only if you hit 100%, it will vary depending on whatever your win rate is. Simply because vig is withheld from winning plays, not losing ones. A guy hitting 0 for 10 "pays" NO vig whatsoever. A guy going 10 for 10 is "paying" 9.09% (@-110) for a 50/50 player it is 4.545% (@-110)
So while seeing 2% hold (about a -104 ((8 cent line))both ways hold) is good, it isn't exactly staggeringly better than getting a -110 both ways number. Because no one hits 100% which is whatthe larger hold is based on, not a realistic one. A 58% player (not possible but for "educational" purposes) at a -110 vig spread will be "paying" about 5.3% in vig to the books.
Basically it has more to do with volume than anything else. If guys are spot betting and playing games on a game by game or team by team basis, that "better" hold will be marginal at best. But if guys are playing thousands of games a year, it will definately add up over time. Either by "losing" less, or having slightly less taken out when you win.
There is still value in betting with a local that has -110 juice. The value is in access to lines that are way out of whack. Here in Buffalo, there are a lot of NY Jets fans and Yankees fans. The local books have so much action on those teams, that the line are way out of whack. Last Sunday, New Orleans was +4. Yankees lines were even more out of whack during the year. In college basketball, Duke is bet so heavily that they you can get even money on Duke not to win the NCAA. The Duke line for the Memphis game was -9.
IMO, it is worth betting games at -110 to get access to these lines.
0
There is still value in betting with a local that has -110 juice. The value is in access to lines that are way out of whack. Here in Buffalo, there are a lot of NY Jets fans and Yankees fans. The local books have so much action on those teams, that the line are way out of whack. Last Sunday, New Orleans was +4. Yankees lines were even more out of whack during the year. In college basketball, Duke is bet so heavily that they you can get even money on Duke not to win the NCAA. The Duke line for the Memphis game was -9.
IMO, it is worth betting games at -110 to get access to these lines.
Dtown & Lilwal ||Peace_5.gif' border=0>||Peace_5.gif' border=0>
Glyde 69 - great post - you had me until you were talking about hedging the late game in a reverse parlay - without getting to indepth it is not a good bet unless there is reason to do it. But thats another discussion.
Daysbtwn - you are on the right track - try to get the juice down even more
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Dtown & Lilwal ||Peace_5.gif' border=0>||Peace_5.gif' border=0>
Glyde 69 - great post - you had me until you were talking about hedging the late game in a reverse parlay - without getting to indepth it is not a good bet unless there is reason to do it. But thats another discussion.
Daysbtwn - you are on the right track - try to get the juice down even more
Joepublix - your post has me totally confused. Let me ask the questions:
If you get +105/+105 on both sides of the same game your "vig" is then MINUS 2.5%, meaning you lose nothing on holds either way.
What do you mean by this? If you have +105 each way, you are making 2.5% on your overall risk amount (with no risk). Is that what you are saying?
Also that 2% "vig/hold" is only if you hit 100%, it will vary depending on whatever your win rate is. Simply because vig is withheld from winning plays, not losing ones. A guy hitting 0 for 10 "pays" NO vig whatsoever. A guy going 10 for 10 is "paying" 9.09% (@-110) for a 50/50 player it is 4.545% (@-110)
Are you talking about at an exchange like Matchbook where you pay 2% on wins and nothing on losses? If so, I dont understand. A guy going 10 for 10 is still paying 2% on his win amount only. The percentage is not cumulative. Please explain.
So while seeing 2% hold (about a -104 ((8 cent line))both ways hold) is good, it isn't exactly staggeringly better than getting a -110 both ways number. Because no one hits 100% which is whatthe larger hold is based on, not a realistic one. A 58% player (not possible but for "educational" purposes) at a -110 vig spread will be "paying" about 5.3% in vig to the books.
This I totally disagree with - if I understand correctly. A -104 bettor is staggeringly better then paying -110. Once again, your point is not well made unless I am the only one misunderstading it.
||confused.gif' border=0>
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Joepublix - your post has me totally confused. Let me ask the questions:
If you get +105/+105 on both sides of the same game your "vig" is then MINUS 2.5%, meaning you lose nothing on holds either way.
What do you mean by this? If you have +105 each way, you are making 2.5% on your overall risk amount (with no risk). Is that what you are saying?
Also that 2% "vig/hold" is only if you hit 100%, it will vary depending on whatever your win rate is. Simply because vig is withheld from winning plays, not losing ones. A guy hitting 0 for 10 "pays" NO vig whatsoever. A guy going 10 for 10 is "paying" 9.09% (@-110) for a 50/50 player it is 4.545% (@-110)
Are you talking about at an exchange like Matchbook where you pay 2% on wins and nothing on losses? If so, I dont understand. A guy going 10 for 10 is still paying 2% on his win amount only. The percentage is not cumulative. Please explain.
So while seeing 2% hold (about a -104 ((8 cent line))both ways hold) is good, it isn't exactly staggeringly better than getting a -110 both ways number. Because no one hits 100% which is whatthe larger hold is based on, not a realistic one. A 58% player (not possible but for "educational" purposes) at a -110 vig spread will be "paying" about 5.3% in vig to the books.
This I totally disagree with - if I understand correctly. A -104 bettor is staggeringly better then paying -110. Once again, your point is not well made unless I am the only one misunderstading it.
||confused.gif' border=0>
Joepublix - also I take issue with your premise that NO ONE will hit 58%. What if I told you my timeframe was 20 games? NO ONE will go 12-8? What if it is 100 games? NO ONE will go 58-42?
Right now, in the pbox challenge we run, 3 out of 12 people have picked 88 games and are above 60%.
Beleive me - I know it is tough, but it is more like 3-1 that someone will go 58%, not NO ONE.
||Peace_5.gif' border=0>
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Joepublix - also I take issue with your premise that NO ONE will hit 58%. What if I told you my timeframe was 20 games? NO ONE will go 12-8? What if it is 100 games? NO ONE will go 58-42?
Right now, in the pbox challenge we run, 3 out of 12 people have picked 88 games and are above 60%.
Beleive me - I know it is tough, but it is more like 3-1 that someone will go 58%, not NO ONE.
||Peace_5.gif' border=0>
Thorpe - you are subtly mentioning the idea of imlied juice. If a line is -2 and you can get +4, the actual odds should be (this is where it gets tricky) somewhere around -140 for +4. If you can get it at -110, you are GETTTING juice not laying it.
So it falls right in line with my rules.
GL
||Peace_5.gif' border=0>
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Thorpe - you are subtly mentioning the idea of imlied juice. If a line is -2 and you can get +4, the actual odds should be (this is where it gets tricky) somewhere around -140 for +4. If you can get it at -110, you are GETTTING juice not laying it.
So it falls right in line with my rules.
GL
||Peace_5.gif' border=0>
Joepublix - did you used to post at Covers under a different name? A post like this can only come from one place. If so, welcome back. I think I've had this discussion before about "only winners pay juice".
Also the idea of "NO ONE will hit close to 58%." is a very broad statment that obviously is meant for people to fire back at you. If you are talking about over a lifetime, then your argument is a little better, but it is very possible to do this over the course of a season. I am playing the Hilton contest this year and there are plenty of teams over 58%. Not a ton, but there are people doing it, and this involves being forced to play five games a week. Many of us don't play five every week, and sometimes like more than five per week, so there is a bit of a handicap to the contest, and despite this, people hit over 58% for a season every year.
0
Joepublix - did you used to post at Covers under a different name? A post like this can only come from one place. If so, welcome back. I think I've had this discussion before about "only winners pay juice".
Also the idea of "NO ONE will hit close to 58%." is a very broad statment that obviously is meant for people to fire back at you. If you are talking about over a lifetime, then your argument is a little better, but it is very possible to do this over the course of a season. I am playing the Hilton contest this year and there are plenty of teams over 58%. Not a ton, but there are people doing it, and this involves being forced to play five games a week. Many of us don't play five every week, and sometimes like more than five per week, so there is a bit of a handicap to the contest, and despite this, people hit over 58% for a season every year.
vanzack i dont understand why u would be a bigger % of bankroll on 1 game to tha next? i see u said 13% highest an 7% on borderline games. if ur not as sure in those lower bets as u are in tha higher ones, why even bet em? why not jus a flat 10% each an every game if u intend to double ur bank by seasons end?
0
vanzack i dont understand why u would be a bigger % of bankroll on 1 game to tha next? i see u said 13% highest an 7% on borderline games. if ur not as sure in those lower bets as u are in tha higher ones, why even bet em? why not jus a flat 10% each an every game if u intend to double ur bank by seasons end?
vanzack Good to see that someone actually took their time to try and explain this. Congratulations on a job well done. Very good examples and easy to understand. I must tell you that I use almost the exact system you discuss here except on very few occasions I will double my wager to 20%. It has worked really well for me except one year which I will not mention where I had not only doubled but almost tripled my bank-roll. I commited the deadliest sin, got greedy, and placed the entire roll on one game that was a sure winner, or so we thought. The rest is history and I hope I learned a great lesson. So far so good. So as long as we stick to your principles here, we should all keep profiting. BTW, it was 45k lost in one game ||an_brick.gif' border=0>
||an_shark.gif' border=0>
0
vanzack Good to see that someone actually took their time to try and explain this. Congratulations on a job well done. Very good examples and easy to understand. I must tell you that I use almost the exact system you discuss here except on very few occasions I will double my wager to 20%. It has worked really well for me except one year which I will not mention where I had not only doubled but almost tripled my bank-roll. I commited the deadliest sin, got greedy, and placed the entire roll on one game that was a sure winner, or so we thought. The rest is history and I hope I learned a great lesson. So far so good. So as long as we stick to your principles here, we should all keep profiting. BTW, it was 45k lost in one game ||an_brick.gif' border=0>
||an_shark.gif' border=0>
You are confusing SHORT term success with long term expectations. Sure guys will have streaks where they might it as high as 75%, but they will also have streaks of where they hit 10%. But over thousands of bet there isn't anyone that bets that will hit 58%. There are some that might get the very best lines, have a great computer prgram, and hit 55-56% for say 1000 games in a particular sport, but in all sports that wil defintely come back to a more realistic level when you tally everything together.
Ok the math stuff...
Two bettors, one will bet 100 games at -110. He is decent enouugh capper to experience 55%. So at 55% his record is 55-45(we assume no pushes). He is betting $100 a game. His profit will be exactly 500 if he bets 100 and not 110. If he is betting 110 then his profits will be 550.
Next bettor, bets the same 100 games, he bets into a -104 line, and he also goes 55%. His profits will be 788.50 at 100 per game. If he is betting 104 a game, his profits are 820.
Next two bettors. Not so good, average at best, and they go 51-49 each (which is actually better than 80% of people that bet I would guess. So their losses at -110 are -263.63 or -290. At -104 they make 3.85 at 100, and if they bet 104 per side they make 4 dollars. So you see the win percentage has a to more to do with profits and losses, than getting the best vig.
But obviously the less you are charge, the less you will have taken out when you win. The problem is most guy do not win, so it is a circular argument.
Also when you start debating what lines are worth how much, you forget one thing. Lines are totally subjective. They are made by humans and moved by humans. To say or think that a +4 is worth more because the line "should" be +2, is not sound. Sure you do get a couple extra numbers, and one of them is the 3, (which is not only overrated, but only relevent in the NFL)Most places that have a +2 -110, probably would let you take +4 -155/160. Is it worth it, hell no. But you are not only buying through 3, but 3.5, so they will double dip you.
Then you get into comparing and contrasting different lines at different books, and then add opinion into it, it gets too subjective to make a rational decision. For example. I might think Indy is 17 point better than Houston. The books might throw a -20 up there. Then another comes out with -21. But then all of a suden the book with -20 takes action at -20 and they are foced to go past that -21 even, but the irrony is the book that had -21 is taking action on the PLUS 21 side. So they might make it 20.5 or hide that action and hope, because they saw another book move to 21.5. But that book will also probably not be getting any action at -21, because everyone already got -20 somewhere else. THAT is the confusing and tricky part about predicting lines, and movement, and what something should be, and what something is. Theoretically, me, who liked +17 should like both those numbers, and should be able to bet at either shop (depnding on the hold at that number per side) But as most bettors, if that "free" half point is available we take it.
And one other point. The places that have the static holds, like Pinny at -108, they are not always -104 both ways. So it isn't hard to see a spread with a -100/+108 fixed to it. So then you have to once again make a decision based on OPINION on what to do. Just because every place has a game -3, doesn't mean that is the orrect spread. So taking -3 -104, isn't really any better than taking -3 -110 if it loses. But then of course most peopl do in factt bet 110 to win 100. Bt that is a different topic for a different time. But my numbers above show that when you bet 110 to win 100 or 104 to win 100, or whatever to win the base amount, you are basically forcing yourself to hit a higher percentage to break even. So while it is related to this topic, it isn't exactly its mother.
Also exchanges charge commisions after the fact, so that also has to be factored in, so that -104 line after the commision is paid might be a -105 or -106, which is actually worse than Pinnacle and a few other bookmakers(not exchanges). But no, the guy that goes 10-10 at -110 was not included in this. But whatever he is "paying" in vig is maxed out with a perfect record. The loser his record goes, the less he is "paying". That is why laying -110/100 or 100/90.90 is related. When you bet 110 you are not betting 100 and laying 10 in juice, you are BETTING 110. But again, another debate for another time.
Exchanges have there place and time, and if they match what you want then it is good, even better if you win. Problem is they are nt always realiable, they don't always take the amount you want to bet, and they are accepting plays that make no sense(which is scarey, especially the way people are winning this year).
Decent topic, decent debate, but for the most part it is common sense, and is ultimately reliant upon picking enough winners at any vig.
My way, I don't need to pick a winner, I just need two sets of numbers that make my rate better than the books, i.e. +105/+105. You say that makes me 2.5% profit no matter what, same thing as the books if they have perfect balance, if they get perfect balance at -104/-104, then they are locked into a 2% profit no matter what. When I get positive numbers both ways I then become the book.
0
You are confusing SHORT term success with long term expectations. Sure guys will have streaks where they might it as high as 75%, but they will also have streaks of where they hit 10%. But over thousands of bet there isn't anyone that bets that will hit 58%. There are some that might get the very best lines, have a great computer prgram, and hit 55-56% for say 1000 games in a particular sport, but in all sports that wil defintely come back to a more realistic level when you tally everything together.
Ok the math stuff...
Two bettors, one will bet 100 games at -110. He is decent enouugh capper to experience 55%. So at 55% his record is 55-45(we assume no pushes). He is betting $100 a game. His profit will be exactly 500 if he bets 100 and not 110. If he is betting 110 then his profits will be 550.
Next bettor, bets the same 100 games, he bets into a -104 line, and he also goes 55%. His profits will be 788.50 at 100 per game. If he is betting 104 a game, his profits are 820.
Next two bettors. Not so good, average at best, and they go 51-49 each (which is actually better than 80% of people that bet I would guess. So their losses at -110 are -263.63 or -290. At -104 they make 3.85 at 100, and if they bet 104 per side they make 4 dollars. So you see the win percentage has a to more to do with profits and losses, than getting the best vig.
But obviously the less you are charge, the less you will have taken out when you win. The problem is most guy do not win, so it is a circular argument.
Also when you start debating what lines are worth how much, you forget one thing. Lines are totally subjective. They are made by humans and moved by humans. To say or think that a +4 is worth more because the line "should" be +2, is not sound. Sure you do get a couple extra numbers, and one of them is the 3, (which is not only overrated, but only relevent in the NFL)Most places that have a +2 -110, probably would let you take +4 -155/160. Is it worth it, hell no. But you are not only buying through 3, but 3.5, so they will double dip you.
Then you get into comparing and contrasting different lines at different books, and then add opinion into it, it gets too subjective to make a rational decision. For example. I might think Indy is 17 point better than Houston. The books might throw a -20 up there. Then another comes out with -21. But then all of a suden the book with -20 takes action at -20 and they are foced to go past that -21 even, but the irrony is the book that had -21 is taking action on the PLUS 21 side. So they might make it 20.5 or hide that action and hope, because they saw another book move to 21.5. But that book will also probably not be getting any action at -21, because everyone already got -20 somewhere else. THAT is the confusing and tricky part about predicting lines, and movement, and what something should be, and what something is. Theoretically, me, who liked +17 should like both those numbers, and should be able to bet at either shop (depnding on the hold at that number per side) But as most bettors, if that "free" half point is available we take it.
And one other point. The places that have the static holds, like Pinny at -108, they are not always -104 both ways. So it isn't hard to see a spread with a -100/+108 fixed to it. So then you have to once again make a decision based on OPINION on what to do. Just because every place has a game -3, doesn't mean that is the orrect spread. So taking -3 -104, isn't really any better than taking -3 -110 if it loses. But then of course most peopl do in factt bet 110 to win 100. Bt that is a different topic for a different time. But my numbers above show that when you bet 110 to win 100 or 104 to win 100, or whatever to win the base amount, you are basically forcing yourself to hit a higher percentage to break even. So while it is related to this topic, it isn't exactly its mother.
Also exchanges charge commisions after the fact, so that also has to be factored in, so that -104 line after the commision is paid might be a -105 or -106, which is actually worse than Pinnacle and a few other bookmakers(not exchanges). But no, the guy that goes 10-10 at -110 was not included in this. But whatever he is "paying" in vig is maxed out with a perfect record. The loser his record goes, the less he is "paying". That is why laying -110/100 or 100/90.90 is related. When you bet 110 you are not betting 100 and laying 10 in juice, you are BETTING 110. But again, another debate for another time.
Exchanges have there place and time, and if they match what you want then it is good, even better if you win. Problem is they are nt always realiable, they don't always take the amount you want to bet, and they are accepting plays that make no sense(which is scarey, especially the way people are winning this year).
Decent topic, decent debate, but for the most part it is common sense, and is ultimately reliant upon picking enough winners at any vig.
My way, I don't need to pick a winner, I just need two sets of numbers that make my rate better than the books, i.e. +105/+105. You say that makes me 2.5% profit no matter what, same thing as the books if they have perfect balance, if they get perfect balance at -104/-104, then they are locked into a 2% profit no matter what. When I get positive numbers both ways I then become the book.
Joe Publix, you keep saying over and over that no one can hit 58%. If thats the case then I must be a walking, talking, typing, breathing, living LEGEND then. I am new to this site so I only have two months of posts here that are recorded, but out of the 100+ picks I have given(all NFL), I am hovering at 60%. I'm not really happy with that at all though. I swear the number of games I was robbed this year are at least 8 or 9 more then the number of games I can say I got lucky with. Take away one bad week(Week 9), and a few of those heartbreakers and I would be around 70%. Click my name and look me up. Everything is written in fine print.
Football isn't even my main game though. Baseball is my gambling backbone. Like I said I am new so I wasn't posting here during baseball seasons past, and everything I say can possibly be bullshit, but I truly don't give a shit if you believe me or not(I let my posted picks do the talking for me starting the day I joined). Baseball this past year I would be surprised if I was under 65%. And that number doesn't come close to the two previous baseball years(Two years ago was a classic year. I rode Johan Santana for months!). I don't have an actual win/loss record on file, but I do have totals from last baseball season and it wasn't till the second week in June that I had a losing week. One losing week in July, and two in August and thats it for 22 weeks(I usually stop in late August/Early September)of my baseball season. As for the amount of games it usually was along the line of 21 wagers a week. I like to do 3 games a night. Sometimes I can only find one game I like and somethimes there are 5 games I like. The average I would say was 21 wagers a week(plus random NBA playoff series).
I don't wanna come off like I am King Handicapper. I don't post picks here to brag about them. It's almost at the point where I HAVE to post a record so that after I take an hour of my time doing a write-up of 15 NFL games, I can get a few intelligent responses. Something other then BOL and some corny ass smiley faces. Maybe a reason or two why you like or dislike my choices. Thats my goal. Maybe someone can show me an angle on a game that I missed. And hopefully I can show someone else an angle they missed. Thats the point of me posting on here. Getting back on topic it IS possible to hit 58%. If it's not, then I need to sign up for the Guinness Book of World Records or something.
0
Joe Publix, you keep saying over and over that no one can hit 58%. If thats the case then I must be a walking, talking, typing, breathing, living LEGEND then. I am new to this site so I only have two months of posts here that are recorded, but out of the 100+ picks I have given(all NFL), I am hovering at 60%. I'm not really happy with that at all though. I swear the number of games I was robbed this year are at least 8 or 9 more then the number of games I can say I got lucky with. Take away one bad week(Week 9), and a few of those heartbreakers and I would be around 70%. Click my name and look me up. Everything is written in fine print.
Football isn't even my main game though. Baseball is my gambling backbone. Like I said I am new so I wasn't posting here during baseball seasons past, and everything I say can possibly be bullshit, but I truly don't give a shit if you believe me or not(I let my posted picks do the talking for me starting the day I joined). Baseball this past year I would be surprised if I was under 65%. And that number doesn't come close to the two previous baseball years(Two years ago was a classic year. I rode Johan Santana for months!). I don't have an actual win/loss record on file, but I do have totals from last baseball season and it wasn't till the second week in June that I had a losing week. One losing week in July, and two in August and thats it for 22 weeks(I usually stop in late August/Early September)of my baseball season. As for the amount of games it usually was along the line of 21 wagers a week. I like to do 3 games a night. Sometimes I can only find one game I like and somethimes there are 5 games I like. The average I would say was 21 wagers a week(plus random NBA playoff series).
I don't wanna come off like I am King Handicapper. I don't post picks here to brag about them. It's almost at the point where I HAVE to post a record so that after I take an hour of my time doing a write-up of 15 NFL games, I can get a few intelligent responses. Something other then BOL and some corny ass smiley faces. Maybe a reason or two why you like or dislike my choices. Thats my goal. Maybe someone can show me an angle on a game that I missed. And hopefully I can show someone else an angle they missed. Thats the point of me posting on here. Getting back on topic it IS possible to hit 58%. If it's not, then I need to sign up for the Guinness Book of World Records or something.
"My way, I don't need to pick a winner"
I like it jpmh-- Taking advantage of the inefficiencies of a megasystem that is required to give live spreads on multiple sporting events and react instantaneously to small movements throughout the sytem. The internet has made this a great opportunity
There are a lot easier things to do in life to make a +2.5% profit though. were is the fun? But good read jpmh.
I bet (-104) you are a bond trader (or something close to it) in real life.
0
"My way, I don't need to pick a winner"
I like it jpmh-- Taking advantage of the inefficiencies of a megasystem that is required to give live spreads on multiple sporting events and react instantaneously to small movements throughout the sytem. The internet has made this a great opportunity
There are a lot easier things to do in life to make a +2.5% profit though. were is the fun? But good read jpmh.
I bet (-104) you are a bond trader (or something close to it) in real life.
Joepublix - thanks for adding to the discussion.
The one thing I will take issue with is the higher your handicapping percentage the more vig reduction becomes important. On your first example of the 55% handicapper there is a substantial difference in profit between a -110 bettor and a -104 bettor.
And it is something everyone can do.
I agree with your statements on the trickyness of the actual juice. I stated it earlier in the thread many times.
I guess the point of it all is - get the lowest juice you can. Might sound obvious to you - but I dont think it is all that obvious to the avg guy. And I have yet to see it emphasized. Out of 1000 threads on covers 999 are picks and guarantees.
Once again - thanks for the input - it can only help the body of knowledge.
GL
||Peace_5.gif' border=0>
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Joepublix - thanks for adding to the discussion.
The one thing I will take issue with is the higher your handicapping percentage the more vig reduction becomes important. On your first example of the 55% handicapper there is a substantial difference in profit between a -110 bettor and a -104 bettor.
And it is something everyone can do.
I agree with your statements on the trickyness of the actual juice. I stated it earlier in the thread many times.
I guess the point of it all is - get the lowest juice you can. Might sound obvious to you - but I dont think it is all that obvious to the avg guy. And I have yet to see it emphasized. Out of 1000 threads on covers 999 are picks and guarantees.
Once again - thanks for the input - it can only help the body of knowledge.
GL
||Peace_5.gif' border=0>
glyde69:
100+ bets is nowhere near enough to judge your percentage as a handicapper as there is too much variation. after thousands of bets your percentage will come down closer and closer to 50% just as it would be more and more difficult to be below 40% no matter how hard you tried to lose. also 65% winning percentage SU in baseball is much different because of the juice. ||Peace_5.gif' border=0>
0
glyde69:
100+ bets is nowhere near enough to judge your percentage as a handicapper as there is too much variation. after thousands of bets your percentage will come down closer and closer to 50% just as it would be more and more difficult to be below 40% no matter how hard you tried to lose. also 65% winning percentage SU in baseball is much different because of the juice. ||Peace_5.gif' border=0>
Glyde I might make 100 bets in a week during baseball, 100 bets means absolutley nothing in terms of what a person can expect to hit if they are seriously betting sports.
But baseball also doesnt really count, as the odds you play are related to your break even margins. If you are betting -150 favs all day, then you HAVE to hit 60% just to break even, 65% makes you a little profit.
As for the difference between a -110 and a -102 line, it is basicaly 2.5-4% difference per volume and per spread split level. Menaing getting -104/-104, is alot more "valuable" than getting -126/+118.
There really isn't a right or a wrong answer, it is apersonal prefernece. Bottomline the best odds at the best lines/spreads is what you always want to look for, but getting the ver best every time isn't imperative.
0
Glyde I might make 100 bets in a week during baseball, 100 bets means absolutley nothing in terms of what a person can expect to hit if they are seriously betting sports.
But baseball also doesnt really count, as the odds you play are related to your break even margins. If you are betting -150 favs all day, then you HAVE to hit 60% just to break even, 65% makes you a little profit.
As for the difference between a -110 and a -102 line, it is basicaly 2.5-4% difference per volume and per spread split level. Menaing getting -104/-104, is alot more "valuable" than getting -126/+118.
There really isn't a right or a wrong answer, it is apersonal prefernece. Bottomline the best odds at the best lines/spreads is what you always want to look for, but getting the ver best every time isn't imperative.
I didn't read most of the thread, but with aall due respect I believe betting 10% (or 7-13%) of your bankroll is bad news. If you do that on a consistent basis you will eventually go broke. It is practically inevitable. Even if you are a 58% capper. If you picked randon mumbers from 1-100 you would eventually hit a run of picking 59 thru 100. It will happen. Now I realize that over a single season it may nothappen...and so maybe your "bankroll" starts over the next season and you don't bet 10% of your aggregate bakroll, but regardless, the principle applies. 10% is far too high.
As a rule of thumb, 3-5% is more appropriate.
0
I didn't read most of the thread, but with aall due respect I believe betting 10% (or 7-13%) of your bankroll is bad news. If you do that on a consistent basis you will eventually go broke. It is practically inevitable. Even if you are a 58% capper. If you picked randon mumbers from 1-100 you would eventually hit a run of picking 59 thru 100. It will happen. Now I realize that over a single season it may nothappen...and so maybe your "bankroll" starts over the next season and you don't bet 10% of your aggregate bakroll, but regardless, the principle applies. 10% is far too high.
As a rule of thumb, 3-5% is more appropriate.
I'll add one more thing to the "vig debate". Reducing vig is great, but I'd say it's just one component of value betting. Reducing vig can't be looked at in a vacuum. When a pointspread is involved, and I think that's what we're looking at here, it needs to be looked at in tandem with the pointspread offered. Lower vig isn't always better. It's crucial to understand the value of each half point and to wager accordingly. Nothing wrong with betting at -110 if you are getting a point better than you can get at -102 (hoops). Each half point you get will tranlate into a better winning percentage in the long-run.
0
I'll add one more thing to the "vig debate". Reducing vig is great, but I'd say it's just one component of value betting. Reducing vig can't be looked at in a vacuum. When a pointspread is involved, and I think that's what we're looking at here, it needs to be looked at in tandem with the pointspread offered. Lower vig isn't always better. It's crucial to understand the value of each half point and to wager accordingly. Nothing wrong with betting at -110 if you are getting a point better than you can get at -102 (hoops). Each half point you get will tranlate into a better winning percentage in the long-run.
Actually lower vig (on a PUSH) spread is slightly better. Meaning that over the long haul the win here or there at +3.5 -120, will NOT outwiegh the games where you took +3 +110. Even at that spread. On the others it makes more sense to take the lower vigs.
But again it is all about volume. If a guy has 1000 bux in his account and needs to win not just stay solvent, then sure go for the "best" spread, the one that is more likely to WIN money. Not the one that has more "value" and probably won't lose money.
But once you start dealing with hook (half points) that changes slightly, because then you are avoiding a LOSS, and that is more detrimental obviously than getting a push. If you get a push at PLUS vig, there is nothing wrong with that. The win would be better, but as i say, over the long haul you will over come the pushes versus losses versus win, if you can pick enough winners t profit in the first place that is.
0
Actually lower vig (on a PUSH) spread is slightly better. Meaning that over the long haul the win here or there at +3.5 -120, will NOT outwiegh the games where you took +3 +110. Even at that spread. On the others it makes more sense to take the lower vigs.
But again it is all about volume. If a guy has 1000 bux in his account and needs to win not just stay solvent, then sure go for the "best" spread, the one that is more likely to WIN money. Not the one that has more "value" and probably won't lose money.
But once you start dealing with hook (half points) that changes slightly, because then you are avoiding a LOSS, and that is more detrimental obviously than getting a push. If you get a push at PLUS vig, there is nothing wrong with that. The win would be better, but as i say, over the long haul you will over come the pushes versus losses versus win, if you can pick enough winners t profit in the first place that is.
Hot Forum Topics
