Halt time betting.....

Does anyone have favorable stats regarding half time betting??

Thanks again!!

Is halt time kind of like Hammer Time?

No. it's more like " I am a degenerate gambler and must now try to double my losses "

Buzz,

There might an advantage to half time betting plus there are some very smart people on this site.

I just read an old article fron Casino Player, November 2002, about half time beting.

I would never suggest someone double up on a bet and only bet fractional Kelly Criterion if you have a real advantage. Otherwise, the correct bet size witout a real advantage is zero.

Kelly Criterion is the biggest pile of horseshit I ever saw. If my advantage is 50% ,bet 50% of my bankroll LOL.

If a 2002 Casini Player article is your guide to halftime betting is yoour source, GOOD LUCK.

I do agree with one thing. Smartest gambler i ever knew used to say " I don't want nothing to do with an even bet " .

Buzz,

I stated fractional Kelly. I agree that it is not wise to bet full Kelly but fractional Kelly has advantages if applied correctly. Appropriate bet size. Do you have a better method? I am an avid reader.

Thanks for the response!!

Where do you draw the line at fractional. I fing many people use a Kelly to justify making more bets. I mean i know people who will have 3 horses a week with great prospects , but blow half their winning on much lesser edges.

Sort of like Andrew Byers and his Prime bets. What a lifetime losing expert on the horses LOL

I am only betting sports and blackjack.

To answer your question, if I had a 55% advantage at -110 to win 100, I would bet 2-3% of bankroll. Fractional Kelly and fractional bankroll. That is also saying that there is a true 55% and not a dream :-). Few cappers can achieve that but some can.

Again, no bet if there is not an advantage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote: bigpete88

Buzz,

I stated fractional Kelly. I agree that it is not wise to bet full Kelly but fractional Kelly has advantages if applied correctly. Appropriate bet size. Do you have a better method? I am an avid reader.

Thanks for the response!!

As my BF wants to learn more about sports betting, so do I.
I know very little but lots of places to read and learn even over at the WoO site.

This site makes good reading and places down some basic points.
http://www.professionalgambler.com/debunking.html
Debunking the Kelly Criterion
HOW TO TEST THE KELLY CRITERION
Here's how to compare betting systems

"The only way to fairly compare the Kelly system (or any other progressive betting scheme) to flat betting is to use a flat bet the same size as the average size of all the Kelly bets. That way, you’re risking the same total amount against the same overall won-lost results. No fair risking more money overall with one system than the other. That obviously skewers the results."

Sports betting is very very very difficult to beat. Did i say it was difficult ? You need to be big enough to move the line if need be, or able to get the nickle line. Your BF would be better off spending his time learning to play poker. Lots of great books out there and you can get your feet wet in low limit games and tournaments. And you can pick a game that is bankroll friendly while learning.

Quote: buzzpaff

Sports betting is very very very difficult to beat. Did i say it was difficult ? You need to be big enough to move the line if need be, or able to get the nickle line. Your BF would be better off spending his time learning to play poker. Lots of great books out there and you can get your feet wet in low limit games and tournaments. And you can pick a game that is bankroll friendly while learning.

Yes, I agree.
I play poker too. (I'm not that good. I like to go all-in)
My BF is actually very good at it.

A group of his co-workers also bet on sports. I think he wants to feel included.

I guess it will not hurt me to learn the math.

https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/kelly-criterion/
Full Kelly is advantage / odds (on a "to 1" basis)

52.3% Win Pct = Player edge -0.001545455/(10/11) = NO bet
52.4% Win Pct = Player edge 0.000363636/(10/11) = 0.0004 bet
53.0% Win Pct = Player edge 0.011818182/(10/11) = 0.013 bet
53.5% Win Pct = Player edge 0.021363636/(10/11) = 0.0235 bet
54.0% Win Pct = Player edge 0.030909091/(10/11) = 0.034 bet
54.5% Win Pct = Player edge 0.040454545/(10/11) = 0.0445 bet
55.0% Win Pct = Player edge 0.05/(10/11) = 0.055 bet

In poker we can know exactly the win percentage.
Can one in sports betting really know??

Sally,

You can watch a video on Doctor Bob's site with an M.I.T. panel for some info.

Also, the Billy Walters 60 minutes interview on youtube is very good.

Most successful cappers make their own line and then look at the line to see if it is off by so many points. If so, they make a bet. If not, no bet. If the line is really off, an increased bet. Some other handicappers use situational play like revenge, etc but that beyond my scope. For NBA, I set a line and if the line is off by 4.5 points or more, I bet.

Buzz was partially correct about Kelly. Huge swings with full Kelly so go fractional. 2-3% of bankroll per bet ONLY if you have an advantage. The advantage with fractional Kelly is your bet size decreases if your bankroll gets smaller and increases if your bankroll gets bigger. Flat betting does not have either advantage. Fortunes Formula and The House Advantage are a couple of good reads.


The only way to really tell roughly what your percentage win would be is to test or possibly back test. The other way is to have a proven handicapper with a very long track record. Then, you have to figure the cost of that capper(s).

Did you read my long post on sports betting? Gives a good overview.

Do not make a bet if NO ADVANTAGE. Also, look for a 5 cent line like 5 dimes or Bovada. Brings your break even to 51.22% from 52.38%.

The Keely only works if you have a positive expectation. If you have a positive expectation, flat betting combined with with parlays will make a Kelly look downright silly.

Quote: bigpete88

The only way to really tell roughly what your percentage win would be is to test or possibly back test.

Yes, I have seen the websites you have mentioned.
And it makes perfect sense to test yourself.

Quote: bigpete88

The other way is to have a proven handicapper with a very long track record.

I totally disagree there.

There are no proven handicappers.
Because the sample size is way too small to have any reliably. That is basic statistics.

Either you yourself can do it or you can't and can not believe any one's claims.

Anyone can claim and do anything at any time with any results, even showing and changing the results over the years.
The US government does it, ALL the world banks do it, wall street has always done it.

Seems like all the handicappers sell picks.
That seems like a waste to me. Unless they do not have the proper bankroll needed to go through the ups and downs of variance.

Where is all the data going back to the 1940s?
"Spread betting was invented by Charles K. McNeil, a mathematics teacher from Connecticut who became a bookmaker in Chicago in the 1940s."

Sally, does that mean all those guys sending me emails about the Derby Trifecta and 6 guaranteed winners on Baseball today are charlatans. really ??

Sally,

We can agree to disagree about the rare +EV handicapper. You would not want to fade Billy Walters or Doc Bob.

Check out Justin on youtube. He has SBR. I think that he is a retired attorney that went into sports betting. Some very good videos. Sharp guy and works hard too. Type in Justin sports betting in youtube if you are interested.

Quote: buzzpaff

Sally, does that mean all those guys sending me emails about the Derby Trifecta and 6 guaranteed winners on Baseball today are charlatans. really ??

Very possible!
They just want your money.
So shallow.

The clue is it is better to have 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 guaranteed winners.
These are prime numbers where 6 is not.

The 1,2,3,5 is also part of the Fibonacci sequence :)

Quote: bigpete88

You would not want to fade Billy Walters or Doc Bob.

I had to ask what that meant. (fade)
There are many that think Dr Bob, for example, is a flat out thief.
At least at my work here.

He has documented many long long losing sessions and years of losing.
The only way to know if his stats are true is to pay him big $$$ over the years.
What a joke!!

He also has many weasel clauses all over his site as does all the other great so-called pickers.
Variance will and does cause bankroll ruin, even for millionaires!
If any of these so called 55% pickers are true, they would have had NO problem over the years in finding investors to have a tremendous bankroll that would have busted all the bookmakers.
I see that has never happened.

That is what I mean about sample size.
He thinks 15 years is a large sample size... NOT.
Some say 2,000 bets every year is a large sample size... Not even
enough to predict the future with their selections.

The best sample size results to use would be EVERY wager possible since 1940.
I think no one would be over 55% or 54%, maybe a few at 53.5% is more like it.

The other problem I see with those "touting" just win percentages,
it is also true that the higher the average bet the higher the winning percentage needs to be in order to over come the vig.

Just Flat betting 1% of your bankroll looks to have way more advantages and less disadvantages over any progression betting methods, Kelly included.
You will never need to increase your winning percentages as often as progression bettors would need to, you just need to increase the number of bets to be made.
At least this is the consensus here at work by a few long time sports bettors. My BF is not one of them.

Sally

Why would someone sell their picks?

Because people are stupid enough to buy them.

Quote: RoundMan

Why would someone sell their picks?

Because people are stupid enough to buy them.

Easy money with NO risk.

They start out doing the work for themselves but they only have X$ to bet and Z$ to win.

In order to make a risk free bet they sell their ideas.
A great business model.

just like Craps Dice Influence seminars
NO risk
almost 100% pure profit

Make sense to me. I mean why should I bet my own $1000 on that guaranteed 99 to 1 shot at the track, when i can make $75 selling my pick LOL

Quote: RoundMan

Why would someone sell their picks?

Because people are stupid enough to buy them.

LOL yeah, and then you end up with all sorts of people that get caught deleting losing picks and making picks on phantom lines. I remember watching LVA/Anthony Curtis trying to squirm out of their exposed tout scam a few years ago. It was quite entertaining. Anyone that pays for picks is a fool.

Quote: buzzpaff

The Keely only works if you have a positive expectation. If you have a positive expectation, flat betting combined with with parlays will make a Kelly look downright silly.

The Kelly works to increase your bank roll at the fastest rate, provided you have a known edge. By it's very definition of where the Kelly came from, flat betting will not out perform the Kelly for rate of bank roll increase... because if it did, the Kelly Criterion would be 'flat bet'.

Now, whether the Kelly Criterion (or fraction of) is the best way to use on sports is another matter. Comparing to an average flat bet of the average of the Kelly bets is all well and good, but that means you have to back-fit the flat bets dependent on the Kelly bets. Though, an interesting simulation could be done to compare Flat vs. Kelly based results with the same probability distribution (but not the same results).

Hmmm... I might give that a whirl.

Quote: thecesspit

Now, whether the Kelly Criterion (or fraction of) is the best way to use on sports is another matter. Comparing to an average flat bet of the average of the Kelly bets is all well and good, but that means you have to back-fit the flat bets dependent on the Kelly bets. Though, an interesting simulation could be done to compare Flat vs. Kelly based results with the same probability distribution (but not the same results).

Hmmm... I might give that a whirl.

Been done.

I just did the test myself.
Was kind of fun for a while

Debunking the Kelly Criterion
How to Test the Kelly Criterion
http://www.professionalgambler.com/debunking.html

Quote: guido111

Been done.

I just did the test myself.
Was kind of fun for a while

Debunking the Kelly Criterion
How to est the Kelly Criterion
http://www.professionalgambler.com/debunking.html

I've read his document before. I had issues with it as I recall. I need to reread it and do my own work before I can comment on it.

Just Flat betting 1% of your bankroll looks to have way more advantages and less disadvantages over any progression betting methods, Kelly included.
You will never need to increase your winning percentages as often as progression bettors would need to, you just need to increase the number of bets to be made.


I also like this method but to go with 2%. There should either be an advantage to justify 2%. If not, a bet of zero would be optimal bet size. If betting 1 or 2 percent of bankroll, your bet size would vary depending on size of bankroll. Isn't that exactly what I have been saying by applying fractional Kelly? Either I did not explain it correctly or someone missed it.

Most touts do have a bad name. I will make sure I never sell my NBA picks :-)

One thing that I hope we all agree on is to have an advantage and to manage money perfectly!!!!!

Quote: thecesspit

I've read his document before. I had issues with it as I recall. I need to reread it and do my own work before I can comment on it.

I just set the example up in Excel and ran a few sessions.

The Kelly busted way more than the flat bets, with the same bankroll, and the flat bets won more than the Kelly using the average bets from the Kelly.
I would need to run a proper larger sim later unless you beat me to it.

Car is packed, I'm off to Vegas to get my yearly hug from Maria Ho.
She is doing very well so far, hmmm
maybe I won't be able to get my hug in.

Better bring the wife along as plan B.

The basic theory here is if someone has an advantage and wants to make as much $$ as possible, they will need to increase their bet size as their bankroll grows. You can use the term compounding if you not like fractional Kelly. Warren Buffett is a prime example to reverse engineer. Buffett had an advantage and increased his investment as his bankroll grew.

Does anyone on here have a better idea than increasing wagers if ones bankroll grows if that person wants to make as much $$$ as possible.

I think my original post asked for anyone that had advantage half time play? :-).

Quote: bigpete88

I think my original post asked for anyone that had advantage half time play? :-).

Does not the forums you have posted about have all the answers?
There seems to be many experts at all of those sites, and they all seem to agree and disagree among themselves who is right more times and why.

That is the problem when the winning percentage and edge can not be calculated exactly.
Way too high error rates.
They are not even funny.

Quote: bigpete88

The basic theory here is if someone has an advantage and wants to make as much $$ as possible, they will need to increase their bet size as their bankroll grows. You can use the term compounding if you not like fractional Kelly. Warren Buffett is a prime example to reverse engineer. Buffett had an advantage and increased his investment as his bankroll grew.

Does anyone on here have a better idea than increasing wagers if ones bankroll grows if that person wants to make as much $$$ as possible.

I like better that concept of compounding interest.
A 2% fixed bet unit has a way higher risk of ruin then a 1%. About 30 times higher.
It is because you are decreasing your bankroll units by 50% (11 to win 10)
This is quite easy to simulate.

I say, you want to win the most money the fastest, make more bets and have a much larger bankroll.
It is still a grind out method but a very straight forward one with the least amount of risk of ruin.

Remember, if you really want to win the most when you have an edge that is exactly known, you make the smallest bets
If you do no have an edge and still want to win the most, bet the most.
This has been already mathematically proven by the best.

Sally

Quote: guido111

... the flat bets won more than the Kelly using the average bets from the Kelly.

It's that statement that bothers me the most, and I want to tinker with.