I NEED HELP, SHOULD I FLAT BE TO WIN A UNIT OR TO BET A UNIT

GottaWinToday · 08-28-2002, 03:52 AM

That's right... I Re-Up'ed at two books and tomorrow will Re-Up at two more. I'm ready for the upcoming Hockey (NHL) season and this weekend for (NASCAR).

Fifty dollars ($50) will be my UNIT.

1. DOG

When I bet a dog I will only bet $50 no matter which way I bet. (To Win or to Bet the UNIT).

2. Favorite

I'm betting Hockey and NASCAR and many of the bets or Moneylines. Some are Pointlines, but connected to a Money line.

During the whole season I will probably bet between 800 and 1000 bets.

Using $50 as my unit should I?

1. Bet $50 on the favorites, just like I bet $50 on the dogs, kinda like the Euro's do on their Soccer.
OR
2. Bet whatever the amount is TO WIN $50. Like -120 would be $60 bet to win $50.....

What's the best way of flat betting. I know someone has figured this out and your opinion would be appreciated.................

GottaWinToday

GottaWinToday · 08-28-2002, 03:54 AM

Wouldn't you know, I can't even spell bet correctly in the thread name................Forgive me......

buckeye · 08-28-2002, 02:32 PM

Gotta,
I don't think anyone can tell you how you should bet. I don't even know how an optimal strategy could be employed but I'd guess that if you use a % system like Kelly it would be HOW MUCH you bet not how much you'd win that is suggested.

The one tidbit I have often posted about is that some European and Aussie bettors have speculated that the Vegas-style odds format on $lines actually lay a trap. They feel it induces players to bet more on a fav, as a unit, than on a dog. Since the rule of thumb is that the dog side is the "sharp" side, this is counter to what they would consider sharp betting. They say if anything you should bet more on live "dogs" than on chalk. That is what the soccer players you refer to are likely on about.

I personally have different UNIT SIZES by sport and adjust the size of bets by what the book's s/w allows and the lines presented. Generally, I set out to bet a unit size, say your $50 on each one unit bet regardless of whether it is a fav or a dog. If the s/w forces me to bet either 48/40 or 60/50 and nothing in between ( like say WSEX ) on a -120 fav then I typically will choose the 60/50 option. But I don't know a technical reason to choose one over another - besides the "sharp theory" I explained above.

I'd be real curious, also, if someone has some technical reasons to bet "to win" vs "to lay". It is a very good question!
GL

The Actuary · 08-28-2002, 03:36 PM

I have yet to read a logistical reason to bet to win bets on chalk.

For one thing it makes recordkeeping a nightmare.

But for the most part why should your bet size be determined by if a team is a fav. or a dog. I'd think there are better ways to come up with bet size then that.

Personally, I'm going with my flat bet + square root of profits management system for this NCAA fb season.

gl gotta win,

TA

PMcK · 08-31-2002, 09:41 PM

GottaWinToday, if you believe that the dogs and the favorites you will bet have equal ‘value’ and your unit size is $50, the best method might be betting TO WIN $50 whether it’s a dog or a favorite, i.e. bet $75 if the line is -150 and bet $33 if the line is +150. AV2 posted once this link to a good comparison between the ‘fixed stake’ and ‘fixed return’ methods: Staking systems for long term betting

Personally I use the ‘American style’ with the favorites and I reduce my bet size when the dog line gets higher. If the unit is $50 I would use it up to +150, $30-$40 from +150 to +200 and so on.

PMcK · 08-31-2002, 09:48 PM

<< I have yet to read a logistical reason to bet to win bets on chalk. TA >>

Here’s a ‘break even’ example:

A. Around 60% favorite is offered at -150, you bet $150 to win $100
B. Around 40% dog is offered at +150, you bet $100 to win $150

IMO a 40% chance of losing $150 is equal risk to a 60% chance of losing $100 and if the fav side has value betting more when the probability is higher is logical. But like Buckeye wrote, the dog side might generally be the sharp side.

GottaWinToday · 09-01-2002, 04:14 AM

PMcK

Thanks for the replies and web site checkout. I like it. More information will follow. Tomorrow I will have to decide how to bet the unit...........

GottaWinToday

nostromo · 09-01-2002, 12:44 PM

<< IMO a 40% chance of losing $150 is equal risk to a 60% chance of losing $100 >>

but then how would you justify betting different amounts on a -105 fav and a +105 dog, and betting the same amounts on +105 and +150 dogs?
Just because they have different signs in front of the number? makes no sense to me.

PMcK · 09-01-2002, 04:27 PM

nostromo, using the same bet size up to around +150 is just my personal choice. I like round figures and if my normal unit is $100 I rather use it than bet $100/1.37=$72.99 on a +137 dog. It also keeps my dog plays always a bit higher than unit/line.

The Actuary · 09-02-2002, 12:12 AM

<< << IMO a 40% chance of losing $150 is equal risk to a 60% chance of losing $100 >> >>

I'm unequivocally impressed.

The ultimate bottomline, forget all the giberish in between steps. Forget the hunch that the dog is the "sharp" side. The fact is it always is and always will be thanks to finite math.

Your first 40% of losing chance, (btw interesting to look at things in the terms of losing), actually 60% chance of winning has a 40% margin for error(right can only be between a 60% and 100% chance of winning), to which you're risking $150. Your second 60% chance of losing which is really a 40% chance of winning has 150% or 60% margin of error.

PMcK · 09-02-2002, 04:17 PM

What’s wrong with my ‘equal risk’ example? I thought it was great when I posted it after midnight on Saturday. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Anyhow, my first post had a condition “if the dogs and the favorites have equal value” and I know that’s a big IF. But WHEN the favorite has value I don’t see anything wrong in using the American style and based on what I’ve read and understood also gradually reducing the bet amount when the dog line increases is a mathemathically sound system. Check “Joe’s” posts/comments regarding the variance in the “Staking systems” link above and Machiavelli’s and Wintermute’s (by AV2) posts here: UNIT BETTING...

The Actuary · 09-02-2002, 07:05 PM

I am speaking now as a guy who has witnessed and bet on both an embarassing and astounding number of horse races.

I remember the thread.

First, I think money mgmt. is an overdrawn topic, one either persistently has the better of it or not, no system will ultimately reverse either.

Second, any bet that is based on a perceived advantage is subjected to some serious problems at the extreme. There is a definitive market efficiency and beyond X% edge, one is only kidding themselves. Naturally, the more possible outcomes the greater the potential distortion.

So if a bet based on perceieved advantage has serious flaws, what else can one base their bet on?

BR size is really the only objective measure left, and that is how I ended up betting the way I do.

GL