The case for flat amount wagering.
There has NEVER been even one definitive, mathematical study done that justifies “adding the juice.” NOT ONE.
The concept of adding the juice presupposes that the favorite should in fact be the favorite, will probably win, and therefore is worthy of added risk. The problem is, whether you add the juice or flat play you are already accepting added risk, because even with flat play your ROI (Return On Investment) will be less than even money.
Let’s examine the definition of “Unit.” Do not most baseball gamblers have two different descriptions of “Unit”? Will they not tell you “sometimes it is the amount you risk (underdog), and sometimes it is the amount you are trying to win (favorite). In that case they make the wagering “Unit” two entirely different things, which is illogical. The justification is normally described as “the higher probability of the favorite winning” which, in reality is true only 57% of the time. That number is not incorrect. Over the course of ten years or so MLB favorites will win about 57% of all games played. No mistake, no typo. Let me digress a moment. Sanford Wong, in his totally worthless book “Sharp Sports Betting”, advocates laying the juice with favorites and short playing the dogs to always win one unit. That method puts the desired profit 100% in control of the wager. One simple reason why that is foolish, if not ignorant and/or stupid:
Profit can not be controlled, only risk can be controlled. Making the target profit the goal of the wager, to win a certain amount, puts the profit in control and ignores the risk. Illogical (and don’t start calling me Mr. Spock, lol). If such a player will average, or better yet median, all his wagers he will find out exactly what his true wagering unit is, the amount put at risk to win (or lose) whatever number of units he netted. The unit should never be thought of as two entirely separate and different things, again, illogical.
Now, does not the added juice stop many a player from wagering on a high odds favorite that is most likely going to win? Sure it does. He likes a -175 favorite, but says “I don’t want to pay all that juice” and I don’t blame him. If his normal wager is around $100, $175 looks like a huge price and will eat a nasty hunk of his bankroll if it loses. Later that night he checks the scores and sure enough, it won, but he didn’t have anything on it. If he had flat played his $100 his profit would have been $57.14 and he would be a happy camper. If he lost, he would not have lost any more than he loses on any other wager, NBFD.
How much difference are we really talking about? Let’s take that overall win rate of 57% and work with it. If a team has a 57% probability of winning and is quoted at -132 you are very near the break even point for risk versus reward. If you lay $132 to win $100 the ROI is 75.76%. If you lay a flat $100, the profit is $75.76 and the ROI is still 75.76%, you have simply accepted $24.24 less profit and avoided 32% more risk. Make sense? Of course it does.
If I asked anyone to remember anything about this blog it would be:
In business, life, gambling or any other venture,
Profit can not be controlled, only risk can be controlled.
One more quote from Grantland Rice, if you please
“A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows the public opinion.”
Hot Forum Topics
