All Forums | MLB Betting

Flat betting in Baseball....

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 42477
Posts: 347
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 291
Posted: #226
elaboration -- difference for dogs is 61.5-43.6 = %17.9
difference for favorites is 66.66 - 57 = % 9.66
 
you are owning on both, but you are REALLY owning dogs...
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2006
Posts: 6770
Posted: #227
Thanks for the kudos, I do what I can. If I can keep up what I have been doing (and I don't see why not), it would be sick.

As for the numbers, when I get some time during the day, I will double and triple check everything to make sure, but I used formulas for everything but the last bit, so unless i screwed up a formula, all the numbers are accurate.

You are a good person for going through the numbers even though we might not be on the same page at the moment.

I can't wait to see Vanzack's reaction to all this. Might take him an hour to read through it all. See both of you later today.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 291
Posted: #228
Q.E.D.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2006
Posts: 6770
Posted: #229
Yeah, but how do you explain flat betting netting me less units at the end of last year if I was so favorite heavy?
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 291
Posted: #230
as for 2007.... if your numbers are correct, flat betting should have benefitted you greatly.  in 2008, it would have hurt you
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2006
Posts: 6770
Posted: #231
But that's the thing, it didn't: In 2007, would have lost me about 3 units compared to what I gained.

When I think of the premise of flat betting (risking more on favs) I can see how this doesn't add up considering I bet so many more favs than dogs in 2007 and did so much better. I don't know what to say. Like I said, I will go back over the numbers but if they are correct, which I believe they are, I'm not sure what to think.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2006
Posts: 6770
Posted: #232
All right, good man (or is it ma'am?), I'm off to sleep finally and advise you to do the same. You have earned a good rest. We'll wake up to a glut of new, interesting posts, I'm sure.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 25922
Posted: #233
Quote Originally Posted by lanastasis:



I would not disagree that a correct oversimplification of the matter is to suggest that favorites, on average, are overvalued. I am not arguing against this. I am saying that on an individual game basis (and on a daily basis), there exist favs who are undervalued and present concrete betting opportunities for profit. If you disagree with this then you do not understand capping/betting baseball. I have put this into practice and it nets profits, no questions asked. Why do you think even Vanzack agrees with me here?


Since when is Vanzacks word gospel? Van and I have a number of debates, and I respect his opinion like I'm sure he respects mine. I don't agree with everything he says, especially in this case (he won't take offence with me saying that).

Can profits be made betting favourites? yes. But you can make a profit betting 100-1 shots. I don't give a rats arse what happens daily, long term it won't work. Unless you are able to prove mathematical studies wrong. They are out there, go find them.

And saying that I do not understand capping/betting is an insult. Many around here can attest to my knowledge. Just because you have more to say doesn't mean you know more.

Now, back to the topic
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59808
Posted: #234
Lan -
 
I think you are veering away from the basic premise here.  It doesnt matter that you go back and figure that you were better off in a period of time with your own wagering method - that is not statistically significant.
 
And you are also incorrect about your assumption that my flat betting is better off for dogs or favorites - it doesnt matter which you bet.
 
The simplest way to say this is - IF YOU BET THE WAY YOU BET THE GAMES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THE FARTHER YOU GET AWAY FROM 100 IN EITHER DIRECTION.
 
So the fact that you are up more your way than flat betting simply means you have done better historically on your higher dogs and favs as a group - than your lower dogs and favs as a group.  But this has no bearing on the future, and is not flat betting.
 
Its pretty simple - if you want all games to have equal value - and thats how I define flat betting - the only way is to do what I suggest.  If you decide that you do better with your games the farther you get away from 100, then you should do what you currently do.
 
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59808
Posted: #235

Quote Originally Posted by lanastasis:

How am I missing the point? First of all, I am not talking about always betting to win 1 unit. I am talking about "always risking 1 unit" vs. "flat betting as described in this thread."

The flat bet supporters have stated it is a more profitable method than the alternative unless you are more successful at betting dogs than favs. So then I ran the test on my own results and found that the opposite is true as well. I bet, on average, slight favs and I make less money using flat betting rather than always risking 1 unit. So if flat betting is not good for dogs and now also (as I have proven) not good for favs, it is always less profitable than the alternative I have suggested.

If I've done something wrong, I would like to know, but you have not pointed any such thing out.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!

Please read this 10 times - IT HAS NO BEARING IF YOU ARE BETTING DOGS OR FAVS.  I HAVE NEVER SAID IT IS "MORE PROFITABLE" TO BET ANY WAY.  THE WAY YOU PROPOSE BETTING PUTS A HIGHER VALUE ON GAMES WITH LINES THE FARTHER YOU GET AWAY FROM 100 - IN EITHER DIRECTION - DOGS OR FAVS!!!!

OK - so let me try to say this again.  Unless you somehow do better on -200 dogs, and +200 favs as a group - than say -110 and +110 games as a group - then your style of betting puts more money and risk on the higher group unecessarily.  It is not flat betting.  Im not saying you cant be more profitable doing this, Im telling you that you are not flat betting.

It has nothing to do with dogs and favs - you have gotten off track. It is the absolute value of the line that matters.  And the way you bet, you have much more interest in winning a 500 dog or fav than a 110 dog or fav.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59808
Posted: #236

LAN AND OTHERS:

WHETHER YOU BET FAVS OR DOGS HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO EFFECT ON WHETHER YOU SHOULD BET BASED ON A UNIT SIZE OR BET USING MY FLAT BETTING.

You guys have all gotten way off with this.

The only reason you should bet based on a unit is if you do better in games that the absolute value of the line is farther away from 100.

If you dont, then you are putting more value on those games than the lower line games, but favs and dogs have ZERO to do with it.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59808
Posted: #237

I finally got through this whole thread, and cant believe that there was hours of discussion over the merits of this based on whether you are betting dogs or favs.....

That is TOTALLY irrelevant. 

I hope in my previous several posts I have made that point.

Lan - you are barking up the wrong tree by going back in your numbers and "imploding the theory of flat betting" - its not a "theory" - its mathematics - and the simple math is that you are putting a higher importance and value on games the farther you move away from 100. 

You might be doing better than if you were flat betting, but that is either by random luck or because you are better at higher odds games than lower - but I suggest you identify that - or your bet size is determined randomly which is probably not what you want. 

Its almost like if in football you decided to bet 100 on games that have a spread between 1 and 6, 200 on games that have a spread between 7 and 13, 300 on games that have a spread between 14 and 20, and 500 on games with spreads over 21.  This would be fine if you knew you did better with the bigger spreads - but unless you know that you are randomly placing more importance on games with bigger lines.  THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY DOING - REGARDLESS OF FAVS OR DOGS.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59808
Posted: #238
One more thing:
 
I AM NOT ADVOCATING FLAT BETTING.  I AM NOT SAYING IT IS MORE PROFITABLE.
 
I am saying that IF YOU WANT TO FLAT BET, the formula I give is the only way to truly flat bet.
 
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2007
Posts: 2066
Posted: #239
Quote Originally Posted by Godfather16:

This guy is so full of it, if you can't pick a higher % of winners to beat the juice then it doesn't matter what syle of betting you use, you're through.


Let me guess, the only posters that are worthwhile are the ones that say Ohio State is the greatest.  You are one of the 5 worst posters on the board.  If you don't want to learn, don't read his posts.  You just keep betting Ohio State blindly every game and see how you do.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 1743
Posted: #240
In my short tenure as a member and long term user of this site for stats and insight this has been one of the better reads.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 1257
Posted: #241

Van, is this statement correct?

With flat betting, you implicitly will be betting more on a favorite than on a dog. 

As the line moves farther above 1 for a dog, you bet less.  As it moves farther below 1 for a favorite, you bet more.

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 291
Posted: #242
Vanzack, we were never talking about dogs and favs in terms of spreads, we were always considering a dog as a ML dog, and a fav as a ML fav. 
 
That said, just to clarify what I've shown to the rest, if a bettor KNOWS he will do better betting ML underdogs than ML favorites in the long run, then he would be better off not flat-betting, but no bettors KNOW this, and flat betting caters to the averages.
 
That does not mean flat betting is necessarily more effective or less effective.  It all depends on which bets hit.  I wish simply trying to show to lanastasis that the reason he would have faired better using his own method is because he was hitting dogs at a rare percentage.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 291
Posted: #243
Motherfickee, that's right.  You're betting more because the odds of that hitting is supposedly better, say the odds
 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59808
Posted: #244
Quote Originally Posted by lawstyle:

Vanzack, we were never talking about dogs and favs in terms of spreads, we were always considering a dog as a ML dog, and a fav as a ML fav. 
 
That said, just to clarify what I've shown to the rest, if a bettor KNOWS he will do better betting ML underdogs than ML favorites in the long run, then he would be better off not flat-betting, but no bettors KNOW this, and flat betting caters to the averages.
 
That does not mean flat betting is necessarily more effective or less effective.  It all depends on which bets hit.  I wish simply trying to show to lanastasis that the reason he would have faired better using his own method is because he was hitting dogs at a rare percentage.

Law - Im not talking about spreads either, Im talking about ML dogs and favs.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE AND I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE.

It doesnt matter one iota whether you are betting dogs or favs!!!  It matters how far away in absolute value terms you are from 100.  Thats it.

You are not better off not flat betting if you bet more dogs than favs, or vice versa, it makes no difference at all.  You are simply putting more money on higher line games if you bet on a constant unit basis.

 

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59808
Posted: #245

Law - I dont disagree with your statement above after rereading it again.  I misread your point. Sorry.

I do stand by the fact that by betting on a unit basis you are simply putting more on games with higher spreads, and NOT FLAT BETTING.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2006
Posts: 6770
Posted: #246
Since when is Vanzacks word gospel? Van and I have a number of debates, and I respect his opinion like I'm sure he respects mine. I don't agree with everything he says, especially in this case (he won't take offence with me saying that).

I never said his word was gospel. I was just trying to say that I wasn't a psycho preacher w/out a following.

Can profits be made betting favourites? yes. But you can make a profit betting 100-1 shots. I don't give a rats arse what happens daily, long term it won't work. Unless you are able to prove mathematical studies wrong. They are out there, go find them.

When do you get 100-1 favs in baseball? This example is stupid as you will rarely even get a -300 fav and I probably won't be playing it anyway. So are you saying betting favorites long term doesn't work? This is as false as anything I have ever read and just keep up with my plays in this forum to be proven wrong.

And saying that I do not understand capping/betting is an insult. Many around here can attest to my knowledge. Just because you have more to say doesn't mean you know more.

I have not seen many of your posts so I was judging but what you were writing in this thread. I never meant to insult you but like Dave Chapelle says "Girls, that's true. Just because you are dressed like a person does not make you person but understand that that is fucking confusing."
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2006
Posts: 6770
Posted: #247
Van and lawstyle, I will respond to your posts right after I do some capping.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2006
Posts: 6770
Posted: #248
Vanzack -- OK, I just went through the key parts of the thread and I don't believe you ever specifically said that dogs would be benefited more always risking 1 units vs. flat betting. However, your favorite mathematician had this to say:

Whereas if a bettor were to put exactly one unit on each bet, than underdogs would be the more valued play, since a win would result in a reward over 1 unit.  If the bet were on a favorite, then the reward would be under 1 unit.  Therefore, the bettor would be valuing the underdog bet more.

So are you calling lawstyle wrong here?
 

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2006
Posts: 6770
Posted: #249
I think you are veering away from the basic premise here.  It doesnt matter that you go back and figure that you were better off in a period of time with your own wagering method - that is not statistically significant.

So to you, 315 games has absolutely not statistical significance? This is simply not true. Granted, once I have a log of 1,000 and 2,000 games, I will feel more comfortable one way or the other but I am using all I have to work with and my numbers give me a clear answer that says: Flat betting is not for me.

And you are also incorrect about your assumption that my flat betting is better off for dogs or favorites - it doesnt matter which you bet.
 
The simplest way to say this is - IF YOU BET THE WAY YOU BET THE GAMES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THE FARTHER YOU GET AWAY FROM 100 IN EITHER DIRECTION.

OK, I may just be missing something here, but how does betting more on average for favorites and betting less on average for dogs do anything but hurt my dogs overall and hurt my favs overall. Looking at the overarching concept of flatbetting, it kills big potential profits of dogs locked in at 1 unit risk while maximizing favs by risking a little more than 1 unit on them.

I am hurting +200 dogs and helping -200 favs by using flatbetting. For example, if I want to bet -200, flat bet tells me to risk 133.33. If I want to bet +200, flat bet tells me to risk 66.67. In clear nuts and bolts example, this is hurting my potential dog payout in favor of my fav payout. How am I interpreting this wrong?

 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2006
Posts: 6770
Posted: #250
I messed up when I wrote the following:

It should say:  how does betting more on average for favorites and betting less on average for dogs do anything but hurt my dogs overall and HELP my favs overall.
All Forums | MLB Betting
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.