[justbet]

i have spent quite a bit of time looking at the articles at the professionalgambler.com and it seems that J.R. Miller is convinced that the star system is poor money management. i noticed that several of the people who have pics in the wagering section use a star system, and i was wondering why. i have to agree with j.r. that it is smarter bankroll management to simply bet a set unit on every game. i am wondering what everyone's opinions are, and whether you think it is smart to use a "star" system.

[Razz]

The closest thing that I can compare the star system to is counting cards in blackjack. Is it poor money management for the card counters to bet 10 unit on a hand when the true count is highly in their favor, and only bet 1 unit on a hand when the true count is against them? I don't think so.
To me, some plays are invariably stronger than others. While a 1* play is still worth playing, I do not expect it cover as often as a 2 or 3 unit play. The cure is either to rank plays, or be extremely selective, and only play the creme de la creme of plays (the ones that I would consider a 2* or 3* play). If you are going to play all plays for the same amount, the latter method is necessary, but to say the star system is poor money management borders on stupidity.

[Mudcat]

I think you have to file that one under, to each his own.

I just use one bet size. I've been operating that way for quite awhile and I don't foresee that changing - although, theoretically speaking, if I ever discovered an angle that had a significantly higher winning expectation than I'm used to, anything is possible.

I have definitely seen posting forum cappers playing around with multi-star plays who don't have a clue what they're doing. They would be wise to listen to J.R. (The truth is, they're probably not even really betting - they're just paying posting forum games).

But for a real bettor, Razz's card counting analogy makes perfect sense.

[JayEgdarWho]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

I think you have to file that one under, to each his own.

A good player MAY be able to use the star system to his advantage, but if we are honest I think we will recognize that a mediocre player is probably likely to:

(1) use the lower-star designation as an excuse for playing some no-advantage games just so that he can be in action; and

(2) use the higher-star designation much more often when he is on tilt, which is not what God intended.

And while Razz makes a decent point, I think it is also true that, even in most BJ systems, bet variance is a two- or three-tier scheme at the most -- with the dividing lines falling at ADVANTAGE/NO ADVANTAGE/DISADVANTAGE. If you have an advantage, no matter what it is, many systems are going to recommend the same bet size on every "ADVANTAGE" bet.

BJ is different because you have to play even when you have no advantage or a disadvantage. In a sportsbook you do not (unless you are desperate for action).

A smartass might say that J.R. Miller IS recommending varying your bet size:
ADVANTAGE? Bet 1 unit
NO ADVANTAGE or DISADVANTAGE? Bet 0 units

[MrX]

I read the article there on the Kelly Critereon. Horrible. Really horrible article. Nonsense math, nonsense reasoning. Just ridiculous. I didn't read any other articles after that. Maybe there's some good stuff there, I don't know, but what I do know is that the arguments made against the Kelly Critereon are not sound.

If you have a sound reason to believe that one pick is worth twice as much as another, and that both picks are positive expectation, and you are attempting to maximize bankroll growth, you are correct to bet both picks and to bet more on the better pick, period. It's a proven mathematical fact.

That said, star systems and the like are often abused in an attempt to recover a bad day/week/month. If you start betting more on some games for emotional reasons like this, it certainly is poor money management.

If anyone wants to read a very good article on the Kelly Critereon as it relates to sports betting, blackjack, and the stock market, they should find a book called "Finding the Edge" (2000). Amazing stuff in there, but not for the faint of heart.

[JoshW]

Great comments by everyone in the thread. In major sports, I tend to think close to flat betting is called for. But if you are a winning player with access to lots of different odds. When you find odds that are far enough off on plays you already like, double size bets and larger are justified. The same could be said for secondary sports where you might have a huge edge and are justified in betting even more. I have found situations that would justify putting 20% of my bankroll on them. I can't because of limits but in these cases I just try to get as much money as I can down. When you are looking at 50% ROI, is tough not to bet as much as you can. But it all comes down to finding winners and edges.

I am recommending the book Fortunes Formula that actually made some non-fiction best seller lists last year. Book is largely about Kelly Criterion and provides some very accessable analysis of betting size.

[MrX]

I should add, making only single unit bets is not inherently bad by any means. First of all, I think some, maybe many, handicappers have done solid research showing them that when certain criteria are present, a bet will be positive E.V. There may not be enough data to give more conifidence to any one wager over another. In a case like this flat betting is clearly proper strategy, although your bets should increase as your bankroll grows.

In a more common scenario, even if you know certain bets have more value than others, you may still want to flat bet to reduce fluctuations. Betting for longterm maximum bankroll growth comes at a cost. Most people find that they are not comfortable with the swings involved with adhering rigidly to the Kelly Critereon. Most will tone it down either by betting 60-80% of the actual value determined by Kelly, or by limiting the spread of bet values (closer to flat betting, thus reducing the impact of certain high-value games), or both.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by JayEgdarWho

(2) use the higher-star designation much more often when he is on tilt, which is not what God intended.

That's what I like. A post with some authority.

[JayEgdarWho]

Originally Posted by JayEgdarWho

(2) use the higher-star designation much more often when he is on tilt, which is not what God intended.

Originally Posted by Mudcat

That's what I like. A post with some authority.

The "he" in my post being the player. In case there is any confusion.



To my knowledge, "He" has not been on tilt since the Old Testament.

[justbet]

or since hurricane katrina

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by MrX

I read the article there on the Kelly Critereon. Horrible. Really horrible article. Nonsense math, nonsense reasoning. Just ridiculous. I didn't read any other articles after that. Maybe there's some good stuff there, I don't know, but what I do know is that the arguments made against the Kelly Critereon are not sound.

If you have a taste for nonsense you might also want to read Miller's Crash Course in Vigorish. Right conclusions but laughable reasoning. Wow.

Originally Posted by MrX

That said, star systems and the like are often abused in an attempt to recover a bad day/week/month. If you start betting more on some games for emotional reasons like this, it certainly is poor money management.

In effect, a "star-based" system is just a dumbed-down version of the Kelly, utilizing the concept of discrete expectation tranches as opposed to mathematically more pleasing continuous expectation values. As such, given Miller's virulently irrational opposition to Kelly, there is some internal consistency to his logic. At least that's something.

Still, the decision not to use Kelly or "starring" isn't necessarily irrational. "Garbage in, garbage out" as the saying goes. Indeed, if one's estimates of EV are are sufficiently flawed by virtue of their bias or inconsistency, then the damage dealt to one's bankroll can be considerably greater than if a flat betting scheme had been utilized. (And of course even in the case of an unbiased and consistent estimator, a high variance estimate can still raise the variance of one's recorded results to unacceptably high levels.)

This being said, I do tend to think that laziness is often (although not always) the reason why many handicappers shy away from Kelly and its progeny. While it may be relatively easy to determine if a given bet has any edge, it takes considerably more work to determine what exactly that edge might be. That's why I think that whenever possible it's good practice not only to predict winning wagers, but also to assign one's own money lines and (if applicable) spreads or totals, and then continually refine the estimation process over the course of time (real or properly back tested). This way, when examining multiple candidate wagers, one can readily determine relative wager levels. Of course, estimating fair lines can be as much art as science, but at least doing so provides a framework from which bet size analysis can easily be performed.

[maritime]

I agree with Razz. This thread made me think of the Bowling Green vs Miami Ohio football game this past season. BG was a double digit dog and their QB Omar Jacobs wasn't supposed to play. When I found out that he was going to play, I felt I had an advantage and increased my play on BG moneyline. They won handily as Jacobs had huge game. In my opinion, the more advantage you believe you have, the more your bet should be. The keys for me are staying disciplined and staying honest with myself (not letting a bad day influence future plays).

[Dark Horse]

What J.R. Miller means, and I know this from having asked him, is that you have a maximum bet size (percentage of your bankroll). No matter how strong a bet, you never bet more than that amount. It is ok to bet under that maximum amount. Miller says that doing so makes only the big bets 'count', but I disagree. I would be crazy to bet the same amount on basketball games as on football.

Miller does have the math to back up his claims. And he increases the bet size when he reaches the next plateau. He suggests 2% of the bankroll per bet, but his brother preferred 1%. Then again, Miller also says that he considers 2% too little, and prefers to bet 1 level higher (3% if I remember correctly). So this is flexible. Some recommend 5% of the bankroll. Seems a lot. What Miller is very much against are progressive gambling schemes, where you try to make up for losses by increasing the bet size.

Emotionally, losing a huge bet is far more damaging than winning a large bet is helpful. Gamblers call this having your nose open, a mental state where a gambler makes wild, undisciplined bets. If you know you have an edge, just keep working it and be patient. If you act like you're not that interested, that beautiful lady (LUCK) will come to you. If you chase her as if your life depends on it, hey, she's seen it a million times.

My own rule of thumb is to bet whatever you're comfortable with. That can be 10% for a $1000 bankroll or 1% for a 100K bankroll. Not everyone can disconnect gambling money from its value in the real world.

[imgv94]

Anyone who plays the same amount on every game is a fool to me..

Your gonna try to tell me you like every game the same? Foolish..

I do not mean to bash,but thats crazy to me that someone would bet
the same amount on every game. It shows me there are not that sharp
and do not take advantage of an edge. Look at me and Razz our +2 unit
games are gold. our 1 unit games are avg. All the Pros I know bet more
or less depending on how much they like it.

If you love a game pound it. but not too much. I had 9 units on the
Spurs today,key word today. I do not make +5 unit wagers everyday
but when I do there gold.

[dave11486]

You guys know what you are talking about. People should be confident about every bet they make, but when a great opportunity comes along you have to seize it. I think it all comes back to being patient and waiting until those great opportunities come along. When you see something that is an exception, lay more cheddar.