[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif[/img] TA, I look forward to it.
I guess I must have misunderstood your stance because your "as much as possible on heads and half as much on tails" is exactly the technique being advocated just using 50% of the max as the "bet size" instead of my example's 2% of bankroll. Its the same principle, but just money management considerations on what the "bet portion" of the partial scalp will/should be. I used 2% because my idea is you find these while line shopping to make your 2% play on the one side to begin with, and then when you see that a simultaneous scalp exists then you use this technique and leave the "bet" your were going to make anyway on the side you like. So we both seem to agree on the technique now, its just how to use it that is for each player to decide!
What you are now advocating is that since you can convert a +110 play that you liked for X units into a +122 ( or whatever it is to do 5K/2.5K ) play it is worth it to up your bet to 25X. As I've said that seems a little radical $ MGMT to me but I do agree that putting more than your original X bet on the play is now called for by its BETTER +EV and strength. I was just saying you maximize the odds by leaving the original play size your normal one. I agree with you the sharper angle would be to raise it some ( for me that works because I use a stratified bet size system of $MGMT but many use a flat system for which they don't bet more on some bets than others ). So your point is a good one but for others even doing the 2/1 ratio helps and works!
I hope others are helped by this "civil" debate! I really think this technique is a very STRONG BETTING ANGLE to maximize profits.  |