Flat Betting : What is your stand?

austintx05 · 12-01-2006, 10:13 AM

I have always flat bet, in my short 2 years of wagering on sports. As many of you know, I am fairly new at this compared to the veterans, but the reason I have always flat bet is because the day you go 1-1, you still have the potential to be down money if the 1 loss you have was a 2+unit play vs the 1 unit winner. I also realize that there are certain pays that might warrant a multiple unit wager and have read some thoughts at other sites that are felt to be leaving money on the table.

So as a rookie to the sports betting world, I would like to hear your thoughts on this issue.

Thanks

Justin7 · 12-01-2006, 10:44 AM

If you are new to sportsbetting, stick to flat betting.

When you become proficient at handicapping, that is a good time to change to various unit-sized betting. While handicapping helps you find value in places, finding lines that are off does also. If you liked Pittsburgh -7 this week, and found Pitt -6.5, wouldn't you bet more?

TLD · 12-01-2006, 01:54 PM

The reason I have always flat bet is because the day you go 1-1, you still have the potential to be down money.

First thing: When you realize something you’re doing in sportsbetting is motivated by a rule like this, examine the rule itself to see if it’s justified.

So you want to use a betting system where if you bet multiple games and win at least 50% of them, it isn’t possible to lose (other than a little juice). Why? Can you show logically, mathematically, that you will do better over the long run adhering to such a system than you would do with a system that violates this rule?

Or is it purely a psychological thing—the “feeling” of going 1-1 and losing bothers you more than the prospect of going 1-1 and winning pleases you? Something just doesn’t seem right about it?

If the latter, then this isn’t a justified sportsbetting rule but simply a personal mental block you picked up along the way, and one that will pointlessly restrict your strategizing.

TLD · 12-01-2006, 02:41 PM

And in answer to the original question:

Optimum bet size is a function of three factors: The size of your bankroll, the likelihood of the wager winning, and the odds at which you’ll be betting it.

If for every bet you ever make all three of these factors are precisely identical, then flat betting is correct.

Otherwise it is not.

Mudcat · 12-01-2006, 02:53 PM

I have been betting on sports for about 25 years and my stand on flat betting is: that's all I do. I determine a unit size and bet it like clockwork when I have an angle.

I periodically reevaluate and change my unit size but that still qualifies as flat betting.

I used to vary my bet sizes. In fact I have tried MANY systems of variable bet sizes over the decades. Flat Betting is where I have arrived.

There is good theory behind the use of variable bet sizes. I don't doubt there are people who do it properly (mathematically) and with discipline. However my observation has been that most people use variable bet sizes to accomodate their own psychology. They will tell themselves they have good capping reasons for placing a larger bet - and probably really believe themselves - but really they are just rationalizing facts to fit the conclusion they want to reach, and they are really chasing/impatient/feeling invincible/whatever.

I have done my share of that over the years.

As I say though, I don't doubt there are people who use variable bet size properly.

If I ever found an angle that was just SO MUCH BETTER than my other angles, I could see myself using variable bet sizes. For example if I found an NFL angle that produced a unit profit for every 3 bets and it was based on a really big sample - like hundreds and hundreds of games - that would get my attention and I would bet more than I would on my normal angles which are all in the same range (producing roughly a unit every 8-12 bets.)

But should I bet more on an pointspread angle that has hit at 57% for a long time than one that hits at 55.5% ? I guess maybe. Should I bet 3% more; should I bet three times as much? I don't know. I just place my bets and I'm happy with the results.

I simply don't have any spectacular angles that are way out of that range and I just grind it out with flat bets.

jjgold · 12-01-2006, 03:19 PM

There is no such thing as one game better than the other, you have an equal shot at each therefore you should bet the same exact amount on each game.

austintx05 · 12-01-2006, 03:27 PM

Thanks for the replies.

koko · 12-01-2006, 03:36 PM

If you're a winning player, you should have an edge on every wager you make.

Sometimes you'll have a bigger edge then other times. The only reason to not bet more when you have a bigger edge (and less when you don't) is if you are looking to trade away some EV to reduce variance.

If your roll is big enough to handle the variance, there is no good reason to willingly give up EV to reduce variance. If you can't mentally handle the swings your betting to big - regardless of the size of your roll.

Bet more when you have a bigger edge. Bet less when your edge is smaller. Pick bet sizes that your roll can handle.

If you do these three things, you'll maximize your EV in the long run.

austintx05 · 12-01-2006, 03:57 PM

Good stuff koko

There have been some games during this NCAAF season where I felt I had the games nailed and sure enough they went that way, but I never strayed away from playing every game at 1 unit. I was just trying to stay disciplined and focused.

Ganchrow · 12-01-2006, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudcat

But should I bet more on an pointspread angle that has hit at 57% for a long time than one that hits at 55.5% ? I guess maybe. Should I bet 3% more; should I bet three times as much? I don't know.

Well, if you're betting a -110 line set at -110, then your edge on the 55.5% proposition is 5.95% and your edge on the 57% proposition is 8.82%.

So if your preferences are of a logarithmic type (à la Kelly) and you're betting 1% of your bankroll on the 55.5% prop at -110, then you should be betting a little less than 1.5% of your bankroll (8.82% / 5.95% ≈ 1.48%) on the 57% prop at -110 (assuming the individual bets were not contemporaneous).

Ganchrow · 12-01-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koko

If you're a winning player, you should have an edge on every wager you make.

Sometimes you'll have a bigger edge then other times. The only reason to not bet more when you have a bigger edge (and less when you don't) is if you are looking to trade away some EV to reduce variance.

If your roll is big enough to handle the variance, there is no good reason to willingly give up EV to reduce variance. If you can't mentally handle the swings your betting to big - regardless of the size of your roll.

I've noticed that it's demonstrably more difficult for neophyte handicappers to determine unbiased and consistent estimators of the likelihood of any particular bet's winning. As such, an advantage bettor may actually be giving up EV by utilizing a betting scheme such as Kelly.

If lowering the variance of your bankroll's growth is of great concern to you (and it certainly should be) and you frequently find yourself betting across a wide variety of money lines, then you might want to consider moving away from fixed unit staking towards a "fixed-profit" staking plan. Fixed-profits staking refers to betting to win a constant amount on all bets. So in other words, if a fixed-profits staker were to bet 1 unit at a line of +100, he would be betting 1.1 units on a money line of -110, and ½ of a unit on a a money line of +200.

Joseph Buchdahl in Fixed Odds Sports Betting: Statistical Forecasting and Risk Management demonstrates how a bettor engaging in fixed-profits staking can reduce both his standard deviation and his risk-of-ruin versus a flat bettor with the same average bet size.

(Fixed-profits staking, btw, is actually implicit in Kelly betting.)

Mudcat · 12-01-2006, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

Well, if you're betting a -110 line set at -110, then your edge on the 55.5% proposition is 5.95% and your edge on the 57% proposition is 8.82%.

So if your prefernces are of a logarithmic type (à la Kelly) and you're betting 1% of your bankroll on the 55.5% prop at -110, then you should be betting a little less than 1.5% of your bankroll (8.82% / 5.95% ≈ 1.48%) on the 57% prop at -110 (assuming the individual bets were not contemporaneous).

Sure, that makes sense. If I was confident that, because an angle has hit at a certain percent for the last 20 years, that means it will continue at that exact percentage for the next 20, then I might be more conscious of fine-tuning points like that.

The problem for me is that sports-betting is an ever-changing system. The sharpness of the public, linesmaking and rule changes can all make subtle - or not so subtle - differences in the expectation of a betting angle. And often I don't become aware that a change has happened until after I've placed a whole bunch of bets and am looking back at the results.

Because I have had angles that have not only wavered in reliability but some that were reliable for many years and then literally dropped of the face of the earth and became nothing, I don't see things as being quite as precise as that. I see a 57% prospect beside a 55.5% prospect and my reaction is, 'Same thing.'

Now if I started looking at some 66% prospects, that would be different.

I do appreciate your comment though and will give it more thought.

TLD · 12-01-2006, 05:59 PM

I think it’s a mistake to think of flat betting as the default strategy, or the appropriate strategy for situations of uncertainty.

When you flat bet, you aren’t being agnostic as to the degree of your edge; you’re taking a stand that the edge is equal for all bets.

Dark Horse · 12-01-2006, 06:04 PM

Flatbetting is best for beginners. Least amount of risk. No real need to move away from it, unless you're interested in maximizing profit. When that becomes important enough, you'll find a way to vary betsizes in the best way for you. Whatever you do, do not use Kelly, or trust anybody that tells you to bet 15% of your bankroll on one bet.

This link has some good points.
PRO INFO SPORTS Money Management

Patrick McIrish · 12-01-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLD

When you flat bet, you aren’t being agnostic as to the degree of your edge; you’re taking a stand that the edge is equal for all bets.

Agree. The only time flat betting should really be encouraged is when you are new and have no idea how to assess what kind of edge you have. At that point the most important thing for you should be protecting the bankroll. Stick to betting 1% of your roll and try to keep 8% or less in action each day and you will stick around a while.

That is why a lot of people don't really get down fairly common principles like Kelly and so on, they don't stick around long enough to do so. Stick to flat betting when you are starting out but be learning everything you can, believe me you will know when it's time to start varying your bet size.