Topic: Optimal bet size (and the advantage of small bets). - page 3. (Read 566 times)

I agree, this sounds very reasonable.

If your strategy is 60 percent effective, then it is pretty close to 50 percent effective. With a small number of bets, the probability of losing (despite the good overall effectiveness of the strategy) is very high. This is a big risk that is worth reducing. The more times you bet, the closer your actual probability of winning will be to the desired 60 percent. In this example, 1,000 attempts will be better than 100 attempts, and 10,000 attempts will be better than 1,000 attempts (all other things being equal).

The more interesting question, in my opinion, is how to measure the effectiveness of your sports betting strategy (i.e. how to determine that your effectiveness is exactly 60 percent)? Experimentally?

Theoretically if 60% winning bets should at least compensate the 40% lost bets then the odds must be around 1.70 for all those won bets, now any sports bettor do you think it is possible to find such bets in mass to apply this strategy?

To my little knowledge, this doesn't work in the real-world and also finding 1000 games that you can analyze and make a bet on isn't realistic either or you have to blindly select the games randomly which I feel not going to be any fun.

If I have a 60% winning percentage then I shouldn’t do small bets rather capitalize on my winning percentage by increasing my bet. We are talking about sports betting here which means the accuracy is already there unlike casino games that is pure random.

In gambling, You should play the least time if you have a higher percentage of winning since sports betting is skill based. This is not like slot games which you can enjoy each small bets since there’s a duration on every bet that it’s not instant result.

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.

This reality is for people who want to win, for people who want to have some good time it is better for them to slow things down and enjoy their time, still I believe that luck has a role to play here, going all in can make you lose everything too, it is just too complicated trying to figure which one really works out, in short I will prefer my own way and once my money is done for the day I quit and go do other things.

---

I can still remember when I was new to gambling, I've use both strategy of short timing and long timing, and the result doesn't matter, it just depend on what's around the corner, maybe I will win or not, what I can afford to lose is what keeps me going.

Another problem with it is that he may tries it and notice losses after several matches.

This is what I also think but one thing about casinos is that you can gamble at times with long time of consecutively losses in a way you will think that the casino is not having provably fear games but which might be wrong. The more someone gambles in casinos, the more the losses would be.

Actually, if you play continuously, you will definitely lose, even for a long time, but if we don't play too often, there is a possibility that we will be able to win, this also applies to online games that target bets or seek victory.

Personally I don't think that formula exists. If that was the case, more people would bet in sports for a living; unfortunately, I'm afraid that the only one who earned money with the book mentioned in the OP was the author with its sales. And I don't doubt that you heard stories, and maybe some of them are true (probabilistically there must be exceptions of people consistently winning), but it's not about the strategy, but about how lucky they are.

Apocollapse and stadus explained it perfectly. Moral: don't bet to find the perfect strategy, but just for fun, unless you find it fun trying to figure it out, and you can afford the "experiment".

Just because you're not winning now doesn't mean the method won't work. If you challenge yourself more in sports betting, you'll eventually find a strategy that works for you. But if you're just betting for fun, you’ll never find that formula for consistent wins or long-term profit. It’s not easy, I know, but I've seen stories of successful sports bettors, and I believe it's possible to succeed. We just haven’t found the right strategy yet. And those who don’t believe? They won’t find it either, because they’re not even looking.

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

This is interesting but if you look at it in real terms, it not just about perceptions and opinions for strategies or winning or losing percentages but about what most gamblers experience, I found several gambling site accounts in sports betting have much larger percentage of losses than wins, even this happened to me myself, in several of my gambling site accounts all have higher losing percentage statistics.
It does seem easy to be able to have higher winning ratio and even beat the handicap line, but if apply it personally will feel difficult condition to achieve all that, moreover sports betting although it looks easier to increase opportunities also has some surprises that allow us to fail.

That's already incorporated in the odds, If you keep taking odds with a bit of juice, like -110 or 1.90 in decimal, and the outcome is truly 50-50, you’ll end up losing in the long run unless you’re hitting at least a 54% win rate. That’s just how it is.

True. However, getting a 60% win rate in sports betting is really tough. That’s why bankroll management is so important if you want to stick around long-term. Bookies don’t want us managing our bankrolls - they’d prefer we go all in, which is a bad call since hardly anyone can maintain such a high win rate.

Honestly, even 1% of gamblers can’t do it.

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.

It's only possible if the gambler don't care with the sports and the teams/players, all they care is to reach the bets amount. I feel like the method looks unrealistic, we don't have a lot time just for gambling.

If someone already have a strategy with 60% winning chance at fair odds, they can be profitable without need to spread it to 1,000 bets.

@Julien_Olynpic If you can hit a 60% win rate, you could take odds like -110 since you only need 53% to profit in the long run. Hitting 60% is much better. If you're confident you can keep that win rate, profit is almost guaranteed, as long as you stay disciplined with your bankroll. A good rule is to bet around 5% of your bankroll per stake, but that depends on the size of your bankroll - this will ultimately decide how much profit you make in the long term.

Honestly, being profitable in sports betting is kind of boring because it’s a long-term game. You can't break your strategy by suddenly raising your bets above 5% just because you feel emotional, that would mess everything up. Stay disciplined, consistently hit that 60%, and you'll grow your bankroll in no time.

The problem with your betting method is the time.

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.

Maybe you could apply that method to another game that has fast bets like dice. In the past, i have used bots that let me place 20 bets/second, and even with that rate to place 1000 bets takes some time.

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"