All Forums | NBA Betting

Why is the consensus to bet low volume?

...

Participants:

Search

Posts: 20

RefereeSystem

Prospect

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 180

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 5:36 PM ET #1

This is coming from a ex poker player. I dont know if you guys are aware of this, but some of the best players played 16 tables at once. The theory was that if you are a winning player, you want to maximize volume.

Say I can win $10/hr playing 1 table. If I can play 2 tables, I can win each table at $9/hr due to be having less efficient decision making. The goal is to maximize win rate * tables.

How is this different in sports betting?

Wouldn't the goal be to maximize games * win rate?

This is why I dont understand when people say "just play 3 games a day".

If your first three games can win at 70% and your fourth at 60%, why not play the fourth too?

Theory dictates that you should play every game with a perceived EV of higher than your break even rate (52.38% for -110).

Why isnt the consensus to volume bet?

0

ALILHELPPLEASE

Prospect

Joined: Oct, 2014

Posts: 285

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 6:02 PM ET #2

Because my kindred spirit, we are surrounded by idiots!

0

ALILHELPPLEASE

Prospect

Joined: Oct, 2014

Posts: 285

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 6:04 PM ET #3

BTW, nice work last nite, please let me know if you have any picks tonite. I am going ride this wagon with you! Small plays of course.

Thank You.

0

naesiy

Veteran

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 2005

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 6:31 PM ET #4

I think the comparison is flawed. In poker, you multitable because you have MUCH more control of putting your money on the line when you have the best of it. Outcome of sports betting is 50/50 (?) on any given event. In poker,even accounting for the variance, if you are a great player, you will mostly get your money in when you are a big favorite or have so much +EV that you have to call.

In reality, your comparison is reversed. VEGAS is the awesome poker player and us making bets are the fish. Which is why they welcome any and all action. VEGAS multitables us players. Now if you were betting against some chump local oddsmaker, then your comparison would make sense and you would definately want to volume bet and take advantage of ALL his weak odds. Similar to taking advantage of poor poker players at the table.

Did I make sense there? lol.

0

RefereeSystem

Prospect

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 180

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 6:43 PM ET #5

Quote Originally Posted by naesiy:

I think the comparison is flawed. In poker, you multitable because you have MUCH more control of putting your money on the line when you have the best of it. Outcome of sports betting is 50/50 (?) on any given event. In poker,even accounting for the variance, if you are a great player, you will mostly get your money in when you are a big favorite or have so much +EV that you have to call.

In reality, your comparison is reversed. VEGAS is the awesome poker player and us making bets are the fish. Which is why they welcome any and all action. VEGAS multitables us players. Now if you were betting against some chump local oddsmaker, then your comparison would make sense and you would definately want to volume bet and take advantage of ALL his weak odds. Similar to taking advantage of poor poker players at the table.

Did I make sense there? lol.

then why bet at all if you dont think it can be profitable?

0

naesiy

Veteran

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 2005

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 6:54 PM ET #6

Quote Originally Posted by RefereeSystem:

then why bet at all if you dont think it can be profitable?

I didn't say anything about not being profitable.

Your question was high volume or not and you used poker as a comparison. High volume in sports betting, you get killed by juice because your betting at 50/50 and getting taxed 10% every time.

In poker, yes you get rake, but it's much smaller, 5% and you also have WAY more opportunities in which you will be BETTER than 50/50. 80/20, 90/10. Those times make it worth the increased exposure.

Would you want to multitable if you could ONLY play hands AK vs QQ or vice versa? Coin flip hands? No, but you would be wililng to play perceived coinflip hands against weak opponents who might not even had QQ and you could be dominating them if they have a weaker A right? Same like picking your spots in Sports betting right?

What you think?

0

roi_fisher

Rookie

Joined: Nov, 2012

Posts: 668

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 7:01 PM ET #7

Who says the consensus is to bet low volume?

Different people have different opinions on how to bet. There is no consensus.

It makes sense that one would bet more games on some days and fewer on others. For example, I would generally bet more games on a Wednesday when there are 13 games than on Thursday when there are 3 games. And some days you just see more value than others.

If you are a degen, and you need a certain amount of action every day (I have an element of that in myself), then maybe you want to use the strategy of betting 3 games a day and trying to go 2-1 or something similar. But serious bettors do not really think that way, they just bet when they see value and lay off when they don't.

0

thorpe

All-Star

Joined: Sep, 2002

Posts: 12927

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 7:06 PM ET #8

You can only profit off mistakes the linesmaker makes setting the lines, and he doesn't make 10 mistakes a day.

0

TheGoldenGoose

Legend

Joined: Jan, 2003

Posts: 32162

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 7:07 PM ET #9

Apples and Oranges. Wagering low volume in sports allows you to better manage the winning and losing streaks.

~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~

0

collegeball

Veteran

Joined: Oct, 2012

Posts: 2572

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 7:07 PM ET #10

Pokers a whole different animal. More about math and odds.. not that sports betting not the few guys I know personally that make money sports betting don't bet everyday day not even every week. Poker you can pick your spot better to with position, value, risk/win reward. When you place a bet your locked in that's it. Poker you can feel your pick/hand our as it unfolds risking what you feel is warranted as it plays out..

0

thatsLife

Prospect

Joined: Sep, 2014

Posts: 67

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 7:15 PM ET #11

Quote Originally Posted by RefereeSystem:

This is coming from a ex poker player. I dont know if you guys are aware of this, but some of the best players played 16 tables at once. The theory was that if you are a winning player, you want to maximize volume.

Say I can win $10/hr playing 1 table. If I can play 2 tables, I can win each table at $9/hr due to be having less efficient decision making. The goal is to maximize win rate * tables.

How is this different in sports betting?

Wouldn't the goal be to maximize games * win rate?

This is why I dont understand when people say "just play 3 games a day".

If your first three games can win at 70% and your fourth at 60%, why not play the fourth too?

Theory dictates that you should play every game with a perceived EV of higher than your break even rate (52.38% for -110).

Why isnt the consensus to volume bet?

Because in poker (if you're a decent player), you get your money in with a very high probability of winning, or at least the correct pot odds to make calling a long-term profitable play (+EV). In sports betting you theoretically have a 50/50 chance of winning, yet you are always playing at -EV because of the vig. Think of it this way: we agree to flip a coin and every time you win I give you $100, but every time I win you give me $110. Would you play that game?

Of course you could argue that you can find an edge by doing research and breaking down match ups. Even if you could do that, you would only be able to do so much research per day, so you wouldn't be able to find an edge in every game on the board. And even if you find an edge, how much of advantage does it really give you? 5%? 10%? And then there's the fact that you still need to win at a rate that beats the vig. The vig kills you long-term.

IMO It's better to be very selective and choose games where you think you've found a significant advantage. These situations usually come up when public perception has a big influence and bookmakers need to set a line that will get close to 50/50 action, regardless of the matchup disparities. A good example of that was Ohio st +7 vs Oregon the other night.

0

Quote Originally Posted by RefereeSystem:

This is coming from a ex poker player. I dont know if you guys are aware of this, but some of the best players played 16 tables at once. The theory was that if you are a winning player, you want to maximize volume.

Say I can win $10/hr playing 1 table. If I can play 2 tables, I can win each table at $9/hr due to be having less efficient decision making. The goal is to maximize win rate * tables.

How is this different in sports betting?

Wouldn't the goal be to maximize games * win rate?

This is why I dont understand when people say "just play 3 games a day".

If your first three games can win at 70% and your fourth at 60%, why not play the fourth too?

Theory dictates that you should play every game with a perceived EV of higher than your break even rate (52.38% for -110).

Why isnt the consensus to volume bet?

Because in poker (if you're a decent player), you get your money in with a very high probability of winning, or at least the correct pot odds to make calling a long-term profitable play (+EV). In sports betting you theoretically have a 50/50 chance of winning, yet you are always playing at -EV because of the vig. Think of it this way: we agree to flip a coin and every time you win I give you $100, but every time I win you give me $110. Would you play that game?

Of course you could argue that you can find an edge by doing research and breaking down match ups. Even if you could do that, you would only be able to do so much research per day, so you wouldn't be able to find an edge in every game on the board. And even if you find an edge, how much of advantage does it really give you? 5%? 10%? And then there's the fact that you still need to win at a rate that beats the vig. The vig kills you long-term.

IMO It's better to be very selective and choose games where you think you've found a significant advantage. These situations usually come up when public perception has a big influence and bookmakers need to set a line that will get close to 50/50 action, regardless of the matchup disparities. A good example of that was Ohio st +7 vs Oregon the other night.

naesiy

Veteran

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 2005

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 7:18 PM ET #12

Lol, much better job by everyone else to articulate what I was trying to convey...and in much less words too.

0

Dr-Degenerate

Prospect

Joined: Nov, 2014

Posts: 326

Posted: Jan. 14, 2015 - 8:00 PM ET #13

Quote Originally Posted by thatsLife:

Because in poker (if you're a decent player), you get your money in with a very high probability of winning, or at least the correct pot odds to make calling a long-term profitable play (+EV). In sports betting you theoretically have a 50/50 chance of winning, yet you are always playing at -EV because of the vig. Think of it this way: we agree to flip a coin and every time you win I give you $100, but every time I win you give me $110. Would you play that game?

Of course you could argue that you can find an edge by doing research and breaking down match ups. Even if you could do that, you would only be able to do so much research per day, so you wouldn't be able to find an edge in every game on the board. And even if you find an edge, how much of advantage does it really give you? 5%? 10%? And then there's the fact that you still need to win at a rate that beats the vig. The vig kills you long-term.

IMO It's better to be very selective and choose games where you think you've found a significant advantage. These situations usually come up when public perception has a big influence and bookmakers need to set a line that will get close to 50/50 action, regardless of the matchup disparities. A good example of that was Ohio st +7 vs Oregon the other night.

The last paragraph is all u need to know.

sports betting lines are based on drawing equal action on both sides. often times the line will be skewed to draw action one way or the other, thus creating value.

thats why so many profitable bet systems are based on fading the public. These lines do not happen often, however, so when they do, you POUND THEM and hope for the best (knowing each game is essentially 50/50 but long-term it will be profitable)

0

ALILHELPPLEASE

Prospect

Joined: Oct, 2014

Posts: 285

Posted: Jan. 15, 2015 - 6:12 PM ET #14

Quote Originally Posted by Dr-Degenerate:

The last paragraph is all u need to know.

sports betting lines are based on drawing equal action on both sides. often times the line will be skewed to draw action one way or the other, thus creating value.

thats why so many profitable bet systems are based on fading the public. These lines do not happen often, however, so when they do, you POUND THEM and hope for the best (knowing each game is essentially 50/50 but long-term it will be profitable)

Unless the line becomes so obvious and the powers that be are going to lose sooooo much, that the MIB show up real fast with a suitcase full of cash to make an offer that cannot be refused....

ie. the 4th quarter of the Hawks/Celtics game last nite.

0

RefereeSystem

Prospect

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 180

Posted: Jan. 15, 2015 - 6:17 PM ET #15

Quote Originally Posted by ALILHELPPLEASE:

Unless the line becomes so obvious and the powers that be are going to lose sooooo much, that the MIB show up real fast with a suitcase full of cash to make an offer that cannot be refused....

ie. the 4th quarter of the Hawks/Celtics game last nite.

what happened in 4q hawks game? didnt hawks beat spread by like 7?

0

RefereeSystem

Prospect

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 180

Posted: Jan. 15, 2015 - 6:19 PM ET #16

Quote Originally Posted by thatsLife:

Because in poker (if you're a decent player), you get your money in with a very high probability of winning, or at least the correct pot odds to make calling a long-term profitable play (+EV). In sports betting you theoretically have a 50/50 chance of winning, yet you are always playing at -EV because of the vig. Think of it this way: we agree to flip a coin and every time you win I give you $100, but every time I win you give me $110. Would you play that game?

Of course you could argue that you can find an edge by doing research and breaking down match ups. Even if you could do that, you would only be able to do so much research per day, so you wouldn't be able to find an edge in every game on the board. And even if you find an edge, how much of advantage does it really give you? 5%? 10%? And then there's the fact that you still need to win at a rate that beats the vig. The vig kills you long-term.

IMO It's better to be very selective and choose games where you think you've found a significant advantage. These situations usually come up when public perception has a big influence and bookmakers need to set a line that will get close to 50/50 action, regardless of the matchup disparities. A good example of that was Ohio st +7 vs Oregon the other night.

thanks, so your point is that even the best handicappers will not sustain a profitable win rate over high volume, due to the fact that there is too much variance within individual games, thus losing to the vig?

0

gamblorman

Veteran

Joined: Jan, 2013

Posts: 3893

Posted: Jan. 15, 2015 - 6:24 PM ET #17

These 1 game per day people think they are clever by limiting their losses. But really.. there is no relative difference because 1 game a day you could lose 20 games straight over 20 days. But playing 10 games per day you could lose 20 straight over 2 days.

But these fools that limit their games to 1 or 2 a day dont comprehend this as in their small mind.. they are smarter than us all.

Now in saying this, if you play 10 random unresearched bets a day.. this is not good as you are just guessing. But if you like 10 teams and actually think they have a good chance of winning then go for it.

A lot of my winning days are because late games win.. if i had only played 3 games i'd have been 0-3. But add the later games in and i can go 5-3.

0

ALILHELPPLEASE

Prospect

Joined: Oct, 2014

Posts: 285

Posted: Jan. 16, 2015 - 2:28 AM ET #18

Quote Originally Posted by RefereeSystem:

what happened in 4q hawks game? didnt hawks beat spread by like 7?

I took the Easy over for the Hawks for the second half, I watched the game 3x, it literally looks like the Hawks intentionally tanked the 4th quarter. 51.5 2nd half was the number, they put up 32 3rd quarter, over 90% confidence they cover 20 more 4th. Completely lay down, sick.

0

PayMePls

Prospect

Joined: Sep, 2014

Posts: 44

Posted: Jan. 16, 2015 - 3:23 AM ET #19

Quote Originally Posted by Dr-Degenerate:

The last paragraph is all u need to know.

sports betting lines are based on drawing equal action on both sides. often times the line will be skewed to draw action one way or the other, thus creating value.

thats why so many profitable bet systems are based on fading the public. These lines do not happen often, however, so when they do, you POUND THEM and hope for the best (knowing each game is essentially 50/50 but long-term it will be profitable)

Can you explain what it means to fade the public?

My understanding is the public pounds a certain side of a line and the line moves to convince people to bet the other side. But I'm not entirely sure

0

Killa_Kraken

Prospect

Joined: Dec, 2014

Posts: 480

Posted: Jan. 16, 2015 - 6:59 AM ET #20

I would say in sports betting there is no reason to not go straight to the 400 dollar table rather than 2 x 200 dollar tables but in poker there is a benefit to that, the lower stakes tables attract the lower quality players that you have more chance to win against.

Idk personally but to me that seems the only logical explanation is that in poker players prefer low stakes tables for some reason or another?

0

All Forums | NBA 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

Join our community today

Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.

Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service

Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo

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.

Why is the consensus to bet low volume?

Hot Forum Topics