gCall to experts out there!
Recently I read lots of suggestions towards investing in sports betting rather than roulette. But figured out that there are not many discussions.
Few basic questions. What is the BR and unit size one should consider? What is safe and steady. Live game betting or offline? Does having a knowledge of game absolutely important? Is there any known progressions or is it flat betting always? What should be a decent target one should keep in mind?
Any inputs are welcome.
Never risk more than 5% per match and 20% a day. Recommended 1000 Units each match should range from 1% to 3% depending on the odds of winning. Always aim for lesser bets but more quality bets. 3 wins to 0 loss will always be better than 7 wins to 4 loss. Follow this and this 1000 should be your lifetime bankroll and start earning your passive income:)
Sport-betting is a good way to walk ... see two attach files ... should let you get started ...
I know people that make serious money using the 2-6 method ... you can even build your own version of it ...
Quote from: Sputnik on August 12, 2013, 02:14:35 PM
Sport-betting is a good way to walk ... see two attach files ... should let you get started ...
I know people that make serious money using the 2-6 method ... you can even build your own version of it ...
Thanks Sputnik. 2-6 looks more of a martingale right? Does sports betting follow the same set of progressions as in roulette? Is there any that specifically works in sports betting only?
Thanks Weddings.
Quote from: Priyanka on August 14, 2013, 01:08:20 AM
Thanks Sputnik. 2-6 looks more of a martingale right? Does sports betting follow the same set of progressions as in roulette? Is there any that specifically works in sports betting only?
I forgot to mention, most of them use it to build up a decent bankroll quick ...
Cheers
Here is a graph using 2-6 method ...
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2Fzn8w83.jpg&hash=90738c1c671409804f88b940c3e06ddf972f6140)
You can make an excellent tax-free living sports betting in the UK, especially on Betfair where the odds tend to be better than a bookies.
I only know one professional gambler but he's been doing it for more than 10 years and is very well off. His risk of ruin is now practically zero since his system is totally bulletproof.
He bets on Premier League football, it is really quite predictable. And with 760 games per season, there is more than enough opportunity.
Personally I think knowledge of the game is essential. Statistically, it probably isn't, if you don't care about the emotional side of betting.
With a system that discloses accurate predictions you can gain a +EV from your bets, and use something similar to the Kelly Criterion to calculate the optimum wagering strategy. Kelly does have its critics and it can suggest to place large bets, some prefer to use a half or even quarter Kelly. I would certainly not use any progression in the mould of the Martingale, the risk of ruin is great and requires a large bankroll. At least with Kelly, you only really bet what you can afford to at that time. There is also the mental distress of losing a series of Martingale bets. If you gamble properly you shouldn't even need that anyway. Weddings is correct in saying that bets should be proportional to your BR, which the Kelly Criterion teaches. If a system is tested and proven, it will work long term.
Number Six
There is a book called Fortune's Formula by William Poundstone which goes into great depth on the Kelly criterion.
It is a good book because it charts the beginnings of the formula and the people who used it.
Copies are easily available on Amazon for anyone interested.
cheers.
Seems interesting. Just ordered a copy.
The only real point it needs to cover is that the EV has to be positive.
If it is, Kelly works, it is entirely logical. You can find the formula anywhere.
Not that I am against books or anything...
It is also worth noting that it is an investment strategy, as oppose to a progression ie it does not work for negative expectation bets.
Sports betting needs lots of hard work and information gathering. All numbers of roulette are equally mighty or weak but all players/teams in a game are not. I very firmly believe that sports betting can earn you better income than casino gambling and is much lesser volatile.
I stopped writing my sports picks because my efforts weren't appreciated even after a very high success rate of my tips. Now my picks are for myself only. It also appear that the forum has much more interest in roulette than sports.
I advise to any gambler who is actually looking to make some money to stay away from roulette. Or any other game that is played against the house.
At sports betting you actually have a chance to be profitable. So that is a good move to check out sports betting instead of roulette.
The bankroll size doesn't matter much. It is the ratio of the BR and bet size that matters. The 5% per bet seems to be fine. I would even suggest a larger bet size if the odds of your bets are around 2 (even money bets) and you are flat betting.
Progressions are different. I also don't recommend progressive betting. They don't change your long term results. The long term results are pretty much defined by your individual bets. How you combine them into progressive bet sessions doesn't matter in the long run. It just makes it harder to evaluate your real success rate. And it is harder to find the appropriate starting bet size as well.
The only progression that I advise is that when your bankroll increases you can increase your bet size as well.
About being safe... It is all relative. A smaller bet size is always safer, but the risk is never going to be 0. So there is no 100% safe.
Live/offline: I prefer offline. It is less stressful. You have more time to think. But that is just preference.
Knowledge of the game: If you make +EV bets and have the bankroll to keep yourself in the game, you should be a winner. The EV depends on the probabilities of the game outcomes. If you don't know the game, you don't know the EV, you can't really make a good bet. Either you need to know the game, or you need a good source for this kind of information about the games.
Thanks Dragoner for a detailed reply.
Quote from: Dragoner on August 14, 2013, 01:44:54 PM
So that is a good move to check out sports betting instead of roulette.
:) That's an interesting observation. I am not planning to move away from roulette. Roulette is my passion. Roulette is not about making money for me, it is more about going on an adventure. It is more about the satisfaction I get from exploring the wheel and satisfaction I get from playing the game. Though am on a mission and challenge to prove something to my Dad, I will continue to play roulette whether I taste success or failure in that attempt. It is like paying a few quid to go on a fun ride. What you gain is the thrill of the ride and not monetary.
Quote from: Dragoner on August 14, 2013, 01:44:54 PM
The bankroll size doesn't matter much. It is the ratio of the BR and bet size that matters. The 5% per bet seems to be fine. I would even suggest a larger bet size if the odds of your bets are around 2 (even money bets) and you are flat betting.
Premier league is something that we chat about in our home at times and I can get advice from my friends. That is the way I want to go for sports betting. Thanks for all your advice on the bet size. I think I will go with 5% of the BR and not more than 20% on a day. And preferably will start flat betting and see how it goes. May be I might increase the bet size a little when someone is on a streak.
Quote from: Dragoner on August 14, 2013, 01:44:54 PM
The only progression that I advise is that when your bankroll increases you can increase your bet size as well.
Would you advice decreasing the bet size to that 5% of BR when my BR decreases after a streak of losses?
Quote from: Dragoner on August 14, 2013, 01:44:54 PM
A smaller bet size is always safer, but the risk is never going to be 0.
Thanks. I think I have learnt from Sam that whether it is 5$ or 50$ the risk of losing on a specific bet is always the same, it doesn't vary with your bet size.
Quote from: Dragoner on August 14, 2013, 01:44:54 PM
Live/offline: I prefer offline. It is less stressful. You have more time to think. But that is just preference.
Thanks for this valuable suggestion. I think I will stick to offline based on what you have advised. I think I realize that live will obviously lead me to less time to think and I will be prone to make mistakes. How funny it is that people advice playing live in roulette and the other way around in sports betting :)
Quote from: Dragoner on August 14, 2013, 01:44:54 PM
If you don't know the game, you don't know the EV, you can't really make a good bet. Either you need to know the game, or you need a good source for this kind of information about the games.
Sure Dragoner, I think I get what you are saying. But again the EV is subjective isn't it. It is really hard to say the probability of Manchester united beating Swansea is 60% or 80%. What we can say is a range. Or is there any way we can make it more objective. Anything that has some subjectivity in it is susceptible to be inaccurate.
Quote from: Priyanka on August 14, 2013, 02:51:10 PM
Would you advice decreasing the bet size to that 5% of BR when my BR decreases after a streak of losses?
Yes. Or be prepared to deposit again. The risk rises with the bet/bankroll ratio.
Quote from: Priyanka on August 14, 2013, 02:51:10 PM
Sure Dragoner, I think I get what you are saying. But again the EV is subjective isn't it. It is really hard to say the probability of Manchester united beating Swansea is 60% or 80%. What we can say is a range. Or is there any way we can make it more objective. Anything that has some subjectivity in it is susceptible to be inaccurate.
As long as we are only talking about sports betting, then yes, EV is subjective, because we can only calculate it with subjective probabilities.
Still, without knowing the game your estimated probability can be way off. While somebody who knows the game will have more accurate guesses.
If you have no information on the game, then your chances are better in roulette. And this should
not be taken as a suggestion to play roulette instead. Rather a suggestion to not bet without information on the game.
My advice would be to pick a sport where you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable than the majority and work from there.
Then have patience and look for value.
I would say I have a good knowledge of cricket compared to most people. William Hill were offering 1/1 on England winning the Ashes (up to a £20 bet) Now I considered that the odds of 1/1 were generous taking everything into consideration.
I already had my 'bookies bus route' mapped out from previous forays and managed to get a bit on.
There is so much competition nowadays what with the online market and such... you can get value in your chosen sport if you are patient and make money.
Ok, so it's a shameless plug of a winning bet I had! [smiley]aes/blush.png[/smiley] But there is a lesson in it.
Quote from: Dragoner on August 14, 2013, 03:38:54 PM
Rather a suggestion to not bet without information on the game.
Thanks and completely with you. I may not be an expert in the game I have chosen, but I think I can take informed decisions based on the knowledge that is available with me and available in sporting sites. I am going to start small may be 50$ to start with, as that is something that I can afford losing, while I learn the tricks of the trade. And I am going to stick to the win/lose/draw on the game bets to start with rather than going into the bets on detailed elements on the game.
Cheers
Yanks
Betfair is the best site to make money with sports betting. The house is unlike any other, because in Betfair you bet on a structure similar to the stock market, where there are bets for or against the results.
About the style of play, do not use any betting system. I prefer to bet against the results, called LAY. And I think yes, it is very important to the sport in question. I bet on football, which is my passion since childhood and I follow. I bet championships in Brazil, England, Spain, Italy, France, Russia, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Portugal and others, I have the opportunity to follow. I'm not a criterion of percentage of bankroll, simply bet a value that I know I can recover. The big secret is that you can maximize your successes and minimize your losses. In the first few months, I lost a lot of money, because I was still in the process of learning, today, can have a very good balance and on average make $ 500 a week ... some weeks more, some less, but always with a good balance to the end of the month. Nowadays, I play roulette because I like, but gain much more money with sports betting on betfair.
Quote from: BrenoGarcia on August 14, 2013, 05:36:21 PM
Betfair is the best site to make money with sports betting. The house is unlike any other, because in Betfair you bet on a structure similar to the stock market, where there are bets for or against the results.
I don't think I get it. Actually I thought you always bet for or against a decision. For example, if two players A and B are playing tennis, you either bet for A to win or against A to win. I think I am missing something from what you are trying to get at.
Quote from: BrenoGarcia on August 14, 2013, 05:36:21 PM
In the first few months, I lost a lot of money, because I was still in the process of learning, today, can have a very good balance and on average make $ 500 a week ...
Great going there. Any specific learnings from the initial loss that you can share?
Quote from: Priyanka on August 15, 2013, 02:21:51 AM
I don't think I get it. Actually I thought you always bet for or against a decision. For example, if two players A and B are playing tennis, you either bet for A to win or against A to win. I think I am missing something from what you are trying to get at.
Great going there. Any specific learnings from the initial loss that you can share?
Exactly, in tennis is different, because we can only have two outcomes, one or the other.
Betting for or against shall remain valid for sports where we have 3 different results, team win "A" team victory "B" or tie. If I bet "against" 'A', I get if I give a tie or 'B' win. If I bet 'for' from 'A', only get if 'A' win. That's the idea. I recommend you to see video on youtube about Betfair, trading betting, betting for and against ...
I'll post some pictures of my results
Bet on the Brazilian championship match between Fluminense and Corinthians. Bet against Fluminense, it is a weak club, full of embezzlement and bad phase. The Corinthians is currently the best team in Brazil, so it was not difficult to know that Fluminense would have little chance of winning this match. The result was a tie[attachimg=1]
For me, the strategy is to always bet that I can recover in a short-term (maximum 30 days). The majority of my losses, I recover the same day, others take 2 to 3 days. The secrets is to maximize your earnings, have a balance between wins and losses.
I recommend that you look at this site([size=78%]http://www.apostaganha.pt/prognosticos-activos/ (http://www.apostaganha.pt/prognosticos-activos/)[/size])[/size][size=78%], it contains predictions on matches that will happen. It is very interessate to understand how you should think about when going to place a bet[/size]
What is baloney to you? That gambling winnings in the UK are tax free? That there are professional sports bettors, or that there are systems that exists which have stood up to rigorous back testing and yield a positive EV for years and years? People agree on that, and the maths supports it. There are probably hundreds of professional betfair traders, maybe thousands, and it's important to understand that these people bet against each other, not the house, therefore in most cases the odds are very favourable. Before you start disgorging bilge about quantum mechanics, multiverses and strange worlds at the Earth's core and at the top of giant beanstalks, bear in mind it is possible to predict with fair accuracy, even without a system, the outcomes of football matches. There is so much capital involved, with a reasonable risk, that the probability of ruin (though it exists), is a mere blip that allows for a huge degree of confidence not available in any other activity. There are some betfair trades available called scalping, which is a form of arbitrage, that allow for profits to be made on an trade regardless of the outcome.
Quote from: Archie on August 15, 2013, 01:43:09 PM
Not a single one has satisfactorily answered my specific statistically related questions about what it is that they claim to do.
The age old question abounds: Why would they tell you? I suspect you think they are full of it since they dodge your questions. Most probably are, there are several threads on this and other boards that would testify to that. Betfair charges fees on transactions of course, but that doesn't mean the odds still aren't much more favourable than a bookies. It also commissions the use of "official" software for scalping trades. You can watch video demos of any of them and see with your very own eyes how the concept works. Not that it's as simple as abc. For the record my initial posts weren't anything to do with arbitrage, but betting systems that produce an accurate degree of probability through statistics. There are a number of methods this can be done, they are documented online in various places. Don't ask me where, I am not willing to find them for you.
Quote from: Archie on August 15, 2013, 01:19:22 PM
Second, 5% bet size to BR is ludicrous.
I've done simulations on various staking plans for sports betting and 5% came in 2nd after kelly betting. This is 5% of your bank (whatever that is at the time), so it's proportional betting. Hit a losing run, and you're staking less.
It's a perfectly good staking plan if you have an edge, even a modest one. It beats all the raise-after-a-loss plans hands down.
Personally I have no problem with the term baloney, or other such forms of rebuke.
But I am not sure if there is a purposeful conflict of interests going on, whether it's simply argumentative or otherwise. For example proportional betting with a +EV is entirely logical and the most effective method of growing an investment. There's really no argument against that case.
It doesn't matter how many times in a row you lose. Only the overall result matters.
At 5% even money bets a loss is BR*0.95 and a win is BR*1.05.
Your total result at even money bets is BR*0.95^nl*1.05^nw. Where nl is the number of losses, and nw is the number of wins. The order is irrelevant. Sure if it is 15 losses in a row it really does lose more than half of your current BR (which can be already much more than double your starting BR), but you have just as much or even more chance (at a +EV game with even money bets) to win 15 in a row.
If nl=nw then you lose, but with +EV and even money nw is expected to be greater than nl. With these numbers you break even around 0.513 win rate. Higher win rate gives you exponential growth. And again... the order of wins and losses is irrelevant.
PS. I might not answer to your further comments because I don't like your attitude. You might consider this to be my problem and not yours. It doesn't really matter.
Quote from: Archie on August 15, 2013, 06:14:29 PM
No, gambling is not an established, mainstream profession.
So what? it doesn't mean you can't make money at it, and it doesn't necessarily have to be full-time. Don't you do that yourself? you certainly drop enough hints that you're successful.
QuoteThe internet is a very poor place to seek out actual expertise. Not so much because the experts are loath to present their material for the above reasons - many do - but because the average reader doesn't come moderately equipped and willing to properly comprehend and discuss the work.
By that logic, a public library or University is also a "very poor place to seek out actual expertise"; a pretty grim assessment!
Learning anything takes effort and motivation, but whether any individual has it or not has no bearing on the source of that knowledge or expertise. More than at any time in the past, the "average" reader has an opportunity to learn from the experts, and to suggest otherwise is simply absurd.
QuoteWikipedia is not a site of experts.
Wikipedia compares favourably, in terms of reliability, with other sources of information such as Encyclopaedia Brittannica. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm) and here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414131855.htm).
Quote
Some old guy with $200,000 "to his name" loses fifteen bets in-a-row some day. It's likely happening somewhere while I write this. That's happened to myself more than a few times over thirty years of gambling. He starts his bets at 10,000 a crack, and drops that by a full 5% of the $10,000 on each. I'm being overly liberal to approximate this. Now he's loses very close to half his life's savings. It's a long way back, baby! Losing half of your BR means that then you will have to double up just to get back to where you were, here at the downsized bets. And, if it happens again anytime soon, you're "dead to the world". Think about it. Never give away that much control.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. So what if you lose 15 bets in a row some day? Any serious speculator should have researched all this and know what losing runs he can expect. He should also know that putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea, so you should have multiple banks. As I said, I've done some sims on 5% proportional staking with 1:1 odds and a small edge of 2% or so. The results were excellent, I might even post them later.
Sample of 1000 bets using the 5% plan. In none of sims was the starting bank of 1000 units ever lost, although it got down to 200 or so a couple of times.
[attachimg=1]
Quote from: Number Six on August 15, 2013, 12:56:31 PM
There are some betfair trades available called scalping, which is a form of arbitrage, that allow for profits to be made on an trade regardless of the outcome.
IMO, there is too much made of this as an advantage in using Betfair. You can find a lot of sites that promote trading as some kind of holy grail, and yes, it is possible to lock in profits so that you win whatever the outcome, but the
movement of the odds is just as probabilistic as the eventual outcome of the match/race. In other words,
IF you can predict which way the odds are likely to move, then you can lock in profits, just as
IF you can predict the winner, you will make a profit. But of course, you have to make the right decision in the first place, and picking the correct movement is no more guaranteed than picking the winner.
Trading on odds movement is no more advantageous than trading stocks, or Forex, where there is no "winner". But having said that, it does give you more opportunities for hedging.
That's the whole thing with trading odds, isn't it?
What they don't tell you is that you still need the insight to find a trade that is misvalued for your particular needs.
It's not a new concept at all and while it's sound enough, the execution might be something else.
Quote from: Archie on August 15, 2013, 06:14:29 PM
Now he's loses very close to half his life's savings.
You have dumbed your example down to such a level I'm surprised you even think it's still valid.
The old timer is just another ignorant gambler playing a game blind, it's not surprising he's about to lose his entire life savings.
In this case proportional betting isn't going to save him, but neither is anything else for that matter.
Quitting, maybe, before being entirely broke would be the best course of action.
Quote from: Archie on August 16, 2013, 01:08:00 PMWhere did I write to the order of wins and losses?
You mentioned losing 15 in a row, that suggests the order of wins and losses.
Quote from: Archie on August 16, 2013, 01:08:00 PM
But doubling a stake is a lot harder than losing half of it.
Staying with the same 5% proportional scenario, doubling your BR takes 15 wins. That doesn't seem too hard comparing to the 15 losses it takes to lose half of it. It is a bit harder to double it, that is why you need 0.513 win rate and not just 0.5. But that still isn't "a lot" harder.
Quote from: Archie on August 16, 2013, 01:08:00 PM
I don't like your math. (I could tell right off that you're not a professional mathematician, and certainly never a gambler.) I really don't like the way in which you're trying to suck gamblers in with it.
Calculations can be either correct or wrong. You are welcome to correct any of my calculations. Saying you don't like it is just the same thing when you picked at me writing decimal odds (2 for even money bet), while that is widely used in sports betting. These arguments are just invalid.
I just wanted to point out that the chart in my previous post is misleading, because with the win rate at 51% (which is what it is in the simulation), at 5% staking you will eventually lose your entire bank. In my defence, I'd forgotten that when I previously coded this staking plan, I used an edge of 5% not 2% (which meant that the win rate was > the required 0.513).
So the results shown in the above plot were a fluke. If I'd shown results for more spins the final result would have been a loss of bank.
Thanks to Dragoner who sent me a pm explaining the math (hey Archie, how come you didn't pick up on that? you're a "real" mathematician).
The more trials we have, the closer win rate gets to the probability of a single trial. Like a coin toss with 50% probability.
If we have 10 trials, the probability of winning 40%-60% (4 or 5 or 6 tosses) is about 66%.
If we have 100 trials, the probability of winning 40%-60% (40 to 60 tosses) is already more than 96%!!!
That is how win rate gets closer and closer to the probability of a single trial in the long run.
So if we have a 55% probability for a single trial, then if we repeat the same trial, we get closer and closer to 55% win rate. This is why actually the long run is our friend if we have +EV betting opportunity. (This is a very big if though... It is not easy to come by +EV bets)
With 5% proportional betting you have a threshold at roughly 0.513.
If we have the probability of a single trial above this threshold, we expect to make money.
If we have a win rate above this threshold, we actually made money.
If you have a win rate above this threshold it is impossible to arrange wins an losses in an order where you lose money. Because the order doesn't matter. You can arbitrarily arrange huge losing streak(s) in a result, if your win rate is above the threshold you can't possibly have a losing result.
If someone is interested in how we get the threshold:
The end result (final bankroll) is BR*0.95^nl*1.05^nw (where BR=initial bankroll, nl=number of losses, nw=number of wins)
To break even we need the multiplier at 1 (that makes our final bankroll=initial bankroll):
0.95^nl*1.05^nw=1
0.95^nl=(1/1.05)^nw ---> because 1/1.05^nw=(1/1.05)^nw
nl=log_0.95((1/1.05)^nw)
nl=nw(log_0.95(1/1.05))
Win rate is nw/(nw+nl).
Replacing nl, that leaves us with a win rate of
nw/(nw+nw(log_0.95(1/1.05))) = 1/(1+(log_0.95(1/1.05))) which is a little less than 0.513
edit: just realized I made a mistake in the calculations. I'll be back!
There is a typo in your starting point, it is supposed to be a multiplication instead of addition. Then the rest is correct. And looks simpler than what I did.
You can draw the function f(x) = 1 / (1 - log(1 + x) / log(1 - x)) with:http://rechneronline.de/function-graphs/ (http://rechneronline.de/function-graphs/)
You can set it up to only show values between 0 and 1, and you can see the relation of the bet proportion and the corresponding win rate threshold.
It is just the threshold though, not the optimal bet proportion.
Quote from: Dragoner on August 17, 2013, 10:35:49 AM
There is a typo in your starting point, it is supposed to be a multiplication instead of addition.
Yep. I thought there was another problem, but it was ok. I'm repeating the calculation here for anyone who's interested.
We start off with this equation which has to satisfied in order to break even for a particular value of x (the proportional staking percentage):
(1 - x)
L(1 + x)
W = 1
taking logs givesLlog(1 - x) + Wlog(1 + x) = 0
=> L = -Wlog(1 + x) / log(1 - x)
Now, let the win rate be R, then R = W / (W + L)
and substituting for L we have
R = W / (W - Wlog(1 + x) / log(1 - x))
factoring and cancelling:
R = 1 / (1 - log(1 + x) / log(1 - x))
Thanks for the link to the plotting software, but it was just as quick to write a little program which stepped through values of x. Here are the results for x ranging from 1% to 10% in steps of 0.5% (note that these results are only valid for bets at 1:1 payout).
% of bank Win rate threshold 1.00 0.502500
1.50 0.503750
2.00 0.505000
2.50 0.506251
3.00 0.507501
3.50 0.508752
4.00 0.510003
4.50 0.511254
5.00 0.512505 <-- Dragoner's result from his above post
5.50 0.513757
6.00 0.515009
6.50 0.516261
7.00 0.517514
7.50 0.518768
8.00 0.520021
8.50 0.521276
9.00 0.522530
9.50 0.523786
10.00 0.525042
By the way, the Kelly criterion says that you should bet a % equal to your edge in order to maximise growth rate. So in my simulation where the edge was 2%, 2% is the optimum percentage to stake each bet.
Quote from: Archie on August 17, 2013, 12:30:34 PM
Who said I was trying. Your previous graph, along with many of Dragon's assumptions, involve so many novice misconceptions that its programing shouldn't have been a consideration. I fairly stated and attested to a couple of those problems, but you and Dragron cast that away as trolling.
Ok, please point out the misconceptions. And be specific. The problem is that your writing is so ambiguous and incoherent that it's very hard to know what you're talking about most of the time. Please try to be clearer.
And yes, in my judgement, you were trolling. A couple of examples:
Quote
Saying that real mathematicians properly write the odds is not "picking" on specific calculations. Which did I "pick on", your simplistic calculations?
QuoteOh really? Where did you get that math postdoctorate again? Remind us.
Attacking Dragoner for not writing odds in the "proper" way is just nit-picking. Anyone who actually does any betting knows that odds in decimal format are commonly used these days, and the second example is just a personal attack because the validity of an argument doesn't depend on anyone's credentials.
Another example: you wrote
QuoteSome old guy with $200,000 "to his name" loses fifteen bets in-a-row some day.
Then when Dragoner replied saying that the order of bets is irrelevant, you answered
QuoteWhere did I write to the order of wins and losses?
As it stands, this makes no sense, but "fifteen bets
in-a-row" clearly implies that order is relevant, so you at least implied it, but then denied it.
There are other examples but I can't be bothered to list them all.
@Bayes
You are being a bit generous with the phrase "most of the time"
Quote from: Turner on August 18, 2013, 10:07:45 AM
@Bayes
You are being a bit generous with the phrase "most of the time"
Turner, yep... :P
Look at this; deliberately unintelligible:
QuoteBut *** hand over a ******** of ********** only to **** it ******* by a ***** of ***** **********?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Cryptic speech is a form of passive aggression. The intention is to create a feeling of insecurity and doubt in the listener/reader.
Quote from: Archie on August 15, 2013, 06:14:29 PM
The internet is a very poor place to seek out actual expertise.
That is according to your opinion. Besides, the value of information is subjective to the reader, depending on your level of intelligence ie if you can understand it, and whether it is actually relevant to your cause. Of course, some information is not accurate; that is not unbelievable, there are literary, conceptual and factual mistakes in all places. In a way I also happen to see your point (in the context of casino games) - everyone can claim to be an expert without actually proving anything.
Quote from: Archie on August 16, 2013, 01:41:18 PM
Perhaps, you mean "dumbed up", ie, put into a form in which pseudo rocket scientists can "make sense" of it?
Your example still does not really address why proportional betting would not be mathematically logical when you have an advantage. Moreover losing 12 or 15 bets in a row seems more applicable to a -EV casino game as oppose to sports betting, which this thread is meant to be about. It also doesn't represent a sound investment of time or money. It would be wise to test for variance of the bet and also its volatility, with that in mind the individual would know what losing streaks to expect and how much cash was needed to get through them. As a sidenote, that is why long simulations of betting systems are important, and testing "real" play samples aren't. A 5% stake, then, might prove to be too high, though 5% as a maximum is generally recommended for sports. Up to that point, entering a game without that information appears ignorant, and even with an advantage it would still be possible to lose. It's possible to contrive a statistical system for sports betting that offers a long term advantage, with the right information you can create your own probabilistic odds and then proceed to find trades which are misvalued. Back testing the selection method against previous results would enable you to fine tune your formula until it generates favourable results. According to the EV, proportional betting would absolutely be the best staking plan.
Quote from: Bayes on August 18, 2013, 09:37:27 AM
By the way, the Kelly criterion says that you should bet a % equal to your edge in order to maximise growth rate. So in my simulation where the edge was 2%, 2% is the optimum percentage to stake each bet.
For this we can draw a function of average growth rate for 0.51 win rate: f(x)=(1-x)^0.49*(1+x)^0.51
[attachimg=1]
It shows why 2% is a good idea for this win rate. It also shows, that if we bet over 4% we should expect a decay, because the average growth rate goes below 1
.
Archie,
I don't have the time or inclination to deal with your endless sophistries, and what would be the point anyway? you would just twist things to make it look as though you "really" meant something else much more reasonable. So knock yourself out, but I think you'll find not many members are interested.
BTW, I didn't approve your first post. And for the record, I haven't deleted any of your posts until that one. I did accidentally delete ONE of Turner's a few days ago, for which I apologised.
You can slug it out with Dragoner, that is if he can be bothered to respond.
@ Dragoner, thanks for posting the graph. :thumbsup:
I don't know what you're talking about. To my knowledge, none of my posts have been deleted.
You may have been making a point, but it was hardly clear what that point was. There was nothing wrong with the simulation, given the assumptions, and if I hadn't done it Dragoner wouldn't have pointed out my mistake.
I don't know why you think the model and Dragoner's calculations are "simplistic". What do you think needs to be taken into account that was left out?
Quote from: Archie on August 18, 2013, 04:11:12 PM
As to the order of bets, that was not the word I used. And, I already clarified what was already clear in its context, the streaks of W/L.
Let's say we have a 0.52 win rate. We have 52 wins and 48 losses overall. With proportional betting this alone gives us the exact result.
The order of 52 wins and 48 losses don't matter. You can have 26W then (a long losing streak) 48L and then 26W again. It doesn't matter. It gives us the same result. Streaks don't matter. Win rate matters.
Am I not explaining this right?
Quote from: Dragoner on August 18, 2013, 07:36:10 PM
Am I not explaining this right?
Dragoner, you've explained it perfectly clearly.
See what I mean? Archie has you doubting yourself because of his gibberish.
Yeah, I am really going to just stop responding to him now.
Ok right, that one. Yep, I deleted it when I reopened the thread. What's the point of having a post saying the thread is locked when it isn't?
Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on August 19, 2013, 06:07:20 AM
Hey, I see Victor got rid of those pesky green arrows... pity he seems to have missed one. Bwahahahahaha!
HAHAHA that was funny :D
Glad to see your copying and pasting compulsion is gathering speed.
You could have just said "It's risky". Of course it is, no one anywhere would deny that. But what isn't?
Even with an edge the risk of ruin early on is still high; maybe there is more volatility, maybe you make mistakes.
And what's your point, are you recommending against it, are you proposing an alternative, where is your actual opinion, can you do us a simulation?
I also believe I already mentioned the two most pertinent points of Kelly: it can recommend large bets / consider half or quarter.
Remember it is a formula for growing your BR at the optimum rate, most people aren't willing to take that risk and can't stomach such enormous bets anyway, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who will argue in favour of a full Kelly (in short, the maths aside, it's unnecessary).
It's just an elaborate form of proportional betting, which in itself can be successful.
And yes, the agruments of detractors are based mainly on the valid point that you don't really know your edge and it isn't fixed. Gee, what if we were to account for a margin of error?
Do you think it's possible to account for that, or even calculate it accurately, therefore presumably losing some bets but still profiting overall?
It's pretty easy to prove to yourself that something or a combination of some things work or don't work.