Thurs night NCAA football

[hedgie43]

[ QUOTE ]

1)it is unnecessary to expose your bankroll to that kind of pressure: there are any number of games weekly where the probable winner is offered at odds > .5. why chase low probability events? you need a bankroll large enough to sustain ~12 consecutive losses to avoid tap-out. and since these are independent trials, one can easily experience sparse outcomes that will require significantly larger insurances to withstand (e.g.:10L,2W;9L,3W;11L,1W). the variance can be extreme. i will not commit my resources where they are least rewarding.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? 12 consecutive losses wipes out your bankroll here? If you're betting Kelly, you'd be betting 2.5% of your bankroll here and even if you lost 40 in a row, you still wouldn't be broke because you'd be scaling down your bets. Least rewarding? You're a joke.

[ QUOTE ]

repeating from my original post: it is my contention that bookmakers expend huge capital resources on the statistical, mathematical side of the game: they have better data gathering abilities, better modeling capacities, and an unbiased commitment to determining the odds of any game posted based upon objective criteria. i suggest that it is folly to assume, as a bettor, that one can utilize these same techniques to isolate bets promising a +EV. and i further suggest, claims such as hedger and thremp make, that they do so, is improbable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called not betting into WA lines.

[ QUOTE ]
from these data decide a percentage bankroll unit which will optimize br growth, while maintaining a margin of safety for the inevitable variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what Kelly does. Optimizing bankroll growth inherently takes variance into account.

[ QUOTE ]

i would suggest, that anyone capable of determining the accuracy of these two parameters, would be better served isolating opportunities more rewarding and with a higher win rate. and i would likewise suggest, anyone thinking they can so do CONSISTENTLY is due a rude awakening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Err, I bet pretty much anything that is +EV, given that it does not limit even more +EV prospects. If you're looking for 80% chances where you can get +200 (which you seem to imply you can find regularly) I suggest it is you who is due for the rude awakening.

[ QUOTE ]

of course, if you're thremp, and make money without working, that's another story. you DO claim to make money without working, don't you thremp? imagine, one amongst us who has found the finacial shangra-la.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to imply here that sports betting is unbeatable. I can't imagine why you would think that.

[ QUOTE ]


and both of you in need of some fine old woodshed introductions to polite behavior and courtesy.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you need an introduction into clear writing. Half of your sentences are unreadable.