[hillardoh]

what is a good rule of thumb if you are playing the moneyline how much percentage of your bankroll should you wager?

[MrX]

Do you have an estimate of your EV?

[IrishTim]

Well what is the moneyline? If not crazy, and you're flat betting, to win 1% of your bankroll (fave) or risk 1% (dog).

[Peep]

The higher the percentage of your bankroll you bet, the faster you will get rich and/or the faster you will grow broke.

There is a lot of discussion about this in the Kelly threads (still on this page). I personally feel fine with the 1% Tim mentioned, but a lot of people may well feel good about betting a higher percentage.

[Balla99]

depends how large your edge on the line is

[MrX]

This depends so much on your edge.

If you have a 6% edge, betting to win 1% is bordering on ridiculously conservative.

If you have a .5% edge, betting to win 1% is so maniacally aggressive that you won't even show long term growth.

[hillardoh]

what if you primarly pay favs and win more than 75% of the time?

[Peep]

This depends so much on your edge.

If you have a 6% edge, betting to win 1% is bordering on ridiculously conservative.

If you have a .5% edge, betting to win 1% is so maniacally aggressive that you won't even show long term growth.

If you have a perceived .5% edge, 1% is so un-maniacally agressive no? The less % of your bankroll you bet, the less you your bankroll will fluctuate.

[BrewBrain]

Well what is the moneyline? If not crazy, and you're flat betting, to win 1% of your bankroll (fave) or risk 1% (dog).

This is what I've always heard, but it doesn't make sense to me. Why not bet to win 1% on dogs the same as favorites? That way all bets are treated the same, with bet size adjusted for risk.

I can see it if you set a 1% minimum bet.

[Peep]

I think the short of it is "if it doesn't make sense to you, don't do it".

What I get out of all this is

1) While full Kelly maybe the best way to max growth, it will drive you crazy while it is doing so with flucuations up and down so great that a roller coster would be tame with comparison. I agree with this.
2) Flat betting will not maximize your profits. But it may suit your personality, keep your swings from being as great.
3) If you are going to win, you are going to do so nd make money regardless. Likewise if you are going to lose, you will eventually go broke. It just may take more or less time/more or less bets depending on the betting system you use.

I bet my flat bet with the same amount on a favorite as on a dog. I win less if I hit a favorite, more if I win on a dog. I don't think this is "wrong", and it adds a little excitement/interest for me, gives me a chance for a big score now and then.

[durito]

Well what is the moneyline? If not crazy, and you're flat betting, to win 1% of your bankroll (fave) or risk 1% (dog).

If your edge is the same you should be also betting to win 1% on the dog.

[MrX]

If you have a perceived .5% edge, 1% is so un-maniacally agressive no? The less % of your bankroll you bet, the less you your bankroll will fluctuate.

If a significant part of your preference is to actually grow your bankroll over time, then bet sizing has to be relative to your edge. If you consistently bet to win a percentage of your bankroll that is more than double your edge, you will experience negative long-term bankroll growth.

My point being that what might seem a conservative bet amount (1%) is actually way over-aggressive if your edge is only .5%.

3) If you are going to win, you are going to do so nd make money regardless. Likewise if you are going to lose, you will eventually go broke. It just may take more or less time/more or less bets depending on the betting system you use.

I'm repeating myself, but it's pretty important. You can make nothing but +EV bets and have negative expected growth by betting to win more than twice your expectancy.

I bet my flat bet with the same amount on a favorite as on a dog. I win less if I hit a favorite, more if I win on a dog. I don't think this is "wrong", and it adds a little excitement/interest for me, gives me a chance for a big score now and then.

Well, whether or not it's wrong depends on your goals. But, if bankroll growth is a significant part of your goal, then it is wrong. If you're risking 2% of your bankroll on, say, +600 prop bets, you are betting more than full-Kelly unless your edge is at least a whopping 12%. If your edge is a solid 6% and you're risking 2% on +600 bets, you're over-betting to the point of expecting no long-term growth.

Peep, since you just experienced such a roller coaster ride, I'd highly recommend working on your spreadsheet and looking at what your last year would have looked like if you had bet to win 2% of your bankroll on every wager.

[Peep]

Thanks for yoru feedback Mr. X, informative as always.

I am still not back into betting with any degree of confidence/certainty.

I am still in "hobbiest mode", which is to say I am betting $200 bets with an actual gambling bankroll of 50K (money strictly set aside for that purpose). I would have to call anyone betting .2% of bankroll a recreational player who is just goofing around. I am certainly not going to get hurt and/rich from my present betting status.

[IrishTim]

If your edge is the same you should be also betting to win 1% on the dog.

Of course it's better to bet according to your edge, but for your beginning flat better, I think this method is better.

[TigerPawsSC]

[Ruifgalmeida]

I would go with flat betting, the percentage depends on how many bets a day you make, if you bet more that 10bets a day I would chose 0.5% and 1%, between 5-10bets 1% and 1 and 5bets 2% or a litle more, I normaly dont put more of 10% of the bankroll i a single day. I can calculate my edge but with flat betting the bankroll is more safe(I am not a PRO)