Hi Guys,
Great site. I've been lurking for a while and I've finally gotten up the nerve to ask a newbie question reagarding money management. I just finished reading JR Miller's book-How Professional Gambler's Beat the the Pro Football Pointspread and he has an interesting theory on money management. Basically he advocates betting 1% of your bankroll on each play (flat betting) until your bankroll either increases or decreases by 50%. So if you started with $5000.00, you would bet $50 (Lay $55 to win $50) on every play and when you reached $7,500, a 50% increase, you would adjust your bet size to $75 (1%) and so on. He stresses never changing your bet size until your bankroll either increases or decreases by 50%. (Again 1% of that new figure). The thing I found interesting was that he stressed volume in making plays in order to produce a nice profit. He states he makes about 1500-1800 plays a year. Assume you start with $5000 and you make 1500 plays (Avg. of about 4 a night) at 1% ($50). Suppose you can hit 55%, you would have 825 winners x $50=$41,250. You have 675 losers x $55=$37,125. So $41,250-$37,125=+$4,125 and that doesn't take into account the resizing of your bet if your bankroll increases by 50%. If you bet with reduced juice, say -105, obviously you would need a lower winning percentage to show a decent profit. What I am asking is, does this seem like a viable approach? I know Miller's picks that he tries to sell are horrendous, I'm just asking about the MM Theory. Is it feasible to hit 53% to 55% over say 1500-1800 plays? I know some advocate the Kelly Criterion to maximize profits but isn't betting 1% of your bankroll safe when one doesn't exactly know his edge on every play?
I'm not a math guru so I wanted to run this by you guys for comments.
Thanks
Great site. I've been lurking for a while and I've finally gotten up the nerve to ask a newbie question reagarding money management. I just finished reading JR Miller's book-How Professional Gambler's Beat the the Pro Football Pointspread and he has an interesting theory on money management. Basically he advocates betting 1% of your bankroll on each play (flat betting) until your bankroll either increases or decreases by 50%. So if you started with $5000.00, you would bet $50 (Lay $55 to win $50) on every play and when you reached $7,500, a 50% increase, you would adjust your bet size to $75 (1%) and so on. He stresses never changing your bet size until your bankroll either increases or decreases by 50%. (Again 1% of that new figure). The thing I found interesting was that he stressed volume in making plays in order to produce a nice profit. He states he makes about 1500-1800 plays a year. Assume you start with $5000 and you make 1500 plays (Avg. of about 4 a night) at 1% ($50). Suppose you can hit 55%, you would have 825 winners x $50=$41,250. You have 675 losers x $55=$37,125. So $41,250-$37,125=+$4,125 and that doesn't take into account the resizing of your bet if your bankroll increases by 50%. If you bet with reduced juice, say -105, obviously you would need a lower winning percentage to show a decent profit. What I am asking is, does this seem like a viable approach? I know Miller's picks that he tries to sell are horrendous, I'm just asking about the MM Theory. Is it feasible to hit 53% to 55% over say 1500-1800 plays? I know some advocate the Kelly Criterion to maximize profits but isn't betting 1% of your bankroll safe when one doesn't exactly know his edge on every play?
I'm not a math guru so I wanted to run this by you guys for comments.
Thanks