Sweet, you're back!
OK, I know what you are saying. I understood this premise explained a different way a number of times above. There came a point and time in this thread where I assumed you and Vanzack were correct and was going to complete my calculations merely to confirm your statements.
But while your logic makes sense, it is not hashed out in practical reality, which for me, is my betting log. You would suggest that 315 wagers is a decently sized mathematical model, no? Of course, I would feel better if it was 3,115 instead, but this is what we have to work with. You would also say that my sample size eliminates much of the randomness from a mock experiment of 4 wagers, no? Assuming yes to these questions, then the math of my experiment is more valid than your example, no offense.
I don't know, can you both be correct in theory while I am simultaneously correct in application? That's what it seems like we have here.
I'm just wondering how you justify saying unequivocally that flat betting is more profitable betting more favs than dogs because I do just this but it is less profitable.
Also, remember when you mentioned I am probably risking more units doing it my way than w/ flat betting? Well, I probably agree but this makes flat betting sound very hypocritical. The formulas you and Vanzack gave for flat betting were adjusted to work with a standard betting size of 1 unit and you argued that using this formula = more profits long term than always risking 1 unit instead. I have proven this is not necessarily true.
Maybe this is an idea: Is there a way to tweak w/ the basic flatbetting formula to add more units risked per play to compensate for the disparity?
Anyway, the bottom line is (and my head is starting to hurt from all this): Which method gains you more profits long term? And the answer (for the model I have given, which is decent sized and leans toward favorites) is that risking 1 unit is more profitable than flat betting.
No, this is wrong. You are winning a higher percentage of dogs relative to favorites than you should be based on the odds. I can't state it any more succinctly. Just reread that sentence a few times and let it sink in (no joke, it helped me) Your ML average may be -104, and you may be hitting favorites at a very high percentage, but based on the odds, you are hitting dogs MORE than you should be based on the odds, relative to how much you are winning on the favorites based on the odds.
There is no point in betting 1 unit on every game, even on dogs, since dogs winning are much less likely to hit. Unless you are hitting dogs at a higher rate than the odds dictate (hitting +200 bets 50% of the time when you should only be getting them 33%), flat benefitting will pay off. More examples later if it doesn't help.
Take the ML average of your dogs. Do the same for your favorites. Now, what is your percentage for ML dogs, and what is it for ML favorites? This may prove it based on your data...
Hot Forum Topics
