I have read that one should not invest more than 2% of the bank on any one event.

What do you guys think?

Benny

well if your bank is $100 then $2 would be ur max. bet. That makes no sense.

what is ur bank balance?

$1000.00

Benny

Unless you are betting with an advantage, your optimal bet size is actually 0%

2% is ok I guess. If you have an advantage, you are probally not overbetting and if you don't have an advantage, at least you are gambling for low stakes. This figure is used because it's conservative. Less likely to be overbetting, and you can withstand an ugly run before you lose a large chunk of your money.

How serious are you about sportsbetting?

Some guy claimed to be selecting 95% winners.
I suggested he should be betting at least 20% of his bank.

You need to work out your likely longest run of outs and bet accordingly.

"Some guy claimed to be selecting 95% winners.
I suggested he should be betting at least 20% of his bank."

Heh. 95% winners isn't hard. Just make any bet where you can get a price of $1.01 or lower

"You need to work out your likely longest run of outs and bet accordingly."

You can have an idea of what a bad streak would be, but the thing is the more bets you make, the larger the streaks will be. If someone is just betting for entertainment, best to bet as little as possible. That way their fun lasts longer.

If you are serious, you need to be pretty confident in your abilities to use units larger than 2% (ie you'll want a good sample size and experience and then use maths to figure it out).

Hi Mr J

Thanks for taking the time to comment on my response to Benny who seemed like a novice.

So overall in three years you have done pretty well (+10, +10, -8) = +12 but you have lost money and are back to square one."

This would be because of poor bankroll management.

I agree, my point is then when we are starting out, we usually start with a small bankroll, by necessity. As we progress in confidence, we start to have bigger stakes and it only takes a small loss on bigger stakes to wipe out years of wins on smaller stakes. For most people starting out on small bankrolls this is a reality.

"One thing I have noticed is that when I get ahead about 12-15% on NFL and MLB, bad things happen."

Sorry but this is silly.
I know that you suscribe to some selection providers. They do not win every week. If they have a steady ascending profit path throughout a season then indeed my cutting my stakes would be silly. However this is not my experience. I have been with my NFL service for 3 years and they have produced between 5% - 8% profit each year. Last year for example they had the following results

week1 5w -3l = 62.5%
week2 4w -3l = total 9w -6l = 66%
week3 5w- 0l = total 14w - 6l =70%

at this point I decided they were way over the long term average and cut the bet to half
week4 4w-5l
week5 5w -5l
week6 4w -7l = total 27w - 23 l = 54%

now they are back to their long term average, so my bet size went back to normal

week7 4w -1l
week8 3w -2l
so when they had a bad run from weeks 4-6 (13-17) i had less money on.

If you look at the graphs of the MLB product offered by this web site you will see a similiar thing. For example in their 2004 season they made 46 units. I don't know how many bets they had but in the first 2 months they made 39 of those units and then dropped off in June and July before doing well in August.

I believe bankroll management should incorporate adjustments for long term trends and it is my experience that all selection methods go through peaks and dips in a season. I think if you examine all your betting from one service in a season you will find the same thing. However, if your service can provide over 60% winners every week, please let us know who they are.

"I bet short price favs"

Very few of these are good bets.

I agree, it is picking the good ones that is the trick. It does take a lot of work to seperate the wheat from the chaff. In any one tournament I might only find 2 value plays. My research does highlight young performers before the general public does. J Johannson provided most of my profit last year. P Luczak on clay this year is another example.

Progressions are a bad idea full stop. A progression decides the size of a bet based on past results and not the size of advantage, which means at some point the progression will call for a bet size that will be overbetting.

Couldn't agree more - hope Benny gets the messge.

-----

Thanks for taking the time to reply. It is discussions like this that will make us better punters.

Karla

"I bet short price favs"

Fair enough actually. I was assuming you were just betting on player priced $1.04 or something. The tennis package has plenty of bets on big favourities, but rarely below $1.10

"I agree, my point is then when we are starting out, we usually start with a small bankroll, by necessity. As we progress in confidence, we start to have bigger stakes and it only takes a small loss on bigger stakes to wipe out years of wins on smaller stakes. For most people starting out on small bankrolls this is a reality."

If you had resized you unit size reguarly, this wouldn't happen (unless you were overbetting). Most punters do overbet though, it's really only the serious ones (looking to profit) who take risk of ruin seriously. If someone is betting for fun, they probally expect to lose so risk isn't a problem

"I know that you suscribe to some selection providers. They do not win every week."

Yes I do. No they don't (unfortunately). By 5-8% profit each year, I assume you mean profit on turnover (return on investment). If you mean profit on turnover, then I can understand why you cut back if he runs hot. You expect that there will be a 'correction', and you want to minimize your losses. It doesn't work like that though. All bets are independent of each other, and are random. Since every bet has a perceived edge, you actually are missing out on money as there will be times there isn't a correction. Your way isn't optimal, but if you are happy locking in your profits then that's fine.

"If you look at the graphs of the MLB product offered by this web site you will see a similiar thing. For example in their 2004 season they made 46 units. I don't know how many bets they had but in the first 2 months they made 39 of those units and then dropped off in June and July before doing well in August."

Sure. However, You CAN'T predict how they will do going forward though. You CAN'T predict when the capper will make his profits. Trying to play trends will cost you money longterm.

"I believe bankroll management should incorporate adjustments for long term trends and it is my experience that all selection methods go through peaks and dips in a season"

Sure there are peaks and dips, but you can't predict when they will happen. That is my point. If you have a 60% capper and he goes 75-25, that doesn't mean he's 'due' for a bad run to knock him back to 60%. The most likely result is that he will hit 60% going forward, so by lowering your bet size or not betting at all, you are missing out on profits.

"However, if your service can provide over 60% winners every week, please let us know who they are."

I can't comment on that. If I had access to 60% winners, why would I share them

Thanks again for replying.

1. On short price - my cutoff is 1.10 on tennis.

2. My stats are based on Profit on turnover. This is an interesting discussion. Obviously your experience is different from mine. This is good.

Sure there are peaks and dips, but you can't predict when they will happen. That is my point. If you have a 60% capper and he goes 75-25, that doesn't mean he's 'due' for a bad run to knock him back to 60%. The most likely result is that he will hit 60% going forward, so by lowering your bet size or not betting at all, you are missing out on profits


I see your point, it just doesn't fit my experience. My experience is that the capper hits 40-45% to bring his overall seasonal average back to the 56% POT after the seasonal average gets above 70% POT. I agree, on short term fluctionations, you never know.

3. I noticed that you bet on hockey. I am Canadian and have never been successful on hockey, but still love the game. I realize this season was wiped out. How did your hockey capper go in 2003?


4. Sounds like the packages offered here are good. Any recommendations.

I am trying to make a living out of sports betting, so I value your opinion even if we disagree.

karla

"My experience is that the capper hits 40-45% to bring his overall seasonal average back to the 56% POT after the seasonal average gets above 70% POT"

I understand your logic. Often a capper will experience a 'correction', but this is random and not maths trying to bring the figures back to hit longterm strikerate.

"3. I noticed that you bet on hockey. I am Canadian and have never been successful on hockey, but still love the game. I realize this season was wiped out. How did your hockey capper go in 2003?"

Used to. Had this capper recommended to me who profited 175 units over the 2 previous seasons, something like 57.5%. I jumped on the bandwagon and watched him drop 20 units like *that*. I cut my losses and stopped betting the picks which continued to drop another 25 units.

"Sounds like the packages offered here are good. Any recommendations."

Yep. I'm a member of the tennis and mlb and they're great. Tennis is 13% over a few thousand bets, and mlb is 5-6% over 2800 bets. Haven't tried any of the others.

"I am trying to make a living out of sports betting, so I value your opinion even if we disagree."

Discussion is a great way to learn/develop sportsbetting skills. Keep it up.