My official betting thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Duritz said:
Hi Brett. I have a question for you:

I assume you've recorded all your bets so far and know what your index number is, etc, having bet fully Kelly on them. These sample of bets are now a good testing ground. I'd like to know, and I am sure the results would interest yourself, how you would've gone if you were betting each of the following:

1. Full Kelly (as you have been)
2. 3/4 Kelly
3. 1/2 Kelly
4. 1/4 Kelly

If you've got records it'd obviously be a pretty simple matter in Excel to work those things out. You could graph them and have a look at the ups and downs based on that. Of course, the final index numbers (to this point) would be very interesting too.

I say it because although I personally focus on racing, I wouldn't bet more than 10% Kelly, and even that's pretty high, because there's absolutely no way that my price is accurate enough for that. I know when I've gone through periods of my own betting, if I'd bet Full Kelly it'd have been a disaster, whereas a 10% Kelly is a lot more smooth. To be honest, I usually bet around 7% Kelly, that's enough for me.

Obviously, racing and sports are very different and you can come up with a more accurate/reliable price on a sporting event, there's more chaos in a horse race. For starters, quarterbacks don't have Danny Nikolic pulling them up... So, 7% Kelly would be too weak on sports betting, but I'd be interested to know how those higher figures like 1/4, 1/2 look on your history this year.
Click to expand...

Betting my picks at differing kelly fractions results in an exponential decrease in the amount lost, by 1/4 kelly, my BR index would be still at 86.

I really don't take stock in optimizing against one real betting run. This one real betting run is an iteration of a vast array of possibilities. It's unique in the way the bets came along (whether simultaneous or not), and sometimes I bet out of the 'kelly queue' when I want to lock in a line, which makes back fitting a betting strategy even more moot.

What's that program called? The Staking Machine? Where can you can back fit betting strategies? IMHO, a real betting run should only be used as a guide to set the parameters for rigorous simulation. There's no point in finding out some BS betting strategy like Fibbonacci does best over the sample, as it takes advantage of the peculiarities/nuances of that particular betting run.

I simulated by a distribution of my expected win % 1000 times X 1000 bets per run. I plotted the end state bankrolls for each run to see the distribution. I plotted it at different Kelly fractions. I even did level staking.

Whatever betting strategy you choose, it needs to be simulated in order for you to plot the distribution of possibilities.

Then you need to go with what your comfortable with, what maximizes your expected utility/contentment. With ATS betting, I'm not content with anything that does not maximize BR end state growth. The volatility is great, but relative to money line betting (which you do as a horse player), ATS betting at full kelly would be FAR from as volatile as money line betting at full kelly.

Yeah, I'd definitively adopt a Kelly fractional for horse racing. Maybe not as low as yours though.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

NCAAB:

Maine +19 @ 55%
Akron +10.5 @ 55%
Nebraska Omaha +30.5 @ 55%
North Dakota +15.5 @ 55%
 
NFL Week 14:

Already posted:

OAK +10.5 @ 55%

The rest:

KC +7 @ 55%
SD +9.5 @ 57%
TEN +5 @ 55%
BUF -3 @ 60%
CIN -3.5 @ 60%
MIA +10.5 @ 57%
GB -6.5 @ 62%
 
brett128 said:
Do you know what Donk, after being here for such a while, you probably take the cake over peanut to be the thickest person here.
Click to expand...
I find this funny, on several levels.

You have lost 80% of your bank, but I am the thickest here?

Ok, I have a question for you, Brett0.21.

It is a very simple mathematical question.

Tell me which investor has the better edge. A guy who takes 1.91 about 1.66 shots, or another guy who lays 2.50 shots at <2.00?
 
ThePeanutGallery said:
I find this funny, on several levels.

You have lost 80% of your bank, but I am the thickest here?

Ok, I have a question for you, Brett0.21.

It is a very simple mathematical question.

Tell me which investor has the better edge. A guy who takes 1.91 about 1.66 shots, or another guy who lays 2.50 shots at <2.00?
Click to expand...

Geez mate. You've got me. I'm a fraud. The most simple of Peanut's riddles has caught me out.

You're just a modern day Aesop aren't you?



The probability of "a guy who takes 1.91 about 1.66 shots"

: 1 / 1.66 = 60%

The probability of "another guy who lays 2.50 shots at <2.00?"

: 1-(1/2.5) = 60%


The only thing we now have to worry about is the odds. Considering a $2 lay essentially means you are getting $2.00 on a 60% win %. Which would be better than 60% at 1.91. The lower the odds laid <$2.00, the higher the edge as compared to taking $1.91 with a 60% proposition.

If we have to account for typical -110 (4.5%) vig/commission when laying, we would need to lay at $1.99 or less to start beating 60% at 1.91 taken at a book.
 
ThePeanutGallery said:
I find this funny, on several levels.

You have lost 80% of your bank, but I am the thickest here?

Ok, I have a question for you, Brett0.21.

It is a very simple mathematical question.

Tell me which investor has the better edge. A guy who takes 1.91 about 1.66 shots, or another guy who lays 2.50 shots at <2.00?
Click to expand...

The first guy. No wait, the 2nd guy. No hang on wait, both of them!! No!! Neither of them!! No!!
 
ThePeanutGallery said:
I find this funny, on several levels.

You have lost 80% of your bank, but I am the thickest here?

Ok, I have a question for you, Brett0.21.

It is a very simple mathematical question.

Tell me which investor has the better edge. A guy who takes 1.91 about 1.66 shots, or another guy who lays 2.50 shots at <2.00?
Click to expand...

You may be out of your depth here peanut. I'm not a Brett fan but he is smarter than you.
 
brett128 said:
Geez mate. You've got me. I'm a fraud. The most simple of Peanut's riddles has caught me out.

You're just a modern day Aesop aren't you?



The probability of "a guy who takes 1.91 about 1.66 shots"

: 1 / 1.66 = 60%

The probability of "another guy who lays 2.50 shots at <2.00?"

: 1-(1/2.5) = 60%


The only thing we now have to worry about is the odds. Considering a $2 lay essentially means you are getting $2.00 on a 60% win %. Which would be better than 60% at 1.91. The lower the odds laid <$2.00, the higher the edge as compared to taking $1.91 with a 60% proposition.

If we have to account for typical -110 (4.5%) vig/commission when laying, we would need to lay at $1.99 or less to start beating 60% at 1.91 taken at a book.
Click to expand...
So you have a model...

It tells you a 1.91 line is 60% chance of being covered. So that is 1.66 in real odds yeah?

(1.91-1.66)/1.66 = 0.15 or 15% overlay.

So if one side is 60% to cover, well common sense says the other side is 40%.

Say you could (and you most certainly can) lay that team at around 2.00. Less than 2.00 is even better.

40% is 2.50, we all agree.

(2.00-2.50)/2.50 = -0.2 or -20%. The minus is due to you playing bookmaker. So it is a 20% overlay.

Back to the first line. So you have a model.... but you are incapable of utilising it for maximum gain. Why would you be trying to bet on a 15% overlay spat out by your model when there is a 20% overlay on the reverse side?

I am sure anabac could also explain.
 
ThePeanutGallery said:
So you have a model...

It tells you a 1.91 line is 60% chance of being covered. So that is 1.66 in real odds yeah?

(1.91-1.66)/1.66 = 0.15 or 15% overlay.

So if one side is 60% to cover, well common sense says the other side is 40%.

Say you could (and you most certainly can) lay that team at around 2.00. Less than 2.00 is even better.

40% is 2.50, we all agree.

(2.00-2.50)/2.50 = -0.2 or -20%. The minus is due to you playing bookmaker. So it is a 20% overlay.

Back to the first line. So you have a model.... but you are incapable of utilising it for maximum gain. Why would you be trying to bet on a 15% overlay spat out by your model when there is a 20% overlay on the reverse side?

I am sure anabac could also explain.
Click to expand...

But hang on... If he's able to lay the reverse at 2.0 then he's obviously able to back his own side at 2.0, rendering your 1.91 question irrelevant. Obviously he's going to take 2.0 if it's available rather than 1.91...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

He's picking and choosing where to apply the vig.

When you have both scenarios at 60%, the only difference in edge comes from any difference in paying the vig.

Say you could (and you most certainly can) lay that team at around 2.00. Less than 2.00 is even better.

40% is 2.50, we all agree.

(2.00-2.50)/2.50 = -0.2 or -20%. The minus is due to you playing bookmaker. So it is a 20% overlay.
Click to expand...
You obviously have never laid in your life. If you have, I feel sorry for you.
 
NCAAB:

West Virginia -7 @ 55%
Binghamton +37.5 @ 55%
Minnesota -14.5 @ 55%
 
Brett, I have followed your thread with interest and each time you post your index number and/or discuss full kelly the same thought occurs to me that I am sure you have considered. I wanted to get your thoughts on why you haven't gone down the following path.

Your 60%+ plays are profitable (I think) over a small but reasonable sample group.

Using Kelly removing your 55%+ and 57%+ plays would mean you are betting more on each 60%+ play.

Each play would be a larger bet on a more profitable play without the 55+ and 57+ plays.

You could of course still monitor and results of the other plays and refine your formula/system/method/technique/whatever you prefer to call it and introduce them later if over a sample group you consider appropriate they in fact prove to be winning plays also.

Do you know what your current index number would be only betting the 60+ plays?
 
NCAAB:

Oregon State -11 @ 55%
Fairfield -11 @ 55%
Towson +18 @ 55%
Savannah State +22.5 @ 55%
 
KP78 said:
Brett, I have followed your thread with interest and each time you post your index number and/or discuss full kelly the same thought occurs to me that I am sure you have considered. I wanted to get your thoughts on why you haven't gone down the following path.

Your 60%+ plays are profitable (I think) over a small but reasonable sample group.

Using Kelly removing your 55%+ and 57%+ plays would mean you are betting more on each 60%+ play.

Each play would be a larger bet on a more profitable play without the 55+ and 57+ plays.

You could of course still monitor and results of the other plays and refine your formula/system/method/technique/whatever you prefer to call it and introduce them later if over a sample group you consider appropriate they in fact prove to be winning plays also.

Do you know what your current index number would be only betting the 60+ plays?
Click to expand...


I believe that each win % bracket will eventually achieve it's intended win %'s. I also don't sit on my arse and assume any given win % is maintainable with no effort. As I've said before, sports handicapping is an arms race, lines are generally becoming more efficient year on year. I work on exploring new avenues and bettering my models every day.

When I look at some prior 60% plays, subsequent work has shown they really shouldn't have been 60% plays. But the record is the record.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

H
HTP Purton Bets
Replies
11
Views
1K
HTPunter
H

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top