Question for ATX

oilman · Jul 20, 2003

I really enjoy your posts and I have picked up a few choice nuggets of information from them that has helped with my own handicapping.

My question for you is;

when flat betting in baseball, do you have a set risk amount or a set win amount? For example; you like the Braves -150 and your unit is 1% at which time equals $100, do you bet $150 to win $100 or do you bet $100 to win $66.67?

Thanks for your time.

If anyone one else has a suggestion, please feel free to post away.

SixthSense · Jul 21, 2003

I've followed this over the course of one season, doing it both ways, and the differences aren't too great. BUT, I believe always risking 1%, for example, to win less on favorites and more on dogs, is the way to go.

You could really see the differences, depending on now many dogs or favorites you bet on and which ones you win.

But, always risking 1% allows you to know exactly what you're risking. Otherwise, you are, in actuality, altering your bets or betting different units. Doing that, you really never know what your betting unit is and are all over the board. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here.

Guest · Jul 21, 2003

If you can pick a lot of winners, bet $150 to win $100 is better option, but if you are 50/50 dude, risking $100 to win $66.67 is much more better option. You'll lose less.

Maybe a correct way is bet 150 to win 100 when you are on hot streak and 100 to win 66.67 when on cold streak.

oilman · Jul 21, 2003

Thanks for the replies.

Last night I decided to go over all my selections for the baseball season in order to see where I was earning and where I was losing. Anyway, after crunching the data, I found that I have made most of my money on road dogs and home favorites. I also have scratched out a profit on home dogs, where I have lost money is road favorites, this despite hitting close to 55% on them.

So, after thinking about this thread and the numbers I have come up with from my results, I think the best way to do this would be to bet to WIN a full unit on home favorites and to put a full unit on the RISK amount on any road favorite that I may select. This might be just the solution for me.

On a side note, last NBA season was the first that I kept extensive records on my wagering. What a huge difference it made. Now I have done the same for baseball and it truely is amazing what an edge it is to know exactly what you have wagered in the past, how well you really have done and where you earn and where you lose.

ATX · Jul 21, 2003

I risk according to value.

which is one of the reasons that I rarely take even a -140 baseball favorite.

I dont risk "to win" on favorites (betting 1.5% to win 1% on a -150 favorite)

If I like a +210 dog, I dont go small because they are a dog. If I feel the line should be +150 then that may warrant a baseball wager of at least .6% (.4% on ML and .2% on -1.5).

If I see a baseball team at -110 and I feel they should be -145 then I'll wager an amount on the favorite according to how much I feel the line is off (it's not usually off as much on the favorite side, IMO, due to parlays etc).

If you are going to flat bet, which I recommend, especially if you are going to choose a relatively small number of games, then wager the same 1% on favorites as you do on +180 dogs. This does two things. 1. it maximizes your profitability and 2. makes those overvalued favorites a lot less attractive.

A -300 favorite does me little good, even if I have it at -400. It's just my way of doing things. If I see 3 large favorites that I feel have a greater chance of winning than what a 3 team parlay pays off than I'll use a 3teamer. I am up a little on 3teamers, but it almost takes a miracle each time for them to come in. I'll never forget Mr Rhodes for that SD comeback in Seattle, but parlays can be useful in minimizing exposure. I use two team parlays a little in football and basketball when I really like the side and total of one game, but they are correlated enough to where if one thing doesnt happen then they both lose, in other words a split is fairly unlikely. It gets tricky not tripping over your own feet with wagers that are correlated to one team having to perform well that day.

It really all boils down to how you do in each situation- on dogs and on favorites. Some people are good at picking their spots with large favorites, others avoid them. Keep accurate records of how you do on favorites and dogs for each price level, you will probably find that your underdog portfolio generates more profit.

I suggest to flat bet if you are going to wager on say 1-5 games a day. With that number of games you are subconsciously looking at a certain criteria for games to fall under, and the value that you are eyeballing on all of your selected games may be close to the same, so flat betting is the way to go. I practice a very strange type of flat betting, even I havent really figured it totally out yet. I have certain tiers of value that games fall under. For baseball, the vast majority of games I wager a total of .5 or .6% on. I subtract or add .1's depending on outside factors, including my degree of certainty and if the team is DET I dont feel like risking the same amount as I would say BAL with Ponson at home.

I have upper tiers games that in baseball may total 1.5%, and these are rare, but have been very good to me so far- I expect a few of these to lose soon.

The rest are nominal wagers. On a lot of games there is information that seems very confusing and doesnt paint a very clear picture. On these games I'll risk .3% or less, sometimes .4% if I have a bunch of these nominal wagers and want to value them a bit on a day when I dont see a whole lot of value. On these nominal wagers a lot of times I'll base the play solely on what I feel is a bookmaker's opinion, or a runline that I think is 20 cents off. They are almost always +EV, I dont make plays in which I dont see at least some value. An example from today was CIN -1.5 +168. I had no opinion on CIN or MIL on the ML. I decided to look at the ML for a quick glance and at +168 I saw quite a bit of value, since CIN had been scoring quite a bit even while losing. MIL is a decent road team and the pitching matchup was a little mysterious so why risk too much? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I bet pretty much the same amount on a lot of games, but I do have games that I feel offer a LOT of value and wager higher but these are relatively few, and the nominal wagers are games that I would have passed on. The nominal wagers add profit, if they didnt then I would pass. If the nominal wagers have higher yield then I try to pinpoint what is going right and up the wager size on those (it is hard to pinpoint). One of the 'problems' that I'm having right now is that my nominal wagers are so numerous and doing so well. If I had been flat betting 1% on EVERYTHING I would be much better off. But it's difficult to increase wager size significantly all of a sudden b/c then you risk becoming over-exposed in the short term when compared to your previous technique. This can really screw with your head, and that is one of the things that I try to control, it's hard to remain even-keel 364 days a year. One of the hardest things for me is to look at games after having a really bad day. But the longer that you stay away, the longer that the defeat stays with you. Then you start to wonder. Once you get away from looking at this in the day-to-day, you can really do better. I actually HATE having REALLY good days, I know from the past that more times than not those days are followed by a

, not that I like losing days either. I look at this market by season. I set goals for what % I want to acquire in each sport by season and chart the progress not so much weekly as monthly. If I get far ahead of where I want to be during a season, I usually cut back wager size a bit, it depends a lot on how much value I see. Typically I start VERY fast early in a season, and that helps, it's much easier to work with positive leverage for a season than to try to dig out of a vig hole. But when I hit losing skids I try my best to look at the big picture and realize that this will always happen at some point, and usually in a couple of days I'm better off than I was before in the BR department. During the playoffs is when the real fun is, I usually wager more on these games as a percentage of what I've made through the season.

oilman · Jul 22, 2003

Thanks ATX,

as always lots of great stuff. Now I have to break down what you posted and see where I can cut and paste too add to my "How to be a pro"

ATX · Jul 23, 2003

Try to get as many opinions as possible from other people as well. Then use a lot of different ideas and incorporate this into a system that works for YOU!!

I used to bet all baseball chalk. I did all right, but I used a lot of parlays. I would pick my spots and didnt wager on very many games. I started thinking that somebody, somewhere is making money on every single game on the board, not that one person likes every single game, but somebody has an advantage on each game. It just goes to show that my strategy is always changing. Sometimes if I'm not seeing clearly I'll wager on a select few games. Baseball is different for me than other sports. I dont try to figure out who will win a baseball game. I try to determine if a price is too high or too low and act on it. In football and basketball things are quite a bit different. I play dog moneylines in those sports, but not all the time. It takes more mental energy for me to determine who wins a game by how much what percentage of the time. And I spend a lot of energy on 2nd halves which have to be done very quickly. Winning and losing streaks are more pronounced as well. For many of these reasons I suffer from burnout in the fall and winter, and I have to make strategy adjustments all the time. One of the keys is to go through enough scenarios, learn from them, and know what to do when the same situations arise. If you look at enough lines, handicap the games, and spend a decent amount of time analyzing the results you may be able to categorize situations according to value. Pick up a copy of "Mega Memory", do the mental exercises. It doesnt have anything to do with handicapping sports, but it will teach you a lot about how the human mind operates. It is much like a computer, but much more powerful if you can harness its intuition. A large part of intuition is recognition. If you recognize a situation, and add/subtract small differences from the scenarios you have filed away, then a profitable forecast can be put into motion OVER TIME. The one thing I can do is tell you how to live to bet another day, MONEY MANAGEMENT!! You are not going to become wealthy in this market in one week, in one month, in one year. you will not become wealthy in ANY market over those time periods, unless you benefit from a lot of luck. But if you spend the time needed to develop strategies which give you a small advantage, you can use this edge and apply it over TIME. As in almost everything in life, small differences over time create leverage and VALUE.

You should read the numerous threads about how the -110 is unbeatable, to get an alternative view. It's very necessary to read the views of someone that cant.

ATX · Aug 17, 2003

I'm pretty much done posting theory. Too many other people are pissed that I'm giving too much away, I understand and I'll STFU.

300% a year is definitely attainable in this market. You wont get rich quick, but by practicing optimum money management, and learning your own best risk/reward aggressiveness in 5-7 years...

BigGamesOnly · Aug 17, 2003

ATX-

I used to be like you, not hardly taking any chalk. However, I do believe there are situations where that is warranted. Lately for me I've been looking at Detroit pitching. Three out of four pitchers have a combined record of 5-24. If I bet against those pitchers at -200 they would have to win 1 out of 3 games to beat me. They are closer to 1 out 5 games which translates into -400 to break even.

I'll keep taking those $50 bills when I bet those -200 games. I have even considered taking -250 against them.

ATX · Aug 17, 2003

I agree with that strategy. I dont lay chalk very often mainly b/c it starts screwing my long term strategy up. I dont have much experience in baseball. For that reason, in order to learn the game and learn what I feel is my proper strategy I wont lay chalk over -140 (except for one today, ironically). Once I gain more experience I may be able to ID favorites of -180 that should be -220. Right now I think it is much easier to ID dogs of +160 that should be +140, plus it returns a hell of a lot better. I also feel that if a -180 should be a -220, for example, then they win by 2 or more at a high %, so I use RLs. The high priced chalk may come in more often at the end of seasons since weaker teams tend to give up a little, and the pennant race may add to the favorites production.