You do understand the scenario, right TA. If my unit for approx. a 10K bankroll is 2% that's 200. So I'd bet $200 to win $220 at +110.
But instead I bet 5000 @ +110 and 5250 @ -105.
Now I lose ZERO if tails hits and win 250 if my "sharp side" heads hits. I win 30 more and have risked ZERO or 200 less than above.
I understand your advocacy is to bet 5000 @ +110 but that is bad $ management ( 50% on one play ) even if that's a decent +EV play. Even if you say bet something between 200 and 5000, I advocate better $ management discipline but if you can have zero risk then why not?
Plus you could still bet 200 ( effectively ) by actually betting 5200 @ +110 and 5250 @ -105. Thus for the SAME 200 risk you now would win 470, thus having CONVERTED a +110 line to a +235 one. Isn't that the better play than +110 only at the second book? Any amount between 200 and 5000 that you might propose will still be bettered by betting it at 5K and the other side up to your deesired risk to increase your effective odds.
This is more powerful than you give it credit for, IMO, plus a 5 cent scalp is modest!
Just saw Mach's post and I agree it may not be realistic to bet your whole bankroll anyway, but you can bet less. Plus I have a different bankroll for "betting" than for scalping or middling and bet many more units on these partial scalps out of that roll not my betting one. Just need to keep that roll available and do this at outs w/o w/d fees.
JMHO  |