| SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks Recommended Books | ||
| 1. Pinnacle Sports | SBR Rating A+ | Pinnacle Sports Review |
| 2. The Greek Sports Book | SBR Rating A+ | The Greek Review |
| 3. BookMaker | SBR Rating A+ | BookMaker Review |
| 4. BetJamaica | SBR Rating A+ | BetJamaica Review |
| 5. LegendZ Sports | SBR Rating A+ | LegendZ Review |
| SBR Posters' Poll - March 2009 View Complete Results | ||
| 1. BetJamaica | 251 total points | BetJamaica Review |
| 2. The Greek Sports Book | 217 total points | The Greek Review |
| 3. 5Dimes | 181 total points | 5Dimes Review |
| 4. Matchbook | 159 total points | Matchbook Review |
| 5. Pinnacle Sports | 148 total points | Pinnacle Sports Review |
![]() |
View New Posts |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 | ||||
|
If you follow Kelly to the letter, you should re-calculate your next bet following each known outcome. I've been using a 1/2 kelly method, but only adjust my bet size after the bankroll has changed 10% or after I take some profit. For example if my bankroll starts at 10k and goes to 11k, I adjust. Any other thoughts on this?
|
||||
|
|
#2 | ||||
|
Why would you base it on an arbitrary number? Use your current bankroll to calculate.
|
||||
|
|
#3 | ||||
|
DJ: So you obviously update your bet daily. Do you use Full Kelly or a fraction of Kelly?
|
||||
|
|
#4 | |||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
#5 | ||||
|
Can you point me to this Kelly formula, I have not heard of this before.
|
||||
|
|
#6 | ||||
|
On this page, under the SBR logo, click where it says tools.
|
||||
|
|
#7 | ||||
|
Hedge, personally I adjust it day by day
|
||||
|
|
#8 | ||||
|
HH. The first thing I do when I get up every morning is punch into my spreadsheet all my balances at every book. I know where my roll is for the day. I do this every morning before I do anything. I use that figure.
__________________
I support gay marriage because I think gay people have the right to be just as miserable as straight people. |
||||
|
|
#9 | ||||
|
|
||||
|
|
#10 | |||||
|
Quote:
Last edited by Ganchrow; 02-15-2008 at 06:24 PM.. Reason: added [quote][/quote] tags |
|||||
|
|
#11 | ||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why is it better to skip +EV plays that are 1/5 or 1/2 as meaningful as your biggest plays?
__________________
TLD hits the nail squarely on the head here.--Ganchrow, December 7, 2007 |
||||||
|
|
#12 | |||||
|
Quote:
http://professionalgambler.com/rjmiller1.htm
__________________
|
|||||
|
|
#13 | ||||
|
I don't understand Miller's logic in betting exactly 2% of bankroll regardless of your edge. You mean to tell me that someone who has isolated a 60% edge on a -105 play should just wager 2% of his 'roll each time. You're leaving money on the table, which is poor money mgmt IMO.
|
||||
|
|
#14 | ||||
|
I'm not impressed with JR Miller.
As mentioned earlier, you need to be sure of your edge. If you use Kelly betting, it doesn't hurt you much if you underbet - the important thing is to avoid overbetting. I'd adjust my bet size anytime I lost 10% of my bankroll. |
||||
|
|
#15 | ||||
|
We're in the same camp. Thanks, Justin.
|
||||
|
|
#16 | ||||
|
I used to think that JR Miller was a legitimate handicapper after I tracked him for around 6 months and he was up 55 units. Since that time in late 2005 he is now down over 80 units.
He's a loser and shows how inept he is in his "debunking the Kelly Criterion" article |
||||
|
|
#17 | ||||
|
I assume this means you discount your estimate of the edge. A wise precaution. How do you account for multiple concurrent wagers? just use the currently available bank as the bank?
|
||||
|
|
#18 | |||||
|
Quote:
I'll note that my Kelly calculator properly handles simultaneous wagers (as long as said wagers are parlayable).
__________________
|
|||||
|
|
#19 | ||||||
|
Quote:
Of course the method I proposed is suboptimal. It leads to understaking, mild unless the bets are at short odds or very numerous. Most Kelly practitioners apply expectations discounting, fractional Kelly, or other ad hoc adjustments that reduce stakes, anyway. Quote:
![]() |
||||||
|
|
#20 | |||||
|
Sorry for taking so much time to get back to you on this ... but I'm on vacation and have only been checking the forum sporadically.
No. By "parlayable" I literally just mean able to be parlayed (although I should have specified parlayable and uncorrelated), which is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for uncorrelated. For example if Book A is the only book offering odds on the New York Mets to win the 2012 World Series and Book B is the only book offering odds on the Kansas City Chiefs to win the 2013 Super Bowl then while these bets are essentially (there is Armageddon risk, after all) independent and hence uncorrelated (although the reverse is not true -- while a necessary condition, uncorrelated doesn't imply independence), they aren't parlayable. Quote:
__________________
|
|||||
|
|
#21 | |||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|