In the game of sports, winners are always categorized based on the team with the highest performance. For example, in English football (EPL), Arsenal Football Club and Manchester City are seen to have good tactical skills, making them stand out as winners in each of their games. Therefore, a gambler establishes trust in those teams because they have won almost 88% of their games. The gambler stakes high on each of these teams because they believe that the money invested in each team will bring out good returns.
The same thing goes for when a gambler wants to stake on players. They must know the performance of that particular player before any trust can be established. For example, Harland of Manchester City is known for goal-scoring, and Saka of Arsenal is known for good finishing. This is how trust in gambling is established, although this trust sometimes fails.
My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?
I don't think you have to go with 100%, you can simply calculate the odds or get the odds from betting sites. That includes many factors, and even the best team can always lose, so there's never going to be 100%, ever.
It seems like a more simplistic view, which can of course simplify your bets, but in the end it won't produce a better end result.
No need to do it I think, as we have massive computing capabilities these days.