Money Management

[dangerfish]

Ok, I don't want to go back and forth on this forever but to be blunt I did have a montrous edge as you put it and those edges do exist, however rarely, and I no longer have that edge which I why I always refer to my punting in the past tense.

[TomG]

Unusually high ROIs is similar to poker players who have an unusually high "Won $ at Showdown %" statistic. At first, you might think the higher this stat the better. But it’s not. In fact, people with too high or too low of this stat are long term losers. In the extreme case, a person with a "Won $ at Showdown %" stat of 100% is only going to a showdown when holding the stone cold nuts. That person always wins at showdown, but pays dearly for it. He is folding a lot of winners before showdown. It's not a perfect analogy between poker and sports as the cost of the blinds will guarantee the person with the inordinately high "Won $ at Showdown %" stat is a loser. However, it does demonstrate that achieving a high ROI in sports is not an optimal goal.

[dangerfish]

Tom,

The point you and the others are making is not lost with me and I like the poker analagy but it's not relevant. Let me give you a hypothetical to illustrate how one might have a high ROI. Let's say I work for a bookmaker, which I don't but let's assume for a second that my job is to handicap soccer. I may notice some unusual betting and price changes or unusually large bets being made by sharp punters and decide that I will start taking a position when those circumstances are met. Let's say I have collegues doing the same thing in their given sports and when presented with similar situations we exchange information. Now, do you not agree this could produce a high ROI without passinng on +ev situations?

[Thremp]

danger,

No I don't see how that would work. In fact I do almost the exact same thing and monthly I almost never fall outside of 53-55%.

[trixtrix]

that's why to make sure i squeeze every last penny out of the bookmaker, i always make sure at end of every month i have a negative roi..

[DannyOcean_]

Dangerfish, do you understand this concept?

[ QUOTE ]
The key point is that 53-56% chances are like a bazillion times more common than true 60-70% bets, and so of course your average will tend towards 55%. If you arent betting the marginal ones, you are costing yourself money. Plus looooooooool at "one SEASON isnt a big enough sample size???"

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter how badly you can beat a sport, the 53% edges are going to show up FAAAAAAAAAAAR more often than the 65-70% edges. This is a universal rule. Either you aren't betting these small edges, and can keep a huge 65-70% record, or you ARE betting them, and they drag your average down to around 55%. You can't BOTH bet small edges constantly AND still have an overall 65-70% win. It's not possible, unless you suck at conceptual math, and then i'm sure it is.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
that's why to make sure i squeeze every last penny out of the bookmaker, i always make sure at end of every month i have a negative roi..

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is the only way you get a rebate!