Topic: Optimal bet size (and the advantage of small bets). (Read 566 times)

I think that in reality everything works a little differently (although of course there are always exceptions), I will assume that the average player makes about two bets per week (as I understand it, we are discussing bets), this will be approximately 10 bets per month, in a year this will be about 100 bets, I think this is the average for the majority of players.

As for the bankroll, the same average player is unlikely to deposit more than $100, and in this case no one will divide 1/1000 with such a budget, at best it will be 1/100 (that is, 1%) and in practice, players can bet 10% or even more if they are confident in the bet, therefore the risks are higher, the adrenaline is stronger and the loss has a greater impact on the bank. Players risk more than 1% per bet because in the end it becomes boring to play for $1, you will not be able to win anything significant and you will hardly worry about such a bet, which means you will not get the emotions that you will get if you bet 10% or more.

In the strategy of small bets, the key element is the small bets themselves, approximately equal to 1/1000 of the bankroll. Of course, at the same time:
1. We have to place bets with a coefficient of about x2.
2. We must have some kind of strategy that allows most of these bets to have an advantage over the bookmaker's line.
3. This advantage in a stable form is likely to manifest itself over a very long distance (about 1000 bets)
   Of course, no one forces you to make 1,000 bets per year. Perhaps you will do so much in just a few years. It's just about not losing your money, despite the fact that you have a good strategy overall, but you don't take into account the possibility of adverse variance.
     If you do not have a reliable strategy that would allow you to have an advantage over the bookmaker's line with a coefficient of 2, then, of course, small bets will not bring you much benefit. But in any case, they won't let you lose your bankroll too quickly.

Lots of people gamble in hopes of bagging hundreds of dollars but you are not going to get that by playing again and again. I have tried playing again and again and all it landed me was a loss of money. Mind you that I had already earned some profit at that point but again I lost it when I kept playing. So keep this in mind when you want to do more. If you want to keep gambling but can’t help but lose then I would suggest waiting for a bit. Gain your mojo back and strike

As far as I understand, we are talking about the fact that the general betting strategy has an efficiency of 60 percent.

That is, for simplicity, we assume that both outcomes have equal probability. If we assume that the odds are different, then the number of bets should change. For example, if we bet on an event whose probability is twice as high, then the number of bets is halved. And if we bet on an event whose probability is twice as low, then the number of bets doubles.

After all, the probability of winning is halved and in order not to drain the entire bankroll, the number of bets will have to be increased.

This is also a simplified scheme, since it does not take into account, for example, the bookmaker's reward.

How difficult is it to win 6 bets out of 10 with odds of 2 - this is, of course, a separate question.

I will be writing about sports betting here, not casino games. Let's discuss what the optimal bet size is depending on the profit expectation. Most likely, different strategies allow different percentage values ​​of a single bet as a percentage of the entire bankroll. You often see the opinion that the size of a single bet should be from 1 to 5%. This is a logical opinion, but I came across an interesting argument that quite logically justifies lower bets.

To put it briefly, the point of very small bets is to not lose the bankroll in the worst-case scenario. Let's say the effectiveness of your strategy is 60%. That is, for every 100 bets you will have 60 winning and 40 losing ones.
1. It is logical that these bets will be fixed in size.
2. At the very beginning, the size of this fixed bet will be approximately 1/1000 of the bankroll.
3. 60 winning bets should significantly exceed the size of 40 losing ones.
The thing is that average values ​​are characterized by dispersion. And if on average you have 60 winning bets out of 100, this does not mean that within each hundred bets you will have exactly 60 winning ones. It may well be that at the very beginning the ratio will be different. And you will come to the ratio of 60/40 only with a very large number of played bets (about 1000).
Here is what the author writes about this in the book "How to beat the line of the handicap"

Exactly, people are overlooking this. Practically, if we follow this strategy, then it will take tons of months. Moreover, finding good games with sufficient odds to match the requirements is very hard. And in order to try this above method mentioned by the OP, you need a big bank roll. With a small bank roll, let's say 100 dollars, after a few months, hardly you will be able to make 105 dollars max. Profit is always equivalent to the risk taken in the bets, so the less risk you take, the more time it will take to make good profits.

The problem with your betting method is the time.
Making 1000 sports bets isn't easy at all.

You're confusing two things, he probability of you winning and the amount you might win, one is variable the other one is fixed, with a gambler fallacy in the example in which you are destined to actually win after 1000 picks because of randomness, but in betting the problem is that you might now have actually those chances.
A 1.5 bet doesn't mean that out of x you're going to end x out of y, in sorts, these never happen, you might be more lucky or less lucky, and in other casino-based games it's useless since there the RTP will be your enemy.

You can make bets with 1 cents to keep enough bankroll and you will see that the results are nowhere near what they seem. I've done my experiment with under 1.5 bets, after 60 games I'm less than 6% in the green, nowhere to the math the bets would lead to by their odds.

Will it? Second, how will you pick your 60% chance games?
You make it sound it so easily that everyone would be able to make money by just betting a small amount yet look around, nobody managed to get this strategy working, because it is flawed from the start. you're confusing odds with the chance of winning

Let's say you started year, with a bankroll of $10,000, and you decide to bet $220 on 1 event, and by the end of the year you have made 2,000 bets… Let's also say that you win 53% of all bets. It is clear that you will win 50% of your bets even just in theory probability, that is, in fact, there is no miracle in guessing 3 more winners out of every hundred bets. Sports betting is not at the level of creating atomic bombs. If you do a little research, read the news and stay up to date, it is not surprising that you will be able to guess 530 bets out of 1000. So after 2000 bets with a win percentage of 53 you will have 1060 winning bets at 220 dollars for a total profit of $212,000 and 940 losing options at $220 each for a total loss of $206,800. That's a net profit of $5,200. When was the last time you were offered a 52% return on your investment in a year? In the stock market? In the real estate market? Also, if you invest in sports betting - you can always withdraw all your capital.

I got the gist of it, the answer to many bets per day was on the post above, which said that he can make ten bets per day on the NBA and have a good profit, for me it looks too complicated in the sense that after a few days of such an intense game the player can burn out.

As for the bet size, I agree that the smaller part of the deposit we risk, the easier it is to play, but even in this case it all depends on the size of your bank, one player's bankroll can be $1000 and he will risk a bet of $1, and another player's bankroll can be $10,000 and the bet size can be $100 (in this case, the bet will be 1% of the deposit - more often than not, this ratio is enough for safe play for experienced players).

We were talking about the odds because you say that 6 out of 10 can be winning, but in this case the size of the odds is important so that the winnings can cover the losses, otherwise if it is a small odds, the loss will be higher even with 6 winning bets.

I will be writing about sports betting here, not casino games. Let's discuss what the optimal bet size is depending on the profit expectation. Most likely, different strategies allow different percentage values ​​of a single bet as a percentage of the entire bankroll. You often see the opinion that the size of a single bet should be from 1 to 5%. This is a logical opinion, but I came across an interesting argument that quite logically justifies lower bets.

In addition, I wrote that we mean a strategy with a small win. The approximate ratio is that out of 10 bets, 6 are winning and they somewhat exceed the size of 4 losing ones.

Not everyone has the patience for this type of betting system because it's going to take a lot of time, the only advantage you can have with this is minimizing your losses. Small bets are the only way to ensure that your losses are reduced. Staking low and waiting for a big odd to play out is a good strategy. Gamblers double their stake in most cases to recover what they have lost and most they end up losing more money. Gambling is not something you are certain about so take risk that are within your capacity.

I will be writing about sports betting here, not casino games. Let's discuss what the optimal bet size is depending on the profit expectation. Most likely, different strategies allow different percentage values ​​of a single bet as a percentage of the entire bankroll. You often see the opinion that the size of a single bet should be from 1 to 5%. This is a logical opinion, but I came across an interesting argument that quite logically justifies lower bets.

You didn't quite get my point. Nobody forces us to make many bets per unit of time. The point is to simply use small bets of 1/1000 of the bankroll. In this case, your clear advantage will only manifest itself over a long distance, which corresponds to a large number of bets already played, conventionally this corresponds to the number 1000. This is a manifestation of the law of large numbers. Small bets are needed to protect against unfavorable dispersion. That is, small bets allow us to save the deposit when luck is not on our side. In addition, I wrote that we mean a strategy with a small win. The approximate ratio is that out of 10 bets, 6 are winning and they somewhat exceed the size of 4 losing ones.

Making more bets does not mean having a better chance of eventually getting a profit, 10 bets a day is too much, and if you assume that you will play so intensively at least a few days a week, then personally I would get tired of it very quickly.

And here it is also important what is the average odds of your bets, if it is small, then 6 winning bets out of 10 may not be enough to cover the losses from the lost bets, so I would like to hear more specifically about the odds and the bet size. I don't see the point in playing with small odds, with small bets, otherwise it just turns into entertainment without the risk of losing something, but you will not be able to win anything significant either.