Objectively, how much should I bet on a match

[mathmoi]

Hi,

I'm starting to bet on hockey matchs and I read a lots of things in theses forums and online about money management, unit betting and things like that.

A question I did not find answered anywhere is, why should I bet more on some match than on others? I calculated the value of a unit for me as 2% of my bankroll (is it too much for a newbie?) and it is the amount I bet on each match I decide to bet on.

Now, in the theRx Hockey subforum, I see peoples are betting different amount on different matches. Is there any objective (mathematical) reason to do so?

I first thought they bet more on results they are more confident about, but I think it doesn't make sense. If you're not confident about a result, you should not bet.

But maybe I'm wrong, obviously there is something I don't understand.

 

[gatorbait08]

I believe you should alwayes keep your bets the same no matter how good you feel about a bet. As your bankroll grows you up your bets to fit your bankroll.

 

[oldmanTED]

mathmoi

Welcome to the RX. As a newbie, you shouldn't wager more then 1% of your bankroll on any one play until you gain experience. This long tested method protects your bankroll against long losing streaks.

 

[mathmoi]

Welcome to the RX. As a newbie, you shouldn't wager more then 1% of your bankroll on any one play until you gain experience. This long tested method protects your bankroll against long losing streaks.

Hi, thanks for answering.

I'll follow this advice.

 

[A2Gator]

To more specifically answer your question about betting with units based on confidence:

You will see that the majority of posters on this site do adjust their wager size to fit their relative confidence of the wager's success.

However there are definitely two distinct schools-of-thought on this topic, and you are definitely on to one of them with what you said: If you are not confident, you shouldn't play the game at all. That said, you have to decide if there can exist degrees of confidence in which you still believe you should play the game, but at varying wagering levels. I actually do agree with you, that if you really believe that your wager has a good chance of winning, you should just bet the game with a consistent amount.

Unit betting can dangerously open the door to being an action junkie, where you will start playing every game you feel like you have a slight read on, and just playing each game small. If you are just making wagers for the fun of making wagers, you will hit likely between 45-50% of your plays, and be losing money. If you are really selective, and spend a lot of time capping 1-2 games a day, you have a greater chance of coming up with a winning angle on a particular game.

That said, you will often see, for example, someone with a losing record, but in the "plus" with their bankroll. Unit betting is the only way to achieve this, as obviously the only possibility there is that they have won more of the games that they placed a relatively larger wager on. That said, if they hadn't played any of the smaller play games at all, their season might be even more profitable.

For someone who is just starting out, I definitely recommend flat betting, because you are learning and will continue to be learning how you handicap a game, and which angles, "gut feelings," trends, etc etc seem to work for you. Also, to second what oldmanted said, 1% is a good number.

Others might chime in with completely different advice, but you will soon see that differing opinions is the essence of The RX Forums. Don't ever take anyone too seriously.

Prost. :drink:

 

[mathmoi]

To more specifically answer your question about betting with units based on confidence:

You will see that the majority of posters on this site do adjust their wager size to fit their relative confidence of the wager's success.

However there are definitely two distinct schools-of-thought on this topic, and you are definitely on to one of them with what you said: If you are not confident, you shouldn't play the game at all. That said, you have to decide if there can exist degrees of confidence in which you still believe you should play the game, but at varying wagering levels. I actually do agree with you, that if you really believe that your wager has a good chance of winning, you should just bet the game with a consistent amount.

Unit betting can dangerously open the door to being an action junkie, where you will start playing every game you feel like you have a slight read on, and just playing each game small. If you are just making wagers for the fun of making wagers, you will hit likely between 45-50% of your plays, and be losing money. If you are really selective, and spend a lot of time capping 1-2 games a day, you have a greater chance of coming up with a winning angle on a particular game.

That said, you will often see, for example, someone with a losing record, but in the "plus" with their bankroll. Unit betting is the only way to achieve this, as obviously the only possibility there is that they have won more of the games that they placed a relatively larger wager on. That said, if they hadn't played any of the smaller play games at all, their season might be even more profitable.

For someone who is just starting out, I definitely recommend flat betting, because you are learning and will continue to be learning how you handicap a game, and which angles, "gut feelings," trends, etc etc seem to work for you. Also, to second what oldmanted said, 1% is a good number.

Others might chime in with completely different advice, but you will soon see that differing opinions is the essence of The RX Forums. Don't ever take anyone too seriously.

Prost. :drink:

Thanks for your answer.