60% or Bust Plays

[Kevin]

I'm calling my picks for both college and NFL this year the "60% or Bust Plays" cause that's exactly what I'm after.

Im sticking to a very narrow set of parameters this year that I expect 57% at the very least and 63% at the very best.

Play number one this year is:

NC State at +3.5

Good luck to all!

Kevin

[Thor24]

...Hammer Time..!!..:thumbs:

[beermantm]

Only playing 5 plays doesn't count though KEV!! LOL

:gulp:

Good Luck

I'll buy you a beer if you do it!!!

[The War Dogs]

Good luck Kevin, man...I was looking at the other side so that's definately a good thing for ya.

[spaceman]

good luck kevin. i am on nc state as well. lets get it.

:gulp:

[dead garcia]

i like the philosophy kevin....played too many games myself each week last year....

[birdsfan5]

GL Kevin

[Rooster Booster]

Hope you nail it. NC State my only play today. Forced myself to only play 3 yesterday, Ga, BC and Wisky, so im trying that same
philosophy. Of course that will all go to shit when the 2 or three
are losers instead of winners. Thanks again for this site and all you guys do.

[rjp]

GL Kevin, but it's all about the $$, not the %. :thumbs:

[tedward]

GL Kevin:thumbs:

[Kevin]

RJP,

The more games I play the lesser the % I hit to the point where its not a profitable proposition.

Im only making plays this year where the value is clearly on my side.

Hopefully the frugle picking produces some sweet numbers.

[rjp]

That's cool, if you're putting yourself in those propositions. I say you don't make any plays with negative expectations, though, and hope the ball bounces your way as many times as it bounces the other way.

:thumbs:

[beermantm]

Playing less plays and hitting a higher percentage is a common mistake amoung sports bettors. Higher percentages does not result in more money.

I'll try to remove myself from this conversation though as me and RJP are in agreement on the approach to gambling.

One thing before I go though and that is that it is very easy to get lost in the numbers of the game and think you played to many games when the truth is you probably didn't play enough.........

Anyone who understands standard deviation knows that your fail point narrows when more games are played and a low percentage of bankroll is bet on each game. It's the only way you can truely get an edge..........

And knowing there are far better cappers in here than myself I would love to see more people subscribing to that notion but it's hard to explain over a forum.

Each bet has a realistic 50% probability and cappers use a theoretical 55-60% expectation..........Same as the books you use alot of plays to narrow the deviation.

Ahhhh forget it don't get me going!! LOL


:gulp:

[emericj]

holy crap beerman - didn't know you were *that* smart. good analysis though - i agree with you.

edit - oh yeah, the 'smart' comment was a joke. don't want to offend you - i read all of your posts for ncaaf - /edit

[Kevin]

Beerman said: "Playing less plays and hitting a higher percentage is a common mistake amoung sports bettors. Higher percentages does not result in more money."


I disagree. Because most guys can't win long term taking a bunch of games. The breakeven point with regards to "against the spread" is 52.4%

I have a hard time hitting that when playing a ton of games however I do real well when I play sparsely and only when a game falls within certain paramters.

On the flip side, my theory doesn't hold true for baseball as dogs are the only way to go there.

If either you or RJP would like to challenge me on units won by the end of the yr by playing my sparse style vs. your picking a bunch at a lesser % I'd love to accept.

Your theory is flawed in that you are assuming that you can beat 52.4%. If you could, I would agree that more games would be the way to go. It's too damn hard to do though. Too many variables and not enough time to investigate them all.

I KNOW that I can beat 52.4% picking sparsely, in fact Id even bet that I can hit 57% based on the parameters Im going by this season. Between the info I get and past results Im pretty confident that I'm gonna lay a whoopin' on the man this yr.

Id be interested to see how the 2 styles stack up over the course of the season. I'll keep accurate tabs on my records this football season and you guys do the same. I hope you prove me wrong, because what your proposing is a tough task and one that Id like to see defy the odds.

[The War Dogs]

I think it's a matter of style. Not everyone is going to be open to playing 12 games on Saturday for whatever reason, time or whatever and in that case I would say it's certainly better to give yourself parameters and play what fits. At the same time it's simply mathematically correct that you can make more money playing more games OR at the worst drastically minimize any possibility of losing significantly.

I think the question before the court is not one of who's right, because really both can be, but we can't force Kevin to play 17 games and still let him have fun any more than we can get Beerman to play 2, lol.

[rjp]

It seems to me the issue is bad handicapping. If you can't win playing a lot of games it's because you're putting yourself into negative expectations. Playing a ton of games because we say you should play that many games isn't the answer--playing all of your edges is.

By playing games in which you feel you have a "solid" edge based on "a lot" of parameters instead of playing all games in which you feel you have an edge will lead to a higher chance that luck (bad calls, bad bounces, horrible refs) will affect your bottom line. All games have the possibility of bad calls, bounces, etc. affecting the outcome. If you only play a small number of games then you have a higher chance of getting lucky or being unlucky.

I would have no problem pitting the two styles against each other. I will admit that I am not a very good NCAA football handicapper, so in my case I would expect myself to play negative expectation games--like I did with New Mexico State this weekend, lol. However, NFL, MLB, NBA, I feel like I will place many more positive expectation bets than I will negative ones.

Also keep in mind the true test is the "long run". You can define this however you want, but I would say 500 plays or more. I would say that at the end of those 500 plays you should be at close to the same unit won/loss level, regardless of playing a "small" or "large" number of games. The key here is that it could take you 5 years to get to that level in the NFL or NCAAFB if you play a small number of games per week. If you play a lot, however, you'd reach that level in 2 years or so. That's the real point we're trying to make.

:thumbs:

Let me also say that DOGs are not the only way to go in baseball. It's about returns and the positive return isn't always with the DOG.

[The Godfather]

Good luck

[Stifler's Mom]

It all depends on how much you wager, how disciplined you are with your plays, and how much time you can afford to put into capping.

I know how the mathematics work and all, but seriously, think about it this way....

If you are wagering 20 bucks a game and hit 60% on say 100 plays over a season...yeah, you guys are right, you got nowhere.

Assuming -110 odds on each play, you made a whopping $320 (1200 - 880 = 320). A worthless amount of return really, for hitting a very nice percentage of your plays.

But if you are wagering a hundred bucks on each game, that's now $1600, which really isn't a bad season at all.

or...

$500 per game = $8000
$1000 per game = $16000

It's all about what you can afford to wager, and how good you are at picking out the lines that give you the best advantage to win.

Taking it a step further, I think the key here is this....

There is a difference between making 10 solid plays in a day where you have the edge in the line and a good chance to profit, and making 10 plays for the sake of making 10 plays

A difference alot of bettors cannot see, and which will lead to their eventual downfall, either sooner or later.

Professional bettors don't make 10 plays a day, or even 10 plays a week. Why? Because they can spot the lines that give them the absolute best chance to win and give them the highest return on their investment, AND have the bankroll to risk large amounts and still sustain a losing streak. The average joe public can't spot the difference between a weak line and an apple pie however, nor do many of them have the bankroll to sustain any kind of losing streak wagering in this manner...so obviously the theory of play large on a few games isn't going to get them anywhere....

So they play more games, at a much smaller amount, which I do agree would be fine....IF they were playing 10 games with a winning advantage, BUT when you put the theory into the hands of the average Joe Q Public....

Out of 10 plays on an average day, they'll play maybe 3 that are solid, 3 that are just clearly the incorrect side with little chance of making any real profit, and 4 that are tight lines and a toss up. Of course it's wonderful if the toss ups are falling in your favor, or when the ones that really had no value or advantage end up cashing anyway, but....

As soon as that stops happening and you catch some tough breaks, and even the solid plays start losing, here comes the big losing streak....which will cause the average joe to either quit, or chase their money. Neither of which gives them any chance to win.

So IMO, either theory works WITH THE CORRECT PERSON APPLYING IT. It just comes down to being a matter of being able to apply them to the real world, which most bettors cannot do.

[Stifler's Mom]

Originally posted by rjp
Let me also say that DOGs are not the only way to go in baseball. It's about returns and the positive return isn't always with the DOG.

I agree with this point 100%

[rjp]

Originally posted by Stifler's Mom
Professional bettors don't make 10 plays a day, or even 10 plays a week. Stif, are you talking about the professional scamdicapper? LOL

Professionals do play many games per day. :thumbs:

As far as your bet size, it's all about percentage. Just because you're not happy with winning $500 over the season, if you're only playing $10 per play then that's actually a pretty good season. With incremental increases of your bet size based on your bankroll then you'll increase your return even more.

[feargreed]

Very good idea.

It takes a lot of discipline.

My object has been to make 3 bets and to get 2 out of 3, if not then 3 out of 5.

As you can see, the % goes down.

The problem is when you have a bad week going 1-3, do you chase or give up?

I am 1-3 now and hopefully it will end 2-2 and not 1-4.

[beermantm]

First off Kev let me start by saying that I'm not trying to be a smart ass here either........ I've been at this shit along time as you may know. Year after year I turn positive numbers in NFL. College I really just startered a couple years ago so the learning curve for me there is still lingering but I try. Just to adress a few points though.

I disagree. Because most guys can't win long term taking a bunch of games. The breakeven point with regards to "against the spread" is 52.4%


This is true most guys can't hit the break even point of 52.4% but it's not the number of games that hurts them......For instance if someone plays 10 games in a year they have to hit 60% in order to actually make that 52.4% break even point. Now most guys use both poor money management and play less games which means you actually force yourself into hitting higher percentages.

If either you or RJP would like to challenge me on units won by the end of the yr by playing my sparse style vs. your picking a bunch at a lesser % I'd love to accept.

In order for this to be fair though you would have to bet the same amount per game or at least set some parameters for a max betting situation. If say for instance you would do this in NFL 6 games max a week and up to 200 a game being able to be bet.............. Or rules simular to this I could almost say 100% that I will have more units than you by the end of the year. I know this because I do it year after year. If it was just shit hammer something here and there it says nothing about what a long term betting structure actually does ........it would just show that you could roll on a game and get lucky. I have no problem excepting your challenge But to tell you the truth the challege may be over before half the season is up because one of us would be way behind the other by that time.



I KNOW that I can beat 52.4% picking sparsely, in fact Id even bet that I can hit 57% based on the parameters Im going by this season. Between the info I get and past results Im pretty confident that I'm gonna lay a whoopin' on the man this yr.

I recieve zero info from anyone and as far as I know you have always shown yourself to put up winners but the numbers will still be in my favor in the end. It's simply just mathmatics of the equation.

Lastly I want to say I'm not trying to get under your skin here either...........Although if you truely knew me personally I know you would probably have a ball with me being arround provided I'm in the right mood..........but there will be no hard feelings if you prove me wrong by the end of the year.



:gulp:

[Stifler's Mom]

No, i am certainly NOT talking about "scamdicappers", "touts" or so called "services" who are just out to make a buck by ripping people off. Those guys aren't anything but professional salesmen who sell their "plays" to the unsuspecting people BECAUSE they can't make anything by actually betting them.

I mean if those guys were any good, they would just play their plays and make their money....that's just common sense.

I am talking about "wise guys" who make a living off sports betting.

I also disagree with the theory of increasing or decreasing of one's plays with the size of their bankroll, but that's a different subject all together, lol.

[rjp]

Originally posted by Stifler's Mom
I also disagree with the theory of increasing or decreasing of one's plays with the size of their bankroll, but that's a different subject all together, lol. I'm not talking about an increase in plays, I'm talking about an increase in wager size. :thumbs:

[Stifler's Mom]

I know....I don't think increasing wager amounts because of an increase in bankroll is a good idea BECAUSE losing streaks DO happen, no matter how well you cap.

Say you start with $10 grand, and increase it to $15 grand by betting $100 per game over a good stretch.

Now if you increase your wager amount to $150 per game and you hit an equally poor stretch, you will have only about $7500 at the end of it, instead of your original $10 grand, even though your actual winning percentage is right around the 52.4% break even point.

Likewise, if you start off poorly and drop to 5 grand, and decrease your wager size to $50 per, then hit the equally hot streak, you still only have $7500, instead of getting back to the original $10K at the 52.4% mark.

That's why i disagree with that technique. Just a personal opinion.

[beermantm]

Professional bettors don't make 10 plays a day, or even 10 plays a week. Why? Because they can spot the lines that give them the absolute best chance to win and give them the highest return on their investment, AND have the bankroll to risk large amounts and still sustain a losing streak. The average joe public can't spot the difference between a weak line and an apple pie however, nor do many of them have the bankroll to sustain any kind of losing streak wagering in this manner...so obviously the theory of play large on a few games isn't going to get them anywhere....


I disagree with this.......sorry stiff.


It all depends on how much you wager, how disciplined you are with your plays, and how much time you can afford to put into capping.

I know how the mathematics work and all, but seriously, think about it this way....

If you are wagering 20 bucks a game and hit 60% on say 100 plays over a season...yeah, you guys are right, you got nowhere.

Assuming -110 odds on each play, you made a whopping $320 (1200 - 880 = 320). A worthless amount of return really, for hitting a very nice percentage of your plays.

But if you are wagering a hundred bucks on each game, that's now $1600, which really isn't a bad season at all.

or...

$500 per game = $8000
$1000 per game = $16000

What if you hit 55% over 2000 plays at 20 bucks a piece?

(18*1,100=) 19,800 - (20*900=)18,000 = $1,800

Pro's make about 2000 wagers a year. Give or take.

At 20 bucks a game your starting bankroll would be something like $1000 and betting 2% per wager.(pro's bet maybe 5%) That means you make 80% of your starting bankroll by the end of one year...........And thats at 55%. With the litterally thousands of possible wagers to take over the course of the year 2k is not that many.

Just an increase of one wager for each wager you make for the season(200 wagers)..........you decrease the deviation........also if you are able to keep close to the same percentage....

(120*18=)2160- (80*20=1600=)$560......... A total of $240 more profit at the same percentage but gives you a coushion to miss more games and hit 55% and still walk away with slightly more profit than you would have hitting 60% with 100 plays.

[Stifler's Mom]

I am not disagreeing at all with your theory, or the mathematics of it.

My point was actually not at all which wagering theory works best, but rather that most people cannot apply either one in a profitable manner, and that is their downfall...and also that either one can be equally profitable when done correctly.

Find me an average Joe that makes even 2000 bets a year and hits 52.4% at the end.

There aren't many.

And that's just the break even point.

Assuming that one wagers every single day of the year, that would mean averaging 5½ wagers per day.

I only make about that many per year, or a bit more....and I'd say I am on the high side on number of wagers placed daily/yearly compared to most, lol.

In all honesty, if you cap the way rjp does, going strictly by the most likely outcome....and then playing the games with lines where the expected ROI exceeds a certain parameter, your method will work in the long haul no doubt.

Most cannot do that however, and end up placing themselves in a negative situation far too often. An avoided loss is just every bit as good as a win IMO, which is where cutting back on the plays and playing on what you feel are absolutely strongest may be more profitable.

Believe me, i struggle with this almost daily....trying to decide which wagers are most likely to cash, and which are not. Sometimes I leave out the winners, and that pisses me off, but then some days I leave out a bunch of losers....so i guess it evens out in the end.

[Horfin]

Beerman,RJP, Stiff and Kevin,

This is absolutely a great topic and a great discussion.

Unfortunately, (as usual) I have nothing to add but a question for each of you:

RJP and Beerman,

Whydo you think you should increase your wager size as your bankroll grows? How much or when do you do it?

Kevin & Stiff,

Why do you think you should maintain the same wagersize no matter what you balance is? (Stiff, answered this already).

I have been grapling with this issue since I can remember. I'd really appreciate some input. Sometimes I think I ain't wagering more or less no matter what and then othertimes I think I should really adjust up or adjust down depending on the bankroll.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Horf!n
:thumbs:

[beermantm]

Whydo you think you should increase your wager size as your bankroll grows? How much or when do you do it?

You know what the third wonder of the world is??

Compounding intrest............. Just like when doing cost dollar averageing in the stock market........ the more money you have the more money you make because the intrest compounds..........

Keeping you wagers the same size does no good over the long haul because you limit your ability to profit more. The bigger your bankroll gets the more each bet is worth and keeping up with a winning expectatiopn of over the 52.4% break even point basically just means you'll be raking in 3 to 6 percent of your overall bankroll on average. The thing is if you were able to hit a winning percentage every day then you make that 3% per day........obviously that can not happen but say you hit a platue.........your earning more on the 3%..........each platue you hit the more money you make keeping the same winning percentage or expectation of your wagers up. It's like compounding your money.......

This is why you truely need to set a bankroll aside and never touch it. Use it for just wagers...........I had to break this rule myself last year..........I ran into some hard times and now it's tough to get it back and get back on track........ I'm using a smaller bankroll this year than I ever have before and I hate it. The thing is I had some good luck recently and got a bit back online here but if you know me I'm really wierd and calculated about what I do with my money when it comes to wagering.........
I don't just throw it arround.

Good Question and maybe RJP can answer it too because he's better at writing than I am but I think I get the point across better for the average joe as myself.

[Horfin]

Beerman

What do you do as far as increasing the wagers?

Do you do a %age of you balance

or do you say when I hit $XX balance i'll raise my wager to Y?

Thanks
Horf!N

[beermantm]

Horfin

I may have been a bit hasty in my first reply......... I may have not answered your question fully.

I have been grapling with this issue since I can remember. I'd really appreciate some input. Sometimes I think I ain't wagering more or less no matter what and then othertimes I think I should really adjust up or adjust down depending on the bankroll.

The idea is to bet the same amount on every game untill you win a set percentage of your original bankroll and then adjust your wager sizes up because you can now sustain losing streaks at this new wager size with minimal risk of going broke.

[beermantm]

Beerman

What do you do as far as increasing the wagers?

Do you do a %age of you balance

or do you say when I hit $XX balance i'll raise my wager to Y?

Thanks
Horf!N

Well a conservative way of doing it would be like this....
$5000 starting bankroll

$100 dollars a game.
win 25 games or increase bankroll to 7500.........then
$150 a game.


Little less conservative would be to bet 5% a game and increase after 15 won bets...........
$5000
$250 a game
bankroll hits $8750.........
New wager sizes would be $435 a wager.

Your chances of going broke are greatly increased with the sencond example but say in NFL where there isn't as many wagers to choose from and you expect a high percentage it can be used for a bit more agressive style.
I recomend the 2% for most though.

[rjp]

In the end you're managing your money to reduce risk and increase profits. I prefer to look at betting on sports as an investment vehicle. I am probabbly more conservative than most.

Let me first show the method I use:

I risk 1% of my bankroll on every play. Wager size is changed only when a 20% increase has taken place. Wager size is never changed when any amount of decrease has taken place. The idea behind that is the bankroll is what I'm willing to risk.

For example: When a 100 unit bankroll has reached 120 units the wager size is changed from 1 to 1.2. When the 120 unit bankroll has reached 144 units the wager size is changed from 1.2 to 1.44.

This brings me to this point: You make more money by increasing your bankroll, not by increasing your risk. If you want your 50 units won to be worth $5,000 then you should have a $10,000 bankroll risking $100 to win X on each play. If you try to do the same thing with a $5,000 bankroll playing 2% on each play you're increasing your risk. As with any investment you have to determine what your risk/return point is. Mine is fairly conservative in the sense that I want to stretch my money as far as I can.

Let me also stress this point: the major key to money management is surviving losing streaks. In baseball I see so many people play a -160 FAV by laying 160 to win 100 (where 100 is their unit). So many people are concerned with what they've won that they forget they're costing themselves money in the long run and greatly increasing their risk. If you lay 100 to win X instead of 160 to win 100 you will survive much longer. This also goes back to the point I feel strongly about: you make more money by increasing your bankroll, not increasing your risk.

:yahoo:

[Horfin]

Originally posted by rjp

For example: When a 100 unit bankroll has reached 120 units the wager size is changed from 1 to 1.2. When the 120 unit bankroll has reached 144 units the wager size is changed from 1.2 to 1.44.



Just so I understand your position:

So if your 144 unit bankroll drops back down to 100 you don't drop your unit back to 1.

Is that correct?


Thanks for your responses.

Horf!n

[rjp]

Horfin, that is correct. The 144 isn't a 144 unit bankroll, that's 144 worth of the original unit size. Dropping from 144 to 100 is really just dropping 30.5% of your bankroll, not 44%. You still have almost 70% to work with.

[SkinsFan]

I would like to say this:

Everyone is different, and has different styles that may or may not work. But, in my opinion, playing more wagers has a distinct disadvantage that no one can really overcome: the SUBCONSCIOUS dilution of the value of your plays. I see people (some in this thread) who talk about value and don't even know what the word means, as it relates to sports gambling. Bottom line is, the more wagers you make, the more "allowances" you make... the less picky you become, and most of the time it is completely under the radar... subconcious desire to fail. TRUST ME, it is there in everybody. The only way around this is mechanize your plays, such as using a system... but this can be even worse for most people, because it removes the most important trait of any speculator: personal accountability. And I'm sorry RJP... you seem to be saying all the proper rhetoric these days... but saying "don't take plays with negative expectations" doesn't make it so.

[BillyBarooooooo]

I will tell you this Beerman, Kevin is away until Monday! SO I KNOW HE WILL RESPOND! The other thing is he is stubborn in his ways!!!! Great fucken guys but stubborn! I told him that and he said ""No I'm not!!!" LOL stubborn ass????


BB

[beermantm]

Everyone is different, and has different styles that may or may not work. But, in my opinion, playing more wagers has a distinct disadvantage that no one can really overcome: the SUBCONSCIOUS dilution of the value of your plays. I see people (some in this thread) who talk about value and don't even know what the word means, as it relates to sports gambling. Bottom line is, the more wagers you make, the more "allowances" you make... the less picky you become, and most of the time it is completely under the radar... subconcious desire to fail. TRUST ME, it is there in everybody. The only way around this is mechanize your plays, such as using a system... but this can be even worse for most people, because it removes the most important trait of any speculator: personal accountability. And I'm sorry RJP... you seem to be saying all the proper rhetoric these days... but saying "don't take plays with negative expectations" doesn't make it so.

The subconscious dilution happens to the people who ignore the math involved. This is why the advice is never taken seriously.............people just don't like the fact that in sports betting you'll be about breaking even or paying the vig off 95% of the time. The idea of more wagers should be viewed as the opportunity to win more money while limiting your liability, not a burden that will drive down your winning record. People like to win. It's a natural reaction to feel like you should do exactly the oppsite of what reality tells you you should do. People operate under the idea that they can somehow predict the future of the outcome of games when there is a degree of uncertainty that happens in sports. If your picking the right side of who will win and who will lose over 70% of the time you're doing pretty well......throw in the fact that the spreads are going to affect that number 8 to 10% of the time and 60% ATS seems a logical and doable equation. Anything less than the 70% though you start to dip closer and closer to the break even point of the vig charges. The worst part about it is the less wagers you make the higher the deviation and the faster down to the break even point you travel. On the flip side of that coin it is true that you should not just be taking plays to take plays......there should be some reason behind making the play and some small advantage in the reasoning of the play. In this respect I agree......One of the best advantages a person who gambles on sports has is the ability to pass on the game. This is a Luxury the sportsbooks are not afforded. There is so much more I could write on this subject.....but anyone wanting to beat the books should have a thorough understanding of how the books operate......

(Roxy Roxborough.......LVSC)

Practical Hold Percentages
Theoritical Hold percentages
Bankroll management
Limiting liability
Shaded lines

Should all be very well known subjects but the truth of the matter is I still hear 10% juice all the time and horrible bankroll management and absolutely no respect for the ideas of standard deviation, Probability, and Positive expectation.

I'm telling you something else to, if I was a sports fan I would be dangerous.......... Most of my wagers are done with no idea of what or who the teams are. I simply look at the numbers that are offered and make a choice based on that. People start talking sports to me and I have no idea half the time what they are talking about. I simply pay attension to the things I think are important to make the right choice. Sometimes this puts me at a disadvantage...........but on the flip side my choices are never clouded by the hype surrounding a team either.


The one intangible that I don't have which I can name off quite a few cappers here that do have it..... is feel. A good feel for a sport combined with the idea of numbers, matchups, and probability would most certainly knock out the books. Some of these guys in here I hold the highest respect for, although they do not subscribe to the ideas of the people who created gambling as we know it today...........who understand the math behind it......... the people who know what the general public is gonna think and do because of basic human nature, I still have a high regard for them because they have something unique but are unable to see past the hype and are always swimming against the stream. On the other hand there are guys in here who play a number of games and hit at unbelievable rates also. They seem to play flat bets and you don't hear to much from them but they plug along posting winners all the time.

A high percentage or a high unit count is not the important thing either.......... (although a whole bunch of people would disagree with me)

The important thing is you learn the basics and follow the proven method regardless if you're betting 10 dollars a game or if your betting 10k a game........... Each gambler should be treated exactly the same. Everybody wants to improve.....even after a whole bunch of years in this stuff I keep finding things year after year that I hadn't noticed before..........little things that all help to add up. If there was ever a way to pull the resources together and have the caliber of handicappers we have here .........none of us would ever have to worry about money again.






:gulp:

[rjp]

Skins, everyone doesn't have that subconcious issue you speak of. A good number of people do, I would imagine, which is why a very few consistently beat the books!

[Kevin]

I'll try to define my points a bit better.

Re: bet size. If your doing it professionally, your bet size should change however all your bets should be 2% of your current bankroll.

Thats not realistic for most though as a lot of guys have $200 bankrolls.

Re: betting a ton of plays vs. playing sparsely. It is my opinion that despite their being 100 games on a saturday board, there's probably truly only 5 or less games that offer a ton of value where you can clearly see that the value is on your side (if your able to spot it)

Conversely, I do know a few guys that bet a ton of games hoping to hit 55% or so, heck, even 54% but they are absolute grinders and spend 18 hrs a day sitting in front of a screen.

Re: Time frame. I define long term as over the course of a season. Long term could obviously also mean year after year or lifetime of a bettor as well of course.

What RJP and Beerman are talking about is surely doable, I just have to side with the odds and say it's not the way to go because 99% simply can't do it and those odds are too stiff to wanna fight. Thats all Im saying.

With that being said, I got beat by a half point last night! FUCK!

[UteFan]

Originally posted by Kevin


Thats not realistic for most though as a lot of guys have $200 bankrolls.

!

Bravo Kev! Glad someone pointed this out. So true and I'll bet that it is applicable to the majority here.

[rjp]

If you've only got a $200 bankroll and are using a book that has a high minimum (say $10) then you're just gambling. We're not talking about gamblers, we're talking about winning! Unless you find a book that allows you $2 wagers (2%) or $1 wagers (1%) then you're most likely risking way too much on each play to possibly survive.

[beermantm]

with a $200 bankroll you might as well pick out one game and slam it for the whole $200......... At least that way it's just a coin flip.

Re: betting a ton of plays vs. playing sparsely. It is my opinion that despite their being 100 games on a saturday board, there's probably truly only 5 or less games that offer a ton of value where you can clearly see that the value is on your side (if your able to spot it)

Again very common misunderstanding........... These are the types of things I have been saying for years here. One game isn't better than another game in the grand scheme of things because no matter how much value there is and how much of a right choice the play was it can still lose.

Ever here it this way??

The operation was a sucess but the Patient died!!


Bravo Kev! Glad someone pointed this out. So true and I'll bet that it is applicable to the majority here.

Might as well ship the book your money then because your luck will run out. Not saying it wrongs to gamble either if thats what your in it for I mean that is the reason Vegas and the offshores are open......... It's exactly what they want from thier average customer.

[NotaFan]

I'm a "Newbie" here, but I have been reading posts for 2 years. I respect everyone's opinion, but I feel the best bet is no bet at all. I do this for fun mainly, not to make a living as some of you might. I love sports, but what reason would the NCAA have to televise a crap game for if not for all the gamblers watching it? I'm sorry, but if there was no gambling, Animal Planet would have better Primetime ratings for most of these games. Anyway, with that said..I'm shitting the bed today already down o'fer 2.

GL to all!!

[SkinsFan]

Originally posted by rjp
Skins, everyone doesn't have that subconcious issue you speak of. A good number of people do, I would imagine, which is why a very few consistently beat the books!

Actually, it's human nature... everyone has the subconcisous desire to fail, to some extent. Well documented and supported by many psychologists.

[rjp]

Originally posted by SkinsFan
Actually, it's human nature... everyone has the subconcisous desire to fail, to some extent. Well documented and supported by many psychologists. If you're someone with an addictive personality then you shouldn't expect to win money doing this.

[SkinsFan]

Originally posted by rjp
If you're someone with an addictive personality then you shouldn't expect to win money doing this.

It has NOTHING to do with having an addictive personality. NOTHING. Do a little research into the field. It is a highly prevelant issue in my professional field (day-trading in the US equities and foreigh exchange markets), and is a subject I have been diligently researching for over a year. You could simply give me the benefit of the doubt.

As far as expecting to win money, I have won money every year I have posted here in football and basketball, and I did fairly well in baseball this year. Can you say the same?

[rjp]

I'm sorry SkinsFan, you're the man.

:bow:

[SkinsFan]

Originally posted by rjp
I'm sorry SkinsFan, you're the man.

:bow:

I'm glad we agree on that... lol, j/k

please read my post in your thread... I do not intend to start any shit with you... I honestly think i took your post about addictive personality too personally.

[rjp]

I know there is a difference. I was trying to say that there's a bigger problem with having an addictive personality than what you're saying.

Anyway, I thought I'd help you pound your chest a little more. :gulp:

[SkinsFan]

Originally posted by rjp
I know there is a difference. I was trying to say that there's a bigger problem with having an addictive personality than what you're saying.

I agree... discipline is key.

Originally posted by rjp
Anyway, I thought I'd help you pound your chest a little more. :gulp:

What chest pounding? Just responding to your statement that I shouldn't expect to win money doing this. I have no need to pound my chest. I post my plays and keep an accurate ytd. I don't take it "off the board" when I'm down units.

[Kevin]

Beerman says: Again very common misunderstanding........... These are the types of things I have been saying for years here. One game isn't better than another game in the grand scheme of things because no matter how much value there is and how much of a right choice the play was it can still lose.

I cant disagree more brother. There are SURELY games more valuable than other games. Hence why you may see the public betting the shit out of one side but the spread moving towards the other team. This holds true with totals too.

So I respecfully disagree with you.

Here's the bottom line. The BOOK is FORCED to put out a line on every game. The bettor can and will have the advantage, if applied right!, when he selectively chooses which games have value clearly leaning to the bettors side. In my case, that is how I can confidently boast that I'll hit 57% or better with a goal of 60%.

Even if I were to fail playing it my way Im still going to beat 52.4% and come out ahead.

Keep in mind that Im not the avg handicapper that picks up a newspaper and picks my games. I get info that you dont find in newspapers including practice reports, info on which way the public is going and matching that up to line moves which clearly defines smart money plays based on more information your not gonna see in papers etc. I also watch a bunch of games which is key because you pick up on things such as the intelligence of a coach, his decision making, passive/aggressive etc and bla bla bla, theres tons of different shit.

Anyhoo, with all due respect, I could not disagree more. There are almost ALWAYS 3 games or so on a card that are rock solid plays in which you'll hit around the golden 60% mark if you stick to ONLY those plays.

Second half plays can be hot shit too if done with discipline.

The thing that gets me is that totals are supposedly the easiest to beat but I havent learned that yet :)

[beermantm]

Screw it!! You are as stubborn as Billy says!!!

I just can't imagine being that there is so many games to choose from that only three show enough value to bet on!! Surely you could find 3 more that you would have an edge on worth betting.

6-0 is worth alot more than 3-0!!

LOL

[rjp]

Let's assume we make 5 times more plays during the season than you Kevin. To make this easy we'll say you make 100 and we make 500.

At 60% over 100 bets you win 60 and lose 40 for a net gain of $1600 (14.54% ROI) if you lay 110 to win 100 on each game.

Lets say we are fairly good at this and hit 55% of our plays over 500 bets. We win 275 and lose 225 for a net gain of $2750 (5% ROI) laying 110 to win 100 on each game.

At the end of the day you have a higher winning percentage, a higher return percentage, but you haven't made as much money! By playing more games we've not only reduced our risk but we've also made more cash.

:thumbs:

[Kevin]

Beer/RJP

I agree with the Math.

Good luck hitting 55% with that many games though.

Thats my point.

A guy is more likely to win playing sparsely than he is playing 100 games. Sure, theres more units involved IF and thats a big IF you hit the 55%. It sounds easy but its a bear!

Id like to see it done consistently!

All Im saying is that Id rather settle for doing things my way almost knowingly netting profits rather than risking it the way you guys are approaching it.

Beerman says its a common misconception that most cappers think betting less games is more.

I say that betting more games leads to the demise of 99% of all sports bettors.

Books dont like guys like me, trust me, I work for them!

They love the guy that plays tons of games because there's a massive % chance your going to get roasted.

IF you can get 55% consistently, you are gold. IF you could, you'd be doing it professionally.

In all my years of being in this whacky biz, Ive only seen A FEW that can do it.

Prove me wrong. Please do, Id love to see it!

[beermantm]

I say that betting more games leads to the demise of 99% of all sports bettors.

Inproper money management does that. Betting more games you are more likey to stay right arround 50% because the standard deviation gets tighter and tighter to 50% with the more wagers made. Almost impossible to go broke wagering a ton of games over the long haul.

[Silver & Black]

My 2 Cents

First off my head is spinning right now...don't know who said what anymore. My Opinion - for what it's worth.

Betting fewer games for will give the "Serious" player a Higher Percentage

The reason that books have half-time betting, parlays, teasers, props, money line, futures etc etc etc is because people like to bet. I agree with Kevin, if you play fewer games, you're probably going to have a higher percentage of wins. Not because your betting fewer games, but because you're "FOCUSING" on fewer games. EX: if you focused your handicapping time on the BIG 10, and only the BIG 10, you're less likely to miss something. If you tried to handicap the whole card, you either have no life, or you get no sleep.

Bet Based on a Percentage

for me it's 4% on Football and 2% for Baskets and Baseball. Totals are updated at the end of each day. If I have a loosing week, and my bank is in the black....I go back to my original bank and set aside the rest. If over the year I've managed to set aside 20%, I'll increase my wagers to 5% and 6% a play if I've managed to put away 40% of my money.

My starting bank is $5000, and this Money Management system is one that I've used for about 9 years now. Is it the best system? For me it is.

BOL to each of you, and thanks for the reading entertainment!!

:thumbs:

[rjp]

Originally posted by Silver & Black
If you tried to handicap the whole card, you have no life. Shhh, beerman is reading this!! :gulp:

[beermantm]

Shhh, beerman is reading this!!


:toss: :nuts:

[rjp]

Originally posted by beermantm
:toss: :nuts: I bought something for you today. (Actually me but I think you'll enjoy it.) :thumbs:

[rjp]

That's your cue to get on AIM. :gulp:

[beancounter]

Originally posted by beermantm




This is why you truely need to set a bankroll aside and never touch it. Use it for just wagers........


this is a great thread, but beerman, I wanted to ask you what you mean by this. Assuming you start with $1000, and betting $20/game, for your first week you are definitely going to dip into your initial $1000. if you have a bad week, you are probably going to be down to $900 and have to dip in it again. are you saying never take money out? but if that is the case, how will I ever afford that new pair of skis? lol.

thanks for the answer in advance.

[beermantm]

this is a great thread, but beerman, I wanted to ask you what you mean by this. Assuming you start with $1000, and betting $20/game, for your first week you are definitely going to dip into your initial $1000. if you have a bad week, you are probably going to be down to $900 and have to dip in it again. are you saying never take money out? but if that is the case, how will I ever afford that new pair of skis? lol.

thanks for the answer in advance.

Well the idea is to work your wagers up to a point to where you are earning an amount that is livable to you.............This is always the thing that is a personal choice. How much do you want to make off of sports betting each year? What type of ROI can you expect? I'll tell you if you're starting with 1000 bucks then it will be a few years before you'll want to start dipping in to the bankroll................

As far as the new ski's go................I would use your paycheck to buy those!!!






for your first week you are definitely going to dip into your initial $1000. if you have a bad week, you are probably going to be down to $900

Oh and you are just as likely to have a winning streak than a losing streak the first week.............and if you have a losing streak week after week then you might want to consider not betting at all.

[beancounter]

thanks for the response...so is your "bank roll" the amount that you have set aside in an actual bank (ie-not online with a book). so someone's "bank roll" may be $5000, but the deposit $1000 into the account and that is what they start playing with?

what do you mean by "a few years to dip into the bank roll at $1000"?

sorry for all of the questions, but you guys have more experience than I do with this stuff and I want to understand.

thank you!