Unit sizes@ Van+luckyguy+others

Yep, like the stock market, you have to have money to make money and assume less risk.

You have a good point.
By means of comparing records with others then one unit as a universal standard is logical for comparing.
Or stated another way, if we wanted to tail another bettor who says his profit record is for example +36 units, but owns a posted win-loss record of 60-50 then as this would apply universally to others betting their usual one unit on his picks, 60 winners for +60 units and 50 losers for -55 units, for a net gain of just +5 units,  not +36

I have witnessed on other forums where a guy loses and loses and loses and loses, WINS once, then loses and loses and loses and loses again, before trumpeting his "SuperWOW 10 UNIT lock" which gets a lucky backdoor cover on a final minute 99 yard fumble return and then boasts he is a winner despite a losing 2-8 record!

Valuable info for someone out of the loop like myself.

So you are saying... Because YOU say so, that staking is less important than an overall record? What?

Please.

@zircon

Understand on some level what your point is here..... let me ask, the flip side to this would be someone who ONLY posts their records without unit size BUT is also laying $2.50 - $3 juice on all their plays. 

What record % is required to sustain a profit when you lay an average of $2.50 on each play ??   The "record" may look good at 70% vs. someone at 55% but, take a look at what this would look like over 100 plays for example:

55 - 45 @ -110 
+55u / -49.5u = net +5.5u @ 55%

70 - 30 @ -220
+70u / -66u = net +4u @ 70%

So your 70% bettor is a bigger loser than your 55%.   This is why UNIT size is so important.  There is NO RULE that says you cannot bet within a range of outcomes.  It is called risk management, I know the odds of my 1u play hitting are less than the odds of my 3u play hitting.  This is money management and the reason you hear the suggestion of 1% / 1u play per bankroll is because PEOPLE CANT MANAGE THEIR MONEY.  When you are just getting started in this world then yes, that is a great suggestion.  As time goes on and you begin to be able to identify plays where you have an advantage over your average degenerate bet this is where the unit size variation comes into play.  If you know there is a 90% chance of a play  hitting vs. a 50/50 shot why would you not leverage those odds into a bigger payout???  There is no "one size fits all" betting strategy.  To suggest otherwise is a very negative EV play... 

^^^^^^^

You cant win around here.  People complain no matter what.

did a 6 year old write this?

@kcblitzkrieg

 Your point is valid.  But you really would not see that as much in NFL as you would in sports like MLB.  The lines are pretty consistent in NFL around -105 to -120.  Whereas, in MLB they can be very different.  But even in NFL if you take an underdog on the ML that would skew it as well.

That is why it is best to post both the record and the +/- units.  

I do not think there is an obligation to do it any particular way.  But if someone is looking to see who might be good or hot, it would help.  That way you can see if someone is consistent or if he is really on fire with his larger unit plays, etc.

I think his overall point was that some guys might be hitting at a low winning percentage, say 53% but their total units seem to reflect a better record than they have.  Now he would have to do a lot of research to see if the guy is just better at his higher unit plays or did he 'sneak' a 10 unit bomb or two in there and hit those.  

In NFL percentage is what it is by and large because the lines are fairly consistent.  But in MLB, like you say, the winning percentage is not a true indicator if the guy is playing all huge ML favorites when he loses.

The thing to me is, the guys he mentioned I do not think do that.  They consistently post what is their 'standard unit' range plays.  Yes, it would help to know if some folks are hitting their 1-unit plays at a lower rate then their 5-unit plays.  

If you are going to 'blindly follow' someone it does not matter -- adjust your unit sizes as they do.  But if you are looking at several guys to decide on a play and how to play it -- it helps to know if the guy is hitting his higher units at a higher rate.  You see some guys that post and they do post their winning percentages on different unit-size plays.  Amazingly enough, they are some that hit their larger unit sizes at a lower clip than their smaller unit plays.  

But if someone is posting 2-4 unit-sized plays or 10-30 unit-sized plays it should not matter that much.  It is when someone is posting 10 unit plays and is losing -- then all of a sudden has a 100 unit bomb play or two and hits them.  That would not be consistent or fair to people trying to use that info.

But nearly all handicappers will have a stronger play on some bets than others.

I took that to be his overall point.

Again, I do not think the guys he mentioned are being deceptive like that.

I realize that a lot of people like the action and do not have the time (or wherewithal, or knowledge) to do their own research.  So, they rely on Covers to help them.  It should be frustrating when someone is up a few units and now they have a 50-unit play.  You would really have to wonder is that a good play.

The easiest thing is to post both the percentage and the units up and sizing.  I see some folks break it all the way down to average line played and ROI, etc.

Again, I do not think this is necessary or obligatory.  If you are on here enough -- you kind of should have an idea of who is who in each sport, etc.

If you do not like the way someone posts their record, simply do not follow them at all.

But I do understand his point and/or frustration.

JC, I didn't mention any personal 4-unit wagers.  I agree with you, that would be very aggressive and should be very rare.

LOL!  I am slim; I certainly don't needs Sansabelt slacks.

@football79

 Um when did 300 dollars become 3% lmfao of 1000. You literally say take 1000 for your sports betting roll bet 300 or 3%. Looks like your the ******

Please just stop talking. You can't even put vanzack in the same universe as you. He's a pro and your toilet paper at betting

Responding to KCBlitzkreig:

Good points, KCB.  If a Covers bettor only posts straight bets of any constant unit size (1, 2 or even a 50 Billion Star Mega-Lollapalooza), there would be no need to keep track of units.  I hit that Week 1 alternate-line totals parlay at over 6-1 for 0.5 units, so naturally I kept track of the net units which helped cover succeeding losses.  Anybody who sometimes places multiple-unit wagers, parlays or money line bets should definitely keep track of net units.

In the interest of full disclosure, at the end of the season it would be revealing to also post your reward-to-risk ratio.  Netting +5.4 units needs to be judged against units wagered.

@Raiders22

 Well said

Post 27 clearly referring to standard -110 lines

Basically OP wants 1 as a common denominator for units as an industry standard

A perfect example is van using 1-4 units....to fit into the OP narrative it would be 1= 1/4 unit...2=1/2 unit 3= 3/4 unit and a 4 unit would be 1 full unit

Stake amount matters... but it only matters in relation to other stakes at that amount at a consistent/similar line

@kcblitzkrieg

 Thats exactly what he is saying....a flat bettor on -110 lines would be up 5.5 units...not a higher number based on whatever stake amount it decided...

The stake amount is only relevant to other stakes at that amount and at similar odds 

Love the topic and the OP actually, wish he was sober so he didn't have any kind of excuse.

I'm a 1-unit bettor. My unit is my unit. In the NFL it's always lines of -105 to -115, sometimes +100 to -120 at the margins, whatever's the best number. In soccer it's only underdogs to a favorite of 2.00 or under, so anything from 3.30 to 6.00 or 7.00. Consequently I'm trying to hit better than 53% in the NFL but around 30% in soccer. In the World Cup I was 4-11 for +0.85 unit.

I also understand the nature of the OP.  Consistency.  It is hard to compare posters at Covers because of inconsistency.

But I think this thread has pointed out one inconsistency - the unit sizes - when there is actually a more important inconsistency - and that is line / price selection.

I will just talk for myself.... I post accurate lines at the time I post.  Not the lines I actually get, not the best line of the week - and not a line that costs more money (like -120).  I normalize every line I post down to -105 juice - that everyone can get.  This is why I am the only poster here at Covers that posts lines like "-3.25 and +2.75".  It is to get as accurate of a line that I can at -105 juice.

To me, this is way more important for comparison than staking.  I have counted games I have posted as a loss when others post it as a win - simply because they posted a +3.5 (even though it is -125) and I posted a +2.75 (because it was -105).

The real answer here is that Covers standardizes this for us.  If Covers had a function of these forums where anyone who posts a pick can only select that game with the current Covers line and price, and then you get that line and price and your record is kept by Covers.  But we know that isnt happening anytime soon.

I can honestly say that I go a very long way to ensure transparency and honesty.  I dont think anyone here does what I do and goes as far as I do to give transparency:
* Post current available line
* Post all lines at available -105 juice
* Post all games together, at the same day and time (roughly) every week
* Update and keep accurate running records for the whole season

If everyone did the above - then a lot of the hurdles would be overcome with consistency and comparability.  But you cannot disregard staking.  It is as important - if not more important - than the actual pick itself.

To be specific the amount of units a person claims to be up is only relevant to their average bet size. Or in regards to stakes at that same amount in a similar odds range (assume standard -110 ie. 4-2 on 1 unit plays but 1-3 on 3 unit plays...overall you are 5-4 but down)

To be up 'x' amount of units is technically just 'x' amount of bets... as a losing streak on average unit size to be back to 0 is truly how many units you are up

For easy numbers, unit= $1. All +100 odds wagers

If bettor A is up 20 units (20$) and bets range from units 1-5 (1-5$). Through 40 bets he/she averages a play size of 4 units. Said bettor is a 5 bet losing streak from being back to 0$. 20/4=5. The bettor is up 20 units but is also risking 4 units per bet on average. In essence the bettor is up 5 bets or 5 units....of course if they lose 2,3, or 4 in a row they could alter their bet size lower than the 4 average to have more wiggle room before returning to 0.

Bettor A has more potential upside if they go on a 5-0 run on 4 unit plays. But they are also just an 0-5 run on 4 unit plays to be back to 0$ ...and all that above is with using +100 odds for easy math, you would be paying juice on majority of those 40 wagers

If bettor B is up 10 units ($10) through 40 bets and always bets 1 unit($1)  he/she is up 10 bets before returning to 0 or 10 units

As you can see bettor B numbers are smaller and less appealing to the eye...but bettor B is in fact the far more successful bettor by quite a margin and has much more wiggle room to 0 than bettor A...bettor A has a nicer looking number but bettor A is far closer to 0 than bettor B

This is the art of manipulating numbers. This industry has it mastered as it is a vital part of how they advertise....

Bettor A looks way sexier than bettor B...this is advertising 101 and exactly how they want it

"holy cow bettor A up 20 units....bettor B only up 10...I think ill subscribe to bettor A"

This is all a numbers game.

Absolutely correct. This is the concept of ROI. It is the only thing that really matters.

I'm not going to guess if you are making an implication or not regarding me personally. All I can say is I have zero interest in misdirection. What would I have to gain? I have been doing this for free for twenty years. I'm either the worst tout wannabe on earth, or I have an unusually long business plan.

@vanzack

Thanks for your time and effort.  I appreciate it even though I seldom tail or fade as do many others who never express their gratitude.

Wow!  Congratulations.  It must be very satisfying to go only 4-11 and still turn a profit.

@DogbiteWilliams

Thanks, it is, though it would be even more satisfying to go 5-10 and be +5. France's late goal nixed by VAR, dayam.

A book I've written about my theories has attracted an agent, waiting to see if the agent can attract a publisher.

@vanzack

 No nothing regarding you personally, it is industry standard. You can see it in the variance of this forum alone. The OP just happened to see the variance in yours, wizers and luckys and brought it up.

The OP brings up a great topic on how the industry has worked number manipulation and used it to their advantage as an advertising ploy.  Very clever on their behalf. 

@dubz4dummyz

   Some of you seem to be missing the point being alluded to. Of course line shopping is important! Of course betting strategies (identifying value!) are important! Of course money management is important! These are accepted truths in sports gambling. Nobody. is disputing that.

But the question here becomes "WHO is GOOD (or better) at picking MORE winners than losers to yield profits?"

Illustration:
Forum member A dutifully posts and tabulates his wins and losses, weekly. He stakes one standard unit on every game. Spreads only; all favs; all -110 juice. He finishes 60-50 +5.0 net units

Forum member B finishes his season also 60-50 but for a higher +7.5 net units!
Forum member C claims he finishes his season up +25.0 units!!
Forum member D trumps everyone by claiming +54.5 units profit!!!

Can you honestly assess "WHO is GOOD (or better) at picking MORE winnners than losers to yield profits?" from the example above?! Are they all more skilled than member A simply because they are alleging higher net units?!

In my fictitious example, unbeknownst to you but knownst to me, is the only real capper is Forum member A: 60-50 +5.0 units. The other three weren't even betting the games, just tailing the first guy! They all have identical 60-50 Win/Loss records!

Forum member B "claimed" he was getting all his lines with just -105 juice (thus a higher +7.5 units on paper even though he never bet a single game!)

Forum member C simply "claimed" all his picks were for 5 units each

Forum member D also tailed the first guy, but for that last pick of the season he "claimed" it was his "SuperWOW 50 UNIT GoT!" so he gets to "claim" +54.5 units which is meant to impress the Forum!

They all tailed the first guy!! Same 60-50 for every one of them!
Does posting higher numbers of units won suggest superior capping, and therefore worthy of forum adulation?!

Hopefully we should all be able to see this folly.

To be clear, I am not talking about "Betting strategies" or "Money Management or ROI (though all are very important). Nor am I suggesting how you should bet; nor am I referring to anyone on this forum in any way. If you think that, you are 100% wrong. My point is the sheer "folly" of believing that a high number of winning net units "claimed" on any sports forum, automatically translates to a superior level of capping skill compared with others. The op also illustrated this with a +256 unit winner. LOL.

That said, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and Happy Kwanzaa!

@zircon

 Exactly. Well said. And the main problem is I highly doubt most of the forum fully understands the number manipulation going on....most of them don't based on their responses in threads....

It is interesting how the topic was attempted to be deflected away from the OP original topic...not sure if some posters didn't fully grasp the concept we presented or just realized they are doing what we are discussing....

Sadly it is now industry standard and too late to do much about it.

The average Joe really has to be careful... and chances are they don't fully understand the "pimped" numbers the industry has created 

This forum has a ton of bettor A from my example...be careful...or at least understand the numbers are not what meets the eye, there is an element of deception that has been included knowingly or unknowingly.

Its the most interesting topic in the industry IMO...

@zircon

 In your example forum member c would be up more than 25 units on a 60-50 record. He would be up around 45 units after juice.....of course betting 5 units per wager he is only actually up 9 bets or 9 units...he has manipulated the numbers to appear a superior capper to the eye....the reality is its the same picks he just betting a larger amount

Forum member A would also be up 9 units based in 60-50 -110 lines...assuming 1 unit risked not to win 1 unit

Forum member a and c both have the same amount of bets to be back to 0$ assuming they maintain bet sizes if 1 and 5

That's why I try to pound home the word ratio to everyone....its all ratios....ratio....ratio...ratio....