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.
In gambling we should have a more thoughtful approach so that we can make decisions that will not make us lose money in gambling, so it is very important for us to make decisions that are relevant in betting, because it is important to have a strategy that can minimise risks, so maybe starting from small bets and waiting for big opportunities is a safer way and can help reduce losses in my opinion, You may see it as a waste of time but I think it's important to look at the odds realistically and not blindly, but on the one hand I agree with some of what you said, because doubling down to try to recover losses is often risky and can lead to bigger losses, so it's important to always bet according to our financial capacity. 
Topic: Optimal bet size (and the advantage of small bets). - page 2. (Read 599 times)
Sounds like this approach is more about placing many bets rather than focusing on just a few, which makes sense if you think long-term. Honestly, 1,000 bets isn’t that much with this mindset. Like in the NBA season, I could easily make over 1,000 bets, averaging about 10 a day.
The goal is to keep a win rate of at least 57%. If we do that, we profit as long as we stick to good bankroll management. Both are key: without solid bankroll control, even a good win rate won't guarantee profit in the long run.
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.
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.
Yes, minimizing losses is very important. I have already written that even a good strategy has dispersion. In other words, for a strategy to show good results and be reliable, a large number of bets must be made. But at the very beginning, you may be unlucky. And even though you adhere to a good strategy, you may have a long series of failures that will kill your bankroll. And there will be a paradoxical situation: you have a profitable strategy, but this strategy killed your bankroll. It would be funny. If it were not so sad. However, there is another way that allows you not to reduce bets too much. You must greatly increase the predictive ability of your analytical research. However, in practice, this is extremely difficult to achieve. 
The weak point of this strategy is that it is difficult to find such a large number of quality bets.
Sounds like this approach is more about placing many bets rather than focusing on just a few, which makes sense if you think long-term. Honestly, 1,000 bets isn’t that much with this mindset. Like in the NBA season, I could easily make over 1,000 bets, averaging about 10 a day.
The goal is to keep a win rate of at least 57%. If we do that, we profit as long as we stick to good bankroll management. Both are key: without solid bankroll control, even a good win rate won't guarantee profit in the long run.
Yes, that's right. To make a profit, you must simultaneously fulfill two conditions.
The first condition is not to lose your entire bankroll (budget for the game).
The second condition is that the amount of money you win must exceed the amount of money you lose. A large number of small bets allows you to fulfill the first condition.
The overall effectiveness of the strategy allows you to fulfill the second condition. As a result, a player using such a strategy will be able to make a profit in the long term.
The weak point of this strategy is that it is difficult to find such a large number of quality bets.
Sounds like this approach is more about placing many bets rather than focusing on just a few, which makes sense if you think long-term. Honestly, 1,000 bets isn’t that much with this mindset. Like in the NBA season, I could easily make over 1,000 bets, averaging about 10 a day.
The goal is to keep a win rate of at least 57%. If we do that, we profit as long as we stick to good bankroll management. Both are key: without solid bankroll control, even a good win rate won't guarantee profit in the long run.
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.
The weak point of this strategy is that it is difficult to find such a large number of quality bets. However, I would like to write about this. Many bettors misunderstand the principle of 1000 bets. You should not focus on this number, you should focus on small bets. We need the number 1000 simply to illustrate the example that if your strategy is winning and the advantage is small (~ 57%), then this advantage will only reliably manifest itself on a large number of bets. Perhaps this will happen even in a few years. But the main advantage of low bets is that they allow you not to lose your deposit in the event that an unfavorable dispersion of your average value occurs.
Overall, I'm of the opposite opinion and observation. It seems to me that the longer you bet, the more likely you will lose. Such is the reason why betting to recover is futile. Instead of recovery, you'd have a bigger loss in the end. For me, profit comes early and not after placing a thousand bets. By that time, you're already losing.
Also, I don't find it logical that bets should be uniform in size. It's not as if all your bets have 50:50 chance of winning. If it were so, then we can have equal sizes of bets. But since you're betting on odds as low as 1.10 or 1.15 and odds as high as 3.74 or 4.00, then the size of your bets should also be adjusted.
Also, I don't find it logical that bets should be uniform in size. It's not as if all your bets have 50:50 chance of winning. If it were so, then we can have equal sizes of bets. But since you're betting on odds as low as 1.10 or 1.15 and odds as high as 3.74 or 4.00, then the size of your bets should also be adjusted.
If the winning whenever gotten doubles up so much that it covers for the losses then we can agree to saying it's an effective strategy so a 60/40 win rate wouldn't be regarded as a bad one but gamblers who always look and always make sure to maximize profit in rhia manner gets to make thw most of gambling with their strategy, my taught has always making sure that stake is at a 1:4 win rate so for every win it covers up for losses if there was any preceding the wins. I believe by the time you make four moves one should come through id you aren't lucky.
This image of a cigar box is a good illustration, but a candy box or a box of chocolates would even be more understable. When you mix 2 kind of things and you blindly pick some of them, you can get only one kind of them, despite picking a large number of them, because randomness doesn't exclude series, and hazardous order. They have same likelihood to happen than other combinations actually. It illustrates well how works wining and losing streaks at a 1:1 ratio I think.
In my case, I always prefer to choose many games and then carefully analyze each game and then choose only the games that I see that I have a good chance of winning. If, for example, there are 20 games and I only see that only 1 game is ideal to bet on, then I will only place one bet. I prefer to win a little but win, than to keep betting on 20 or 100 games but knowing that most of the games I am not very sure that I will win. Honestly, in my opinion, even if you create any strategy, in the long run the house always wins. That is why I keep making sports bets for fun. I do not put a lot of money on each bet because that way my bankroll, which is small, allows me to bet for a long time.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 538
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
I think this can be said to be a strategy in gambling which allows the player to enjoy a long time of playing and also stand the chance of being luck more occasionally. Like the example you gave, although reverse can be the case in the sense that the player can still win 40 bet and lose 60. It can varies because every day is not usually the same.
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.
Talking about bet size I think your talking about the amount you can afford to lose and that's why you mentioned from 1-5% which is quite a good decisions cause betting small gives you added advantages of wins alot times, tho you ought to know losses ain't exempted as well but when you bet with small amounts it keeps you on the safe sides, tho some gamblers think your betting amount works greatly in giving you bigger wins but then you ought to stick to betting small.
Many people lose ig amount because they want to win big so they stake with big amounts.
I noticed that when I take one match, I do win. I think all single matches that I have bet on this year, I won all. But whenever it is parley, I lose. I used $50 like 4 weeks ago to bet on parley, the winning amount was $370 or so. I lost the match. I have always lose parley as usual but there are some 2 matches that I won several time. But when it is getting to 3 matches or more, I do lose it. But be it a single match, I prefer to use small amount of money to bet. If the amount is getting high, it is not good also. I prefer to win small amount of money than to lose high amount of money. 
One tricky thing about gambling and prediction is that when you are betting on a long games, while predicting the long games along the line you might get tired and start adding some of the games your mindset is not settled with. That is why in most of our game we play the first 5 games (or 10) will be in our favor while the other might be on red. Basically, this is the reason why I stake low on long games and stake high on shorter games so that I could be able to reduce the risks.
Cut of
You are right but we still need fo understand that no odds is sure because anything can happen just the way odds can increase and reduce. However, the only thing that could make some gamblers to stake high on some games is only when they checked that the team and it's players are of a good performance and the opposite will not be in a good position to play with the stronger team. 
Add it to what you have said, as sports betting, the method that is good for you might not good for another person. And it is not for big or small. It is very interesting when you use small amount to win big amounts. Some of us used $100 and split it to bet on 20 games and once one game cut then the ticket is over and the gambler lose all. While some used the whole $100 for one odd. The issue here is not even the size of the game but the strategy use because every gambler wants to win and not to lose. I have won like $300 with small odd. Many people lose ig amount because they want to win big so they stake with big amounts.
Staking small and aiming high is a very good strategy that can reduce too much losses. A lot of gamblers chase higher rewards and this is the reason why they lose a lot of money. You aren't supposed to use more than five percent of your bankroll on each bet, no matter how tempting it might be to chase huge wins always stake low. You are not certain of the outcomea of any round so trying to double up your stakes to increase your wins is not advisable, instead use little amounts and continue aiming to get big odds, this strategy is the best.
The reality is the longer you gamble, the longer you will ended up losing.
Casino takes commission when you win, they didn't give you the exact reward and risk ratio you take.
Casino takes commission when you win, they didn't give you the exact reward and risk ratio you take.
I think that is the reality for many, the more they play the more they lose. But I think there are exceptions, there are too many people who gamble and many different styles... some people manage to make a profit with their skills in some games, and some people are just lucky.
Making 1000 sports bets isn't easy at all, that even can take months because each bet takes the match time, so, even if you decide to place multiple bets the same day, i don't think you could place more than 50 bets with those odds, but maybe I'm wrong.
I am sure it's a hard task to make 1000 bets on sports. If someone wants to reach 1000 bets faster they will have to bet on more games every day. On the weekend from Friday to Saturday, there are many leagues and matches, but again, to research and find all the right picks will take a lot of time. But let's say that someone can play between 10 and 20 games on weekend days and add other competitions on working days maybe between 10 and 20 games. That's 40 to 80 games a week, or between 160 and 320 games a month. Sounds like a full-time job to do it all…
~
It also helps in actually skewing the favors over you. Say that 57-43 chance that the book you quoted. With one draw of your entire bankroll, that's it. The odds stick and stay at 57-43 and you only get one pull. Split it into multiple smaller ones though, say two pulls, the odds increase by around 50~% ish afaik. Doesn't mean it's a guaranteed strategy to win though. It just "betters" the chances in the grand scheme of things. Yes, I know that the odds are independent of previous bets and having such mentality like this actually assumes that you have an infinite amount of money, but we're not trying to get a "guaranteed" win. We're just trying to get something better.
3. 60 winning bets should significantly exceed the size of 40 losing ones.
Winning 60% of our bets out of 100% from a single-day bankroll is probably high if we bet on a fixed amount. It can completely calculate the difference between our winnings and losses. Of course, few games can make up the 60% because it will be measured by the number of games played to the fixed amount used in betting. It doesn't need to have to be 60 games won and 40 bets lost. This reminds me of the Kelly criterion principle when I was studying gambling in my early days. You can check it out, am not an expert in it though. My application in real life is based on what i understand.
Jump to: