Kelly doesn't work because it is next to impossible to pick winners consistantly enough one way to make money over the long term.
People like to think Kelly is ain to a persons odds in poker. If they have the bigger edge, over the long haul they will make mre than they lose. The problem is sportsbetting isn't poker, and their are no fixed odds as to who has a better edge in a certain situation.
As far as identifying when a player has x amount of edge in one bet over the amount of any other. Even IF a person can determine that edge, (and I do not think they can long term) there is no way that that edge is more than 1-2%. So how does that correlate to betting 1 unit here or 2 units there or 5 units on this game?
1-2% is basically a WINNING players inate OVERALL abnility to overcome whatever vig they are paying when they win.
I am not sure ANYONE can win long term at -110 and playing all one way. But at -107 or lower it MIGHT be able to be done. I bet maybe 1000-1200 opinionated one way games a year. I do have a "winning" record in terms of money. But in terms of winning percentages it is below 50% because many of my plays are in bases. But when I look at NFL, NCAA hoops and foots I have maybe 400-500 plays there, and a vast majority are in NCAA hoops. Their my record is slightly more than 50% (counting ML dogs as well) On sheer pointspred plays my record is slightly better than 53%, which is just BARELY making money. Surely not enough to make a living on unless I am betting major amounts of cash. But it is profitable. But at -110 I would be losing money. Also if I was straddling my bets I am sure I would be losing money. Because chances are I would make the same "bad" bets just as often on my stronger plays as I do on my normal plays. But since I only bet games I really like or sides where I think I have a nice ML shot on I guess I only play my "best" plays anyways. So maybe I am just not that good. But I do know that I did it for almost nine years as my sole source of income, meaning sports betting is what paid the bills. So I must have done something right.
And even though I can't accurately predict who might be favored in a series, I can certainly identify when the books have done something incorrect. Doesn't mean I will bet it for more or less than normal. Unless of course I can get both ways for a profit, and THAT is the true secret of gambling. It isn't about units or winning percentages, it is about NOT LOSING. If I win a dollar a day for the next 10 years, and NEVER lose a bet, I will make more money gambling than probably 98% of anyone that tries it, and that will probably be about a billion people or more in a ten year span.
When you think of how many people HAVE gambled, and how many people actually win, it is mind boggling. How many people do you think have gambled on sports in the past, be it the Superbowl the Soccer World thingy, or whatever. 2 billion, 3 billion? That is a big number, and probably close I would imagine when you think that just about everyone bets on the SB these days, multiply that out and you get close to that. That doesn't even count the Euros,Asians, and South Americans with the World Cup. Afterall Soccer is by far tje biggest sport worldwide.
But this has gotten off on a tangeant But units were invented for those people buys guys SELLING something. They wanted to charge more, so to charge more they needed a "better product". Pro, scamdicapper, part timer. ANY opinion, stronger or lesser, has the same probability of failure. Your opinion is just that OPINION. So it stands to reason all opinions will be proportional. Your opinion might be better than someone elses, but it is not going to be 3-5 times better ever. Because everyone has about a 50% chance of having the right opinion. EWven the very best, can only garner a 4-5% edge in PICKING winners over that. What makes the difference is paying less vig, and all the opther little things that cuts corners and saves money, and I am not talking about fancy money management methodology.
People like to think Kelly is ain to a persons odds in poker. If they have the bigger edge, over the long haul they will make mre than they lose. The problem is sportsbetting isn't poker, and their are no fixed odds as to who has a better edge in a certain situation.
As far as identifying when a player has x amount of edge in one bet over the amount of any other. Even IF a person can determine that edge, (and I do not think they can long term) there is no way that that edge is more than 1-2%. So how does that correlate to betting 1 unit here or 2 units there or 5 units on this game?
1-2% is basically a WINNING players inate OVERALL abnility to overcome whatever vig they are paying when they win.
I am not sure ANYONE can win long term at -110 and playing all one way. But at -107 or lower it MIGHT be able to be done. I bet maybe 1000-1200 opinionated one way games a year. I do have a "winning" record in terms of money. But in terms of winning percentages it is below 50% because many of my plays are in bases. But when I look at NFL, NCAA hoops and foots I have maybe 400-500 plays there, and a vast majority are in NCAA hoops. Their my record is slightly more than 50% (counting ML dogs as well) On sheer pointspred plays my record is slightly better than 53%, which is just BARELY making money. Surely not enough to make a living on unless I am betting major amounts of cash. But it is profitable. But at -110 I would be losing money. Also if I was straddling my bets I am sure I would be losing money. Because chances are I would make the same "bad" bets just as often on my stronger plays as I do on my normal plays. But since I only bet games I really like or sides where I think I have a nice ML shot on I guess I only play my "best" plays anyways. So maybe I am just not that good. But I do know that I did it for almost nine years as my sole source of income, meaning sports betting is what paid the bills. So I must have done something right.
And even though I can't accurately predict who might be favored in a series, I can certainly identify when the books have done something incorrect. Doesn't mean I will bet it for more or less than normal. Unless of course I can get both ways for a profit, and THAT is the true secret of gambling. It isn't about units or winning percentages, it is about NOT LOSING. If I win a dollar a day for the next 10 years, and NEVER lose a bet, I will make more money gambling than probably 98% of anyone that tries it, and that will probably be about a billion people or more in a ten year span.
When you think of how many people HAVE gambled, and how many people actually win, it is mind boggling. How many people do you think have gambled on sports in the past, be it the Superbowl the Soccer World thingy, or whatever. 2 billion, 3 billion? That is a big number, and probably close I would imagine when you think that just about everyone bets on the SB these days, multiply that out and you get close to that. That doesn't even count the Euros,Asians, and South Americans with the World Cup. Afterall Soccer is by far tje biggest sport worldwide.
But this has gotten off on a tangeant But units were invented for those people buys guys SELLING something. They wanted to charge more, so to charge more they needed a "better product". Pro, scamdicapper, part timer. ANY opinion, stronger or lesser, has the same probability of failure. Your opinion is just that OPINION. So it stands to reason all opinions will be proportional. Your opinion might be better than someone elses, but it is not going to be 3-5 times better ever. Because everyone has about a 50% chance of having the right opinion. EWven the very best, can only garner a 4-5% edge in PICKING winners over that. What makes the difference is paying less vig, and all the opther little things that cuts corners and saves money, and I am not talking about fancy money management methodology.
