Betting the Same Amount on Every Game?

[r2edline]

So my question revolves around the amount of money (or units) you bet on every wager placed.

Obviously I subscribe to proper money management theories, not betting any more than 5% of your bankroll on any given wager.

This was my first full season of NFL wagering. I've been doing lots of research, reading books/articles, and learning tons as I go. I feel like I'm definitely a significantly better capper now than I was when the season started, but there's still one aspect of the game I struggle with: picking my favorite or "best bet" games to put the most units on, and which ones should be small leans for less units.

Earlier in the season, I employed the theory of betting the same amount on every game, thus eliminating my bias or preference for any one game. It worked for me for a while, then I went cold for a few weeks and decided change up my strategy, playing a few games for 5% and a few others for 2-3%. It seemed like I was treading water when I missed on my best bets. Even in a week where I went 6-4 or 7-5 but missed on my top plays & cashed on the smaller leans, I would come out even or down on the week.

So this leaves me in a predicament going forward. What do you think?

1) Bet the same amount every game to eliminate bias and my inability to pick the "best" bets?

2) Continue to vary bet sizes and pick a few "best bets" and small leans every week, trusting my research and capping skills?

For transparency sake, my yearly NFL record is 95-81-8. I'd appreciate any advice you can give me.

[The Peoples Champ]

(12-26-2011 01:16 PM)r2edline Wrote:  So my question revolves around the amount of money (or units) you bet on every wager placed.

Obviously I subscribe to proper money management theories, not betting any more than 5% of your bankroll on any given wager.

This was my first full season of NFL wagering. I've been doing lots of research, reading books/articles, and learning tons as I go. I feel like I'm definitely a significantly better capper now than I was when the season started, but there's still one aspect of the game I struggle with: picking my favorite or "best bet" games to put the most units on, and which ones should be small leans for less units.

Earlier in the season, I employed the theory of betting the same amount on every game, thus eliminating my bias or preference for any one game. It worked for me for a while, then I went cold for a few weeks and decided change up my strategy, playing a few games for 5% and a few others for 2-3%. It seemed like I was treading water when I missed on my best bets. Even in a week where I went 6-4 or 7-5 but missed on my top plays & cashed on the smaller leans, I would come out even or down on the week.

So this leaves me in a predicament going forward. What do you think?

1) Bet the same amount every game to eliminate bias and my inability to pick the "best" bets?

2) Continue to vary bet sizes and pick a few "best bets" and small leans every week, trusting my research and capping skills?

For transparency sake, my yearly NFL record is 95-81-8. I'd appreciate any advice you can give me.

Hey R2,

This is an issue I am currently combating as well. I am very good at staying within my means when it comes to plays, and usually bet the same amount for each game I play. However, on games I really care for, I tend to double my bet amount.

The one problem, though, is what you mentioned. When I am done, or feel I love a game, I will up the amount I bet, which can make a winning day record wise in to a losing one money wise.

My first question in answering your "best bet" question is how many games do you tend to bet at a time? If you are trying to chose which is your best bet out of five, maybe you should try and cut down to two or three games you really like, and just bet the same amount on all of them. However, the line I find most troubling is "trying to pick which game is my 'best bet'." Most of the times, you will know definitely when you have an edge in a game, and I don't believe it's something you can "pick" per se, as that will lead to the predicament you are in now, and to second guessing yourself every time.

I'd recommend option 1, but would like to hear more of what your betting frequency is.

[DOP]

redline,

I would closely track or revisit your bigger bets.. it'd be interesting to see if you have a similar win % and it just "feels" like losing the best bets is weighing you down. as in, how many weeks did you go 5-6 but hit + money because your large bet won?

maybe you are only betting big on teams that you have a personal bias for or against. for anyone that bets different sizes, you should pay very close attention to why you bet more of the games you do and see if you've determined an edge.

also, with 184 plays over the NFL season, I would call you a volume bettor and I personally believe that volume = bet the same.

if you can hit 54% each season, you'll win plenty betting the same amount each time.

[lindetrain]

Mr. Lucky and others might preach otherwise, but I really think it's best that most of us amateurs stick to a flat betting approach. Very few are good enough to differentiate good plays from great plays, and betting their amounts accordingly. I'm sure if you tracked your best bets from your other bets, you'll see that they likely aren't hitting at a higher clip, and you're better off betting the same amount across the board.

[kreatture]

(12-29-2011 07:18 PM)lindetrain Wrote:  Mr. Lucky and others might preach otherwise, but I really think it's best that most of us amateurs stick to a flat betting approach. Very few are good enough to differentiate good plays from great plays, and betting their amounts accordingly. I'm sure if you tracked your best bets from your other bets, you'll see that they likely aren't hitting at a higher clip, and you're better off betting the same amount across the board.

Whoa, whoa whoa.. I think you have my opinion confused. Please don't say I preach Unit Betting without explaining that a bit..

I strongly discourage Unit Betting to Novices.. here's an article David Payne wrote for Covers back in September on the topic of Flat Betting vs. Unit Betting, which includes my views as well as a couple other people.

Flat Betting vs. Unit Betting

My full responses are at the end of the article.

[KepowOb]

I started as a flat bettor, started betting more on games I liked, then after hitting just below .500 on the games I liked, I went back to flat betting. I was getting sick of losing out on better spots, but really I don't have the experience to know what a better spot is.

I was only varying bets by one extra unit, and only in the games I knew best, but I think until you really know what you are doing, flat betting seems like the way to go. And by know what you are doing I mean have a lot of experience and long term success, though I'm sure some people break the mold successfully.

[lindetrain]

(12-31-2011 01:19 AM)Mr Lucky Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 07:18 PM)lindetrain Wrote:  Mr. Lucky and others might preach otherwise, but I really think it's best that most of us amateurs stick to a flat betting approach. Very few are good enough to differentiate good plays from great plays, and betting their amounts accordingly. I'm sure if you tracked your best bets from your other bets, you'll see that they likely aren't hitting at a higher clip, and you're better off betting the same amount across the board.

Whoa, whoa whoa.. I think you have my opinion confused. Please don't say I preach Unit Betting without explaining that a bit..

I strongly discourage Unit Betting to Novices.. here's an article David Payne wrote for Covers back in September on the topic of Flat Betting vs. Unit Betting, which includes my views as well as a couple other people.

Flat Betting vs. Unit Betting

My full responses are at the end of the article.

My apologies...never saw that article before. Always see you talking about how much you prefer unit betting, so I figured your stance was that everyone should be doing it.

[Whiskeytown]

i used to vary my plays between 2-3 levels of confidence... but this year i've really tried to stick with just betting a certain amount on every play and just hope i win more than i lose. i haven't tracked it closely, but it feels like it's the better way to go.

[r2edline]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. I agree with a lot of what has been said

- I don't think I have enough experience yet to vary bet size on my plays. My 3 weekly "best bet" NFL picks hit at 53.5%, just a touch under my overall NFL record which was slightly under 54% for the regular season. So obviously I need learn more to do a better job highlighting the games I really like. Unless the "best bets" can hit at a higher percentage than you're overall record, flat betting sounds like the way to go.

To build on the topic and discussion a bit, here's my next question:

If I am flat betting, should I increase my bet size as my bankroll grows? Let me explain....

This season I started with a set NFL bankroll, and bet the same % of my bankroll on every wager. For the sake of the example and simplicity lets say that % was 5% and the bankroll was $100. (Yes typically 5% is high, but its just for the example purposes). So in Week 1 I was betting $5 per game. My theory was that because I'm betting a percentage of my bankroll, as I win and my bankroll grows, my bet size should adjust accordingly as the same % of said bankroll. So if I had a good couple weeks and my bankroll was up to $120, my bet size would go up from $5 to $6 (still the same 5%).

This worked for a while for me, and I increased my bankroll by 50% through Week 9. Unfortunately I went on a bit of a losing streak for a few weeks and my bankroll came back down to around $120 (20% gain). Obviously, if I had just stuck with my original $5 wagers rather than upping the size, my losing weeks would have been less, but the winning weeks would have been slightly less as well.

Should I be sticking with the same $5 bet size to minimize losing weeks? Is adjusting up/down the bet % based on bankroll size the way to go? Or does it average out to be the same in the end?

[DOP]

so it sounds like to me that, based on a season worth of data, you are looking at somewhere at 55%.

My #1 problem with increasing your bet size after each week is this... if you go 3-0 in the 1st week, you will be increasing you're bet size just as regression is likely to kick in. you could go 1-2, be 4-2 overall but have won less money.

[mount187]

Some people increase/decrease their bet sizes with regularity, and it works for them (I believe World Wide Wob does). Here is the problem that you have to be prepared for:

Start with a $2,000 bankroll, where 5% is $100.

Period 1: 3-1 (Bet: 100.00, Period: +190.00, Bankroll: 2,190.00)
Period 2: 1-2 (Bet: 109.50, Period: -131.40, Bankroll: 2,058.60)
Period 3: 1-1 (Bet: 102.93, Period: -10.30, Bankroll: 2,048.30)
Period 4: 2-1 (Bet: 102.42, Period: +92.18, Bankroll: 2,140.48)
Period 5: 4-0 (Bet: 107.02, Period: +428.08, Bankroll: 2,568.56)
Period 6: 1-3 (Bet: 128.43, Period: -295.39, Bankroll: 2,273.17)
Period 7: 0-4 (Bet: 113.66, Period: -500.10, Bankroll: 1,773.07)
Period 8: 3-1 (Bet: 88.65, Period: +168.43, Bankroll: 1,941.50)
Period 9: 1-1 (Bet: 97.08, Period: -9.70, Bankroll: 1,931.80)
Period 10: 3-1 (Bet: 96.59, Period: +183.52, Bankroll: 2115.32)

19 W's and 15 L's is a win % of 55.9%; pretty damn good. Profits are +$115.32 (still making money, I'd take that). However, if you had flat bet $100 a game, your profit would have been $250.00.

Now obviously you can tweak the numbers to look better or worse, depending on how you're trying to shape the numbers, but I tried to be fair about my distribution while still proving the same point. If you go on a cold streak directly after a hot streak, you're going to be in the red. I'm not saying you shouldn't change your bet amounts, do what feel comfortable, but just know the pitfalls of what could happen managing your money that way. Whatever you decide to do, good luck!

[r2edline]

Guys this is all great stuff, thanks. Both of what you just described was exactly what I went through this season. I was hot through Week 9, up 50% of my bankroll, then had a few losing weeks and I was back hovering around 15-20% gain.

If it was me, and I had to go back and do the full NFL season again, I'd learn to the side of caution and flat bet for the full year. I'd likely come out ahead of where I am now.

But I believe as skill level and confidence grows, there is likely some room for upping bet sizes, just need to figure out what that is for myself. Maybe it's not an in-season thing? Have to do it at the beginning or end of the year, something like that.

Thanks again for all the feedback.

[KepowOb]

If you are going to increase you're bet size with your bankroll, you'll have to be willing to keep your new bet size even once you're BR takes a hit if you don't want what was described above to happen, and that can really wreck havoc.

Instead of upping your bet size regularly (unless you have the stomach for betting larger amount of your BR when you go on a losing streak), you could set thresholds for yourself, where each new level has a buffer zone around it. Let me explain...

Say you start with a BR of $1000. You bet 5%, or $50 a shot. You're next threshold could be $2000, with a buffer of $500. So let's say you reach $2000 and up your bet size to $100, then loose 4 straight bets. You're BR is now at $1600, but as long as it's above $1500, you're going to continue betting $100 a shot. This doesn't give you a ton of leeway (5 bets before dropping back down), but it's better than always changing your bet size.

If you feel more comfortable with a larger buffer zone, you could be a bit more prudent with how you raise you're bet size. Say once you reach the $2000 level you start betting $75 until you hit $2250 or even $2500, and then you move up again, but you don't drop your bet size back down until you hit $1500 like you originally planned.

This can be played with a lot (from the different thresholds, buffer zones and bet size %s, but I think however you do it, as long as you stick to your plan it'll help you from always having the adjust your BR, and getting burned by having a winning record with a losing ROI).

[mount187]

One thing I was constantly reminded of what I first started learning here was that betting is more art than science. It's not something you can learn a formula for, and just do, you have to put the time in and find what works for you. Unfortunately, this learning curve comes with a financial investment. There is no single strategy that works for everyone. So Money and Philly Godfather are both very good at what they do, and they both use VERY different money management styles, so keep asking questions (and getting different POVs), and using those replies to help shape what's most comfortable for you.

As a side note, tracking your bets is a good way to become more comfortable knowing when to increase / decrease your bets. If you know you are really good at picking away favorites in the NFL, and you find a few games that meet that criteria on the weekend, you may be them for more money. If you find that you're still making money with NCAAF home dogs, but at a lower rate than your NFL picks, you may bet less on those NCAAF games. That will help reduce volatility in your bankroll. Instead of watching your money bounce around on 53.5% winners, and constantly having to re-asses how thin your money is getting, you can reduce the amount on those games, and see less variance.

Again, keep asking questions. Things that you think are insignificant could trigger ideas that you hadn't thought of before.

[Insider]

Flat betting is mathematically wrong. Professionals use Kelly Criterion.

[mount187]

(02-09-2012 04:34 PM)Insider Wrote:  Flat betting is mathematically wrong. Professionals use Kelly Criterion.

To use Kelly Criterion you have to know what your edge is for the bet you're making. My guess is that if someone is trying to figure out their bet amounts flat vs weighted, that they're not too the point where they can calculate their edge in a game yet.

[@So_Money_Sports]

There is no right answer here in my opinion, it all depends on what kind of bettor you are. I am very selective and invest in a small amount of plays as opposed to spreading my risk over several plays. For someone who loves to fire away, it makes sense to vary wager sizes. They may make a max play on games they like the most and limit their bet size for the ones they don't like as much. For me, only the plays I like the most are "wager-worthy".

With that said, there are times when I will step out because a situation warrants it. I've posted one of those only once, the SF/Pitt MNF game. I usually have 1 every couple of months, but I'm always reluctant to post when I'm really stepping out on a play. The reason for this is that it is inevitable that someone will bet more than they can afford to lose on one of those plays. I'll always post the plays but prefer to let people know privately if its larger than usual.

Aaron made a good point about PhillyGodFather, but while our styles seem completely opposite, we share the same fundamental betting philosophy in terms of what qualifies as a possible play. The only difference is that I will pass altogether on games that I don't like as much. Both styles work and just like most things in this game, there isn't a right answer. If you are completely honest with yourself, you'll find your niche.

[yatdel]

I think that people do this just so they could get back the same amount if ever they lose and this would appear wise to some but that defeats the main purpose of betting. You are taking a chance and you are not to progress if you are going to do the same thing over and over. And doing that means that you are not taking the risk that is needed to be great at it because you do not take the study anymore but do it routinely anyway.