Posted:
#26
thanks for saving me the trouble of doing my own excel formula.
0
Flat betting in Baseball....
and other complete bullshit.
Posted:
#29
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
CORRECTION:
I fucked that up horribly....
Let me try that again....
Cell A1 type "Unit Amount"
Cell B1 enter desired midpoint of your wager
Cell A2 type "Line"
Cell B2 enter line (with no - or +, for instance "120" or "180")
Cell A3 type "Bet amount if dog"
Cell B3 enter formula: "+(B1*2)/((B2/100)+1)"
Cell A4 type "Bet amount if fav"
Cell B4 enter formula: "+(B1*2)-C2
SOrry
CORRECTION TO THE LAST LINE:
Cell B4 enter formula: "+(B1*2)-B3"
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#31
Quote Originally Posted by ILL:
vanzack i have a question for ya, i'm not that experienced with baseball betting but am trying it out this year..
anyway, my local offers all run lines at 10% juice. that is, if the cubs are -1.5 at +150 and the cardinals are +1.5 at -170, it doesn't matter - i get the cubs -1.5 at 10% and cardinals +1.5 at 10%.
i realize that this is a huge fuck up on his part, but he does not realize this.
my question is, what would be the best way to exploit this advantage? it seems as if i should just bet every single +1.5 run line every single day, since +1.5 run lines usually are like -150 and up, but i'm getting it at 10%.
anyway, any advice is valued and appreciated. 
If I am understanding this correctly - which I doubt I am - you are laying -110 on all run lines regardless of who is playing?
If this is the case, you should bet as much as you can on a sliding scale (for amount) the further you get away from -110. For instance:
If a team is -150 really, and you can lay -110, you bet an amount that is less than a team that is -200 that you can lay -110. I think the Kelly Critereon would be a good thing for you to investigate.
My guess is that your local bookie is going to be out of business very soon.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#32
Quote Originally Posted by lanastasis:
Hey Van.
My -180 are as successful over time as well as -130 and +130 and +180. I've been risking 1 unit on every bet, no matter what. Every bet is the same. Do you see a reason to change this to your method?
Hey Van.
My -180 are as successful over time as well as -130 and +130 and +180. I've been risking 1 unit on every bet, no matter what. Every bet is the same. Do you see a reason to change this to your method?
I would change if you want to flat bet.
Simply put - your games are not equal in value and importance - which is the essence of flat betting.
Your -180s and your +180s are much more important in terms of value than your -110s and +110s.
Its just a matter of philosophy what you decide to do.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#33
Quote Originally Posted by gcnmoo:
Van, I am somewhat confused. You say if the +180 plays come in less than the +130 plays you will not profit. This is simply not true. You do not expect to win the +180 plays as often as the +130 plays do, nor do you need them to come in as often.
Example 100 plays at +180, you win 40 lose 60, if you are risking 1 unit, you profit 12 units
100 plays at +130, you win 45 lose 55, you profit 3.5 units.
I think you should risk the same on any sized dog, becuase the number of times you need to win is all relative to the size of the dog. You are simply short changing yourself if you bet more on the +130 dogs when you believe both have equal value. Just my two cents, correct me if I have mispoken.
You are correct basically...
I put "(weighted)" in my explanation above that you quoted - and it is important. You are correct in your assumption that you could lose more +180 games than +130 games and still be profitable - but not when you weight them.
You are saying that you should bet the same base unit on all dogs, but when you do this you inherently are putting more relative value in bets that are farther away from +101.
In other words, you will have to do better on your +200 bets than your +110 bets (weighted) over time in order to be profitable - therefore your +200 bets are more important for you to win than your +110 bets.
The way you bet, the farther you are away from the expected value on your higher dogs is much more impactful on your profitability than your lower dogs.
For instance, if you are 5% above your EV for +110 dogs, but 5% below EV for your +200 dogs - YOU ARE NOT EVEN. You are down money, and the purpose of flat betting is to make all games equal value, and you are not doing it with your method - your method will always have a higher importance the farther you are away from +101.
Make sense?
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#35
Flat betting?
Flat betting to me is betting the same amount, let's say $100, on every wager/proposition no matter the odds.
+130 @$100
-130 @$100
-260 @$100
+310 @$100
etc.
Flat-betting is great, that's what I do, because it allows you to concentrate more on the +/1 of a certain proposition winning as opposed to is 160 to much to pay or will I go up to 170 on this?
Who cares....think that side wins? Yes? Then flat bet it.
At least that's what flat betting is to me.
It is easier when the odds are listed in decimals instead of +/- as well.
Flat betting to me is betting the same amount, let's say $100, on every wager/proposition no matter the odds.
+130 @$100
-130 @$100
-260 @$100
+310 @$100
etc.
Flat-betting is great, that's what I do, because it allows you to concentrate more on the +/1 of a certain proposition winning as opposed to is 160 to much to pay or will I go up to 170 on this?
Who cares....think that side wins? Yes? Then flat bet it.At least that's what flat betting is to me.
It is easier when the odds are listed in decimals instead of +/- as well.
0
Posted:
#36
Van, I am having some problems understanding this math right now but I will clear my head after lunch and set up a controlled experiment to see what the differences between my way and your way is over the long haul. If you're right, I will happily change the method.
By the way, is it weird if my brain is now telling me you look like the person in your avatar?
By the way, is it weird if my brain is now telling me you look like the person in your avatar?
0
Posted:
#38
Quote Originally Posted by HeadOverHeart:
Flat betting?
Flat betting to me is betting the same amount, let's say $100, on every wager/proposition no matter the odds.
+130 @$100
-130 @$100
-260 @$100
+310 @$100
etc.
Flat-betting is great, that's what I do, because it allows you to concentrate more on the +/1 of a certain proposition winning as opposed to is 160 to much to pay or will I go up to 170 on this? Who cares....think that side wins? Yes? Then flat bet it.
At least that's what flat betting is to me.
It is easier when the odds are listed in decimals instead of +/- as well.
Flat betting?
Flat betting to me is betting the same amount, let's say $100, on every wager/proposition no matter the odds.
+130 @$100
-130 @$100
-260 @$100
+310 @$100
etc.
Flat-betting is great, that's what I do, because it allows you to concentrate more on the +/1 of a certain proposition winning as opposed to is 160 to much to pay or will I go up to 170 on this?
Who cares....think that side wins? Yes? Then flat bet it.At least that's what flat betting is to me.
It is easier when the odds are listed in decimals instead of +/- as well.
You sir are not flat betting, and advocate a strategy that will lead you and anyone who will listen to ruin.
is 160 to much to pay or will I go up to 170 on this? Who cares....think that side wins? Yes? Then flat bet it.
This is horribly misguided.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#39
Quote Originally Posted by lanastasis:
Van, I am having some problems understanding this math right now but I will clear my head after lunch and set up a controlled experiment to see what the differences between my way and your way is over the long haul. If you're right, I will happily change the method.
By the way, is it weird if my brain is now telling me you look like the person in your avatar?
Van, I am having some problems understanding this math right now but I will clear my head after lunch and set up a controlled experiment to see what the differences between my way and your way is over the long haul. If you're right, I will happily change the method.
By the way, is it weird if my brain is now telling me you look like the person in your avatar?
Please do some math - you will find what I stated above - that if you bet based on 1 unit every time that your overall profitability is determined with more impact the farther you are away from 100 on any bet.
And your second assumption is not too far off.......
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#40
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
If I am understanding this correctly - which I doubt I am - you are laying -110 on all run lines regardless of who is playing?
If this is the case, you should bet as much as you can on a sliding scale (for amount) the further you get away from -110. For instance:
If a team is -150 really, and you can lay -110, you bet an amount that is less than a team that is -200 that you can lay -110. I think the Kelly Critereon would be a good thing for you to investigate.
My guess is that your local bookie is going to be out of business very soon.
vanzack, you've got it right - i lay -110 no matter who's playing, what the actual run line is, etc. 10% on all run lines. The only reason he's still in business (he's very amateur, just started up during middle of basketball) is because he has some serious rookie bettors playing favorites -1.5 straight down the card almost. For instance, one guy showed me his card last tuesday and he was playing like 9 -1.5 favorites and 9 totals - little does he know if he plays 9 or 10 -1.5 favs everyday he should be getting like +150 or so on all his plays..
So anyway, i'm not sure that i understand the sliding scale..? For example:
Bo Sox are +1.5 at -175 tonight.. does that mean i should bet more on them then say the orioles +1.5 -145? Say the max bet is 100, would i put 75$ on Bo Sox and 45$ on orioles?
As always, thanks for the help - thanks to you some people understand sports gambling outside of just picking teams
0
Posted:
#42
ill if you are only able to max bet $100 on those fucked up lines then a sliding scale isn't something you will be using. Max bet the hell out of every single line that is off like that until the local is broke or cuts you off. If he cuts you off introduce a "friend" to him to continue betting these.
0
Posted:
#45
Quote Originally Posted by nccashman:
van, ...it looks like headoverheart would win more on his dogs than you would and lose less on his favs than you do...why would you say he is horribly misguided?
my understanding is that he's placing the same importance ($) on every game regardless of the probability of it hitting (-300 and +300)
0
Posted:
#47
Quote Originally Posted by brendanb438:
vanzack thank you for your posts as always. Very good info for the people on these boards.
Do you yourself flat bet? I would guess no, probably use full Kelly or some sort of half Kelly system.
Any chance of you posting daily baseball picks on the forum?
vanzack thank you for your posts as always. Very good info for the people on these boards.
Do you yourself flat bet? I would guess no, probably use full Kelly or some sort of half Kelly system.
Any chance of you posting daily baseball picks on the forum?
I actually do flat bet.
The one thing about Kelly that is critical is actually predicting the edge you have, and if you are flawed in this you have a flawed system - and I just havent been able to do this consistently.
So I flat bet....
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#48
Yes, I understand the same importance theory, however, van stated that headoverheart's method was 'horribly misguided'. If they both made the same plays, headoverheart would make more money than van would. But as I stated earlier, the most important thing in wagering on baseball is to wager on the dog the majority of the time.
0
Posted:
#49
John Morrison back at it! 
And just so everyone does indeed know that this guy is a crook, the NBA system actually lost at least twice this past season (the Nets and the Celtics). The system does work but you have to lay enormous odds. I don't know anything about the baseball system but would be interested to know what he does there. But my guess is he lays pretty big odds on some sort of series chase. If you are not wagering on the dogs, chase systems can be deadly.
And just so everyone does indeed know that this guy is a crook, the NBA system actually lost at least twice this past season (the Nets and the Celtics). The system does work but you have to lay enormous odds. I don't know anything about the baseball system but would be interested to know what he does there. But my guess is he lays pretty big odds on some sort of series chase. If you are not wagering on the dogs, chase systems can be deadly.0
Hot Forum Topics
