I couldn't sleep... and I had a breakthrough, but I really don't have time to explain it now.
A quick response to your post though-- this does not implode the theory at all. What matters is which record is best at which average. I think in your case there are too many numbers and variables to disprove or prove it, but think of it this way:
If guy A bets 10$ a game, and guy B bets using flat betting with a 10 dollar unit size, take this scenario.
Both bet on 4 games, of which the odds are -130, -120, +120, and +130. Both A and B WIN all there games. Profits for A are $41, and he risked 40$. Profits for B are 40$, and he risked 40$. So guy A is better off here. BUT, assume one of the underdogs lost, take the +130 in this example. Then, 40 was still risked, but for guy A, profits dropped 23 dollars (10+13), while guy B's profits only dropped 20 dollars. Now bettor B is better off.
Now, which is more likely? The bettors win all 4, and both underdogs, or the bettors win 3 and lose the largest underdog? Losing the largest underdog is more likely, of course. Therefore, as the averages move towards where they should be (underdogs hitting at 50% is closer to the average than 100%), the bettor using flat betting benefits. This is to say, unless a bettor is winning an unusually high or low percentage on either dogs or favorites, flat betting is the most beneficial in the long run.
The longer a bettor bets, the closer to the averages his numbers will go, and the more flat betting will pay off (if his picks win).
The numbers are there man, try out some more scenarios.
.... What do you mean by "added to 100"?
Hot Forum Topics
