[rake922]

I know... It can be risky

But what about a model of only making a legitimate wager after a loss.

So you write down a selection(yet not place any bet). If it loses then you actually place a bet on your next selection. If you go 1-1, you're always making money

[20Four7]

Martingale is great if you don't like money. Just do the math.

[HedgeHog]

Spend more time researching +Ev bets, rather than looking for a fancy way to bet -EV . Martingale, 1-3-2-6 etc...all fail in the long run without solid plays.

[Sportsbetting123]

Rake- but let's say you write down 2 or 3 bets in a row that you don't acutally place and you win them all. When do you start using the nightengale if that happens? I would never do it. You could obliterate a nice bankroll in no time using it. Someone could get lucky a few times but eventually, it will fail.

[rake922]

I'm not saying to bet 100, then 200, then 400 then 800 etc.. You'll definitely go broke in under 3 weeks doing that........


I meant only placing a bet after a play loses.... Thing is the loss didn't hurt your bankroll, since you didn't place the bet.

[AgainstAllOdds]

Originally Posted by rake922

I'm not saying to bet 100, then 200, then 400 then 800 etc.. You'll definitely go broke in under 3 weeks doing that........


I meant only placing a bet after a play loses.... Thing is the loss didn't hurt your bankroll, since you didn't place the bet.

kinda new to this system but what do you do if the bet wins?

[rake922]

Originally Posted by AgainstAllOdds

kinda new to this system but what do you do if the bet wins?

Don't place a bet... only place a bet after a loss

[donjuan]

I meant only placing a bet after a play loses.... Thing is the loss didn't hurt your bankroll, since you didn't place the bet.

Do you hate money? If you are making good bets with proper bet sizing, this "system" is insanely stupid as it will substantially limit your winnings. If you are making poor bets then I guess this will help you limit your losses as it means you will simply be betting less games. But again, it's insanely stupid if you are making +EG bets.

[HedgeHog]

Originally Posted by rake922

Don't place a bet... only place a bet after a loss

Do you think the second bet knows that your first bet lost? What possible difference does it make how your paper bet did versus how the real bet will do? The two are totally unrelated.

[slacker00]

Originally Posted by rake922

I know... It can be risky

But what about a model of only making a legitimate wager after a loss.

So you write down a selection(yet not place any bet). If it loses then you actually place a bet on your next selection. If you go 1-1, you're always making money

What does this system have to do with Martingale?

How is your losing "imaginary" wager correlated to the next wager? (Hint: It isn't.)

[Ganchrow]

I'm going to have to agree with donjuan on this one.

I'd say that from a pure EV perspective this strategy is an excellent alternative to flat betting for anyone who doesn't immediately realize its preposterousness. To maximize the increase in EV, I'd further recommend only selecting extremely large money line favorites for the "initial" wager.

[HedgeHog]

Perhaps the "initial" wager should be a huge ML Fav of -1000 or more. At least then you'd have a 90%-plus chance of not betting real money.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by HedgeHog

huge ML Fav

Uhh ... yeah that's what I said.

[slacker00]

How about instead of only betting after an "imaginary" loss, only bet after 10 straight "imaginary" losses. How about 100?

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by slacker00

How about instead of only betting after an "imaginary" loss, only bet after 10 straight "imaginary" losses. How about 100?

Hmm, I think you may be on to something ...

[rake922]

Ganch should I just bet the same amount on every play?

2.5% of my bankroll ?

[20Four7]

Rake, search Ganch's posts on Kelly.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by rake922

Ganch should I just bet the same amount on every play?

2.5% of my bankroll ?

That's going to heavily depend on the type of bettor you are.

For a professional (or serious hobbyist) advantage player who can succesfully locate, identify, verify, and exploit various edges I'd certainly recommend a strategy that optimizes an acceptable trade off between functional risk and return (à la Kelly).

For an advantage bettor unwilling (or unable) to quantify his or her edge I might recommend a simplified version of Kelly such that a player risks to uniformly win an equal percentage of bankroll on every wager (and so it follows that he would be risking more on favorites than on underdogs). The exact percentage would obviously to depend upon his tolerance for risk and his average expectation going forward.

For a recreational bettor, however, an "ideal" staking strategy is largely going to be a function of what that bettor enjoys the most. For example, if he's just looking to place the occasional wager to make a particular game more "interesting" then he can afford to risk more per bet than if he's going to be regularly betting 5 games a night.

An "action" bettor making many frequent bets is probably best served by avoiding money line favorites (the lower variance of which will make winning over a stretch of bets unlikely) and focusing on money line underdogs. Parlays/round-robins are another option for the "action" bettor but can be quite expensive in terms of vig. A rec bettor placing 5 $100 3-team parlays a week, for example can expect to lose his money a lot more quickly than a similar bettor placing 5 $100 straight bets a week.

In the end, however, probably the single more important concept for a recreational gambler to accept is that ultimately he's betting for fun and not for profit. Once he recognizes this fact, once he recognizes that (even though there will certainly be ups and downs) with each dollar he bets he expects on average to lose a few cents, and once he recognizes that in the long run sports betting is likely no more a source of profit than seeing a movie or going shopping or getting a massage or paying for anything else he enjoys ... well then the bet sizes will tend to set themselves.

How much should a recreational bettor risk per bet? I don't know ... how much should he pay for a new suit? How much should he pay for a steak? How much should he pay for his next vacation?

Don't bet more than you can afford to lose, and if it ever ceases to be enjoyable then stop betting immediately.

[rake922]

Originally Posted by 20Four7

Rake, search Ganch's posts on Kelly.

perhaps there should be stickys in the "Think Tank" subforum

[bettilimbroke999]

I'm on leg 12 of the Martingale system. I know this is a great system but I sure hope I win this 10k bet so I can finally get up 5 bucks.

[LT Profits]

bettilimbroke,

And you haven't reached the book's limit yet?

[20Four7]

Originally Posted by LT Profits

bettilimbroke,

And you haven't reached the book's limit yet?

Pinny has a 20K limit for the spread. If he's somewhere else he might have to spread over several books.

[rake922]

Originally Posted by LT Profits

bettilimbroke,

And you haven't reached the book's limit yet?

no limit on matchbook

[LT Profits]

Originally Posted by rake922

no limit on matchbook

Well, may be hard to get matched when you reach 128K.

[JoeVig]

What if you skip betting on teams that lose, and always bet on teams that win? Is that a "system"?

Or maybe I could put just one bullet in the gun and spin the cylinder. If I shoot myself in the head the first time, I know I can pull the trigger again and be a for sure winner.

[The Investor]

what if you have found a particular angle, that when using only a 6 deep martingale has a record of (1900-6) in the last 4 years, includes (MLB, NBA and the NHL) and its (100%) mechanical?

[DukeJohn]

Originally Posted by The Investor

what if you have found a particular angle, that when using only a 6 deep martingale has a record of (1900-6) in the last 4 years, includes (MLB, NBA and the NHL) and its (100%) mechanical?

Hmm... Well then keep it to yourself and bank on it. However, remember past performance does not make a future in Sports Betting.

[curious]

I would be willing to bet money that if you do this, you will go on a 100 game winning streak. Which, of course, you are just writing down, not actually betting on. Since you will only bet after a loss. So, at the end of your 100 game winning streak you will have a nice pad of paper with all the winning games you picked written down.

[curious]

Originally Posted by JoeVig

What if you skip betting on teams that lose, and always bet on teams that win? Is that a "system"?

Or maybe I could put just one bullet in the gun and spin the cylinder. If I shoot myself in the head the first time, I know I can pull the trigger again and be a for sure winner.

Ah, you found the secret to winning big in sports betting. Bet more on the winning teams.

You should write a book.

[durito]

Originally Posted by The Investor

what if you have found a particular angle, that when using only a 6 deep martingale has a record of (1900-6) in the last 4 years, includes (MLB, NBA and the NHL) and its (100%) mechanical?

Do you need a bookie?

[DukeJohn]

Originally Posted by durito

Do you need a bookie?

[Trojan]

Originally Posted by The Investor

what if you have found a particular angle, that when using only a 6 deep martingale has a record of (1900-6) in the last 4 years, includes (MLB, NBA and the NHL) and its (100%) mechanical?

That angle must be fading all the systems you have come up with in the past. Its actually 1900-0 for the record.

[HedgeHog]

Originally Posted by The Investor

what if you have found a particular angle, that when using only a 6 deep martingale has a record of (1900-6) in the last 4 years, includes (MLB, NBA and the NHL) and its (100%) mechanical?

If I read your 1900-6 record right, it means that you've gone bust 6 times in the past 4 years. Are you the same idiot that is risking $10,000 to win $25 on each bet?

Perhaps it's a different idiot...

[Trojan]

Originally Posted by HedgeHog

If I read your 1900-6 record right, it means that you've gone bust 6 times in the past 4 years. Are you the same idiot that is risking $10,000 to win $25 on each bet?

Perhaps it's a different idiot...

Same idiot. He posts over at theRx and EOG under the handle SSI. He creates these ridiculous systems, runs them for a couple of weeks and quits after they start to lose. He has not come up with 1 successful betting strategy in all his attempts.

I've never seen someone who so badly wants to be successful be such a miserable failure. I sincerely hope that he is not actually betting the shit he comes up with. In fact I know he's not because he wouldnt have enough money left over to pay for an internet connection.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by bettilimbroke999

I'm on leg 12 of the Martingale system. I know this is a great system but I sure hope I win this 10k bet so I can finally get up 5 bucks.

Classic.