maximum,
I agree with VG. It is based on VALUE. If your perceived value of that -200 is -250 then you should wager more than if you figured it to be -220. But a very high percentage of value in US sports in found in the + not the -. A lot of the favorites are inflated, it's the American way. You will find a lot more +EV situations on the +180 than the -200, a LOT.
If this is in regards to baseball, it helps to realize how many teams win more than 60% of their games. That's the main reason I dont lay more than -140, and rarely lay more than -120. Sure there are matchups against DET where a -300 would probably have value, but for me the return is too small as a function of risk. My largest wagers in baseball have been on dogs of +170 or higher b/c they had the most perceived value. I havent seen anything extremely good since Ponson was at NYY but there have been dogs of nearly 2 to 1 that I would have taken at less than +120. And on a few of those I raised my wager from the average of .4% to 1.5%
I'm not sure if you are referring to baseball, but if you are, what has helped me is disregarding who should win the game. I only care about how far the price is off. Tonite for example I saw value in TOR +187 and KC -1.5 +300. Did I think TOR or KC would actually win? no, I simply thought the prices were off and let the odds take care of themselves.
One other thing. Let's say you bet $100 per game. If you flat bet, then you will find yourself taking fewer and fewer large favorites b/c they dont pay as well--they start looking less and less attractive. Many who bet "to win" many find themselves risking more and more on the large favorites b/c they "should" win, as if it's already a done deal. Check the baseball forum for an obvious example of this. I have only wagered on baseball for two years on and off, but this has been my experience. Track yourself to see if you do better flat betting or identifying specific value.
