[CrazyLou]

Lot of dog players here...

Interested to hear the most chalk you've ever laid. Was it in a parlay, straight up, etc?

[Broke Sport Guy]

-7000

[EaglesPhan36]

Probably around -250 and I got burned. So that's why I don't bite above -160ish nowadays.

[CrazyLou]

Originally Posted by EaglesPhan36

Probably around -250 and I got burned. So that's why I don't bite above -160ish nowadays.

I hear you, I got burned pretty badly myself on an -800 line recently. It's always a bitch making that money back because it's like so many bets rolled into one.

[CrazyLou]

Originally Posted by Broke Sport Guy

-7000

Did you win? If not I can see maybe the inspiration for that handle of yours. J/K...

[EaglesPhan36]

Yeah mine was on the tennis as well which I know yours was ... them F'ers get ya. Only way I lay that kinda wood is in parlays.

[Broke Sport Guy]

Originally Posted by crazyl

Did you win? If not I can see maybe the inspiration for that handle of yours. J/K...

Yep. Federer seems to be a lock tomorrrow.

[mathdotcom]

I think it's -14500 that Fed won't lose in straight sets tomorrow

[Brady2Moss]

I layed -12000 on a live bet on the NBA finals, the game was already decided...

[element1286]

I despise betting favs. I'll take my chances with the dogs. As for the highest, it is probably around -175, didn't win and have stayed away from favs ever since.

[SlickFazzer]

-130

[rm18]

-30000 USA Money line against South Korea mens basketball

[accuscoresucks]

-500 the wgc matchplay earlier this year when he won

[Nicky Santoro]

i bet alot of -9900 at wsex in game betting. the only time i do it is when wsex falls asleep on the wheel, which is often.. sometimes a team is up 8-0 in the 7th and still 1st and 3rd none out and i do it.. or when the celtics were once up by 29, early in the 4th q... i only do it when i know it has a better than 99% chance of winning, which would make the -9900 a good value bet. i have yet to lose one. i am like 13-0. i dont win much when i do those, but they all add up..

[CrazyLou]

Originally Posted by Nicky Santauro

i bet alot of -9900 at wsex in game betting. the only time i do it is when wsex falls asleep on the wheel, which is often.. sometimes a team is up 8-0 in the 7th and still 1st and 3rd none out and i do it.. or when the celtics were once up by 29, early in the 4th q... i only do it when i know it has a better than 99% chance of winning, which would make the -9900 a good value bet. i have yet to lose one. i am like 13-0. i dont win much when i do those, but they all add up..

They all do up for sure but you got to be careful. Some people blind bet chalk and that's a horrible strategy. For every tennis pick I release that's heavy on the chalky side, there's 2-3 more that I'll pass in a given day that are moderate to huge upsets. It's not as easy as it looks making a safe chalk bet, because so many players are overvalued.

[daggerkobe]

I used to bet -700 on Canas in tennis last year. He probably cost me $5k alone. Now I don't touch it.

[louisvillekid]

most i can think of is around -500 to -700 on a ultimate fighter, but that's just because my brother or his friend tell me it is basically a lock, cause i don't know jack shit about most of the fighters, just watch some pay-per-views sometimes at their cribs.

i refuse, or shall i say, very seldom lay more than -150 on a baseball or hockey team, i try to find a slight fav or a dog that i like.

hardly ever play ML's on football or baskets, maybe on a slight fav that i think will pull it i might go as high as -200

[VideoReview]

Where did that thread go with the guy on SBR who was trying to turn $50 into $500 by betting huge (like -1000 and up) favs?

[Ganchrow]

The truth is that for an advantage bettor (ML) faves are the way to go due to the lower volatility inherent in betting at shorter odds.

Now that this doesn't mean that longer ("dog") odds should as a rule be avoided -- quite the contrary -- advantage bettors should always be on the lookout for edge wherever it can be found (and in certain sports, MLB being one, ML dogs have historically outperformed ML faves).

No, what's bad about betting at long odds is that doing so creates greater bankroll volatility making outcomes less certain. This is bad for the advantage bettor seeking to grow his bankroll (best helped by low-risk profit), but conversely can be construed a good thing for the recreational bettor wagering at negative edge, whose best and only chance of turning any profit (especially a lrage profit) is to increase his chances of getting lucky.

It's for this reason that many recreational players bet almost exclusively underdogs (which is not to say that a player who bets strictly underdogs is necessarily a recreational player), they've realized that they have very little probability of coming out ahead betting favorites and so they stick with higher variance underdogs. This the "lottery mentality" of sports betting and is indeed why lotteries themselves generate so much income.

For example, a recreation player player placing 400 flat bets over the course of a season has a probability of about 11.5% of finishing the season up 15 units or more betting exclusively at odds of +200.

Were the same player to bet exclusively at odds of -200 (also at 4.545% vig), his probability of finishing the season up 15 units or more would drop to only 1.1%.

In short, not all edge is created equally. 5% edge at -200 is a whole hell of a lot more valuable to the advantage player than than identical at +200.

So if you're a rec bettor just looking to enjoy yourself then by all means bet as many underdogs as you can. Assuming markets are unbiased it won't ultimately hurt or help your expected return is any manner. What it will do is is give you a better probability of making money (although at the cost of longer and more drawn out losing streaks). Plus, betting dogs can be a whole lot more fun than betting favorites -- I mean what recreational player wants to risk $100 to win a paltry $12.50, when he can instead risk $100 to win a more meaningful $800?

[CrazyLou]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

The truth is that for an advantage bettor (ML) faves are the way to go due to the lower volatility inherent in betting at shorter odds.

Now that this doesn't mean that longer ("dog") odds should as a rule be avoided -- quite the contrary -- advantage bettors should always be on the lookout for edge wherever it can be found (and in certain sports, MLB being one, ML dogs have historically outperformed ML faves).

No, what's bad about betting at long odds is that doing so creates greater bankroll volatility making outcomes less certain. This is bad for the advantage bettor seeking to grow his bankroll (best helped by low-risk profit), but conversely can be construed a good thing for the recreational bettor wagering at negative edge, whose best and only chance of turning any profit (especially a lrage profit) is to increase his chances of getting lucky.

It's for this reason that many recreational players bet almost exclusively underdogs (which is not to say that a player who bets strictly underdogs is necessarily a recreational player), they've realized that they have very little probability of coming out ahead betting favorites and so they stick with higher variance underdogs. This the "lottery mentality" of sports betting and is indeed why lotteries themselves generate so much income.

For example, a recreation player player placing 400 flat bets over the course of a season has a probability of about 11.5% of finishing the season up 15 units or more betting exclusively at odds of +200.

Were the same player to bet exclusively at odds of -200 (also at 4.545% vig), his probability of finishing the season up 15 units or more would drop to only 1.1%.

In short, not all edge is created equally. 5% edge at -200 is a whole hell of a lot more valuable to the advantage player than than identical at +200.

So if you're a rec bettor just looking to enjoy yourself then by all means bet as many underdogs as you can. Assuming markets are unbiased it won't ultimately hurt or help your expected return is any manner. What it will do is is give you a better probability of making money (although at the cost of longer and more drawn out losing streaks). Plus, betting dogs can be a whole lot more fun than betting favorites -- I mean what recreational player wants to risk $100 to win a paltry $12.50, when he can instead risk $100 to win a more meaningful $800?

Excellent post. I also took from it that I am sharp for betting huge tennis favorites and amassing decent stats while doing so. If I can sustain this over a meaningful sample size (such as 40-50 games) I might stop posting here and open crazylspicksandpornclips.com...

[ShamsWoof10]

-20000 in live betting and -2000 in Tennis so many years back...

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by crazyl

Excellent post. I also took from it that I am sharp for betting huge tennis favorites and amassing decent stats while doing so. If I can sustain this over a meaningful sample size (such as 40-50 games) I might stop posting here and open crazylspicksandpornclips.com...

Yeah, amassing positive returns flat betting faves in general says says a whole lot more (significance-wise) than amassing similar returns flat-betting dogs.

Now I'm trying to put down advantage dog bettors (of which many do exist -- I often find myself having to bet ML dogs), but rather pointing out that the statistical fact that it's a whole lot easier to get lucky flat-betting underdogs than it is flat-betting favorites, and so the latter (all else equal) requiring a larger sample size to prove significance.

[Stacocakes]

If you check on sites like Betfair, millions and millons of dollars are spent each day on bets that equate to $1000 to win $10 bucks.I admit that I have bet those lines a couple of times looking to get a couple extra bucks for the day.They usually appear when the event is pretty much done but these bets have lost in the past

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

The truth is that for an advantage bettor (ML) faves are the way to go due to the lower volatility inherent in betting at shorter odds.

Can't you avoid that by betting to a fixed winning amount, rather than fixed stakes?

[rm18]

Originally Posted by HeeeHAWWWW

Can't you avoid that by betting to a fixed winning amount, rather than fixed stakes?

no because then you would need more games to bet

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by HeeeHAWWWW

Can't you avoid that by betting to a fixed winning amount, rather than fixed stakes?

Right, but then you're risking more on faves and are thus increasing your expected win (or loss for a rec player), hence comparing apples to orange.

For an advantage player, this a good part of the reason why why short odds are so favorable -- because he can wager more on faves with roughly the same amount of risk, thereby increasing his expected return.

But yes, generally speaking it's best (all else being equal) for an advantage player to bet to win a fixed amount rather than to risk a fixed amount on each bet with no thought given to payout odds.

[Ganchrow]

The point is that an advantage can bet and expect to win more on a fave that he can a dog with the same edge, without increasing his volatility.

On the flip side, he can bet and expect to win the same amount on a fave than he can on a dog at lower risk.

The optimal trade off between the two (risk and return) would ultimately be a function of that player's personal risk preferences.