Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JR Miller's record

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For those interested, the poster going as
    Phatboy is a very legitimate poster. Just thought I would pass that on to anybody interested.

    JR, I assume that when you say bet 2% of your bankroll, that you do not go down as your bankroll diminishes. In other words if you begin with $10,000 and are betting 2 % a game and are now down to $9,000, do you stick with the same $200 a game or do you go down to $180 a game. Personally, I never lower my bets, because I do not like to bet more on losers than winners. Losing run at 200, winning run at 180........Based on my style of play, if I bet parlays, and I have that very bad run that saps much or even most of my bankroll(which is why I like to only increase bankroll with half of profits), I will lose even more money on parlays, and if I were using your theory of equal units on games and parlays, I would be in some big, big trouble.

    Unlike you, I am not saying my way is the best way or the only way, but it is the approach that I like.

    In regards to the vig issue, like I said above if based on your actual long run percentages, a game should be -122(55% game) and you only are laying -110 than in actuality you are getting vig, not giving it, no matter who pays the vig.

    Comment


    • SLAM DUNK:
      If I lose about 50% of my bankroll I re-set the clock to 2% and start over. I wish I could say I have never lost 50% of my bankroll, but I have. Once was last August against baseball when we went into the volcano for (I think) 34+ units. We had just "upgraded" our bet size on July 1st, we were up about 16 units for July, then, Whammo!, we hit the wall.

      I also hate to bet more on losers than winners, but it's safer to reduce your bet size if you lose half your bankroll. Risking 4% of your working capital would surely be disastrous.

      Slam, I hope you're aware that if you're reducing your bet size on parlays you are doing precisely what you hate; - "jiggling" the size of your bets.

      Risking $110 on 600 individual "11-10" bets @ 57.5% = 345 wins, 255 losses = $6,450 gross profit

      Risking $110 on 300 2-bet parlays @ 57.5% x 57.5% (33.1%) with 13-to-5 odds = 99 wins and 201 losses = $6,204 gross profit

      Risking $110 on 200 3-bet parlays @ 57.5% x 57.5% x 57.5% (19%) with 6-to-1 odds = 38 wins and 162 losses = $7,260 gross profit.

      Notice, by the way, that vigorish costs against 3-bet parlays paying 6-to-1 are actually slightly less than on indivdual bets risking 11 to win 10. The cost is about 4.26% rather than 4.55%. (The cost is about 5.1% for 2-bangers.)

      You cannot win significantly more by using the above parlays, but you can protect your downside risk when you have multiple bets. That is precisely why bookmakers do not advertise nor promote parlay bets; - it is not in the bookmakers' best interest for you to limit your downside risk.

      Comment


      • JR, that is where we are in disagreement. I stick with my bankroll period. Once it gets to a certain level, I never go down. To have a bad run and lose half your bankroll, and to
        halve your bets is a major setback. 10,000 bankroll lose $5000 at $200 each and now you have to get it back winning $100 a pop. Not a strategy that I would ever use. The reason, I
        ran random trials was to make sure I am betting an amount that is safe from financial ruin(though I would never use a bankroll that would cause ACTUAL financial ruin). Also, using your strategy of 1 unit to win, and 1 unit parlays you have a lot greater chance of losing half your bankroll than I will(as during that bad run you will take a beating on parlays). So it is a lot more likely that you will lose 1/2 your bankroll and if you do, you suffer more than I do because of it.
        Basically, if you have a 2% unit size, and you play 1 unit straight and 1 unit parlays, you are playing much more than 2% of your bankroll.

        Comment


        • If JR plays a 1 unit parlay, he would not also then play the games straight.

          EX. He is going to play

          Milwaukee +100 and Pittsburgh +100

          He would either Parlay Milwaukee and Pittsburgh 100 to win 300

          or bet a 100 on each, not both.


          Comment


          • Slam Dunk

            In your responses to my posts you gave the following statements about parlays.
            1. The risk of financial ruin on parlays is very high.
            2. You should dramatically reduce the unit size of any parlay bets.
            3. Using parlays during a cold sreak will lower your bankroll more then straight bets.
            4. You need to bet less on parlays because of the low probability they will hit.
            5. You should bet only a fraction of what you bet straight on a parlay.

            If you look at the numbers your arguments just don't make sense. It is easy to make a statement that sounds good but the answer is rooted in mathmatics not words.

            I will use your numbers to prove my point. Before I start I agree that parlays are not significantly better when you hit about 50% to 53% of your plays.

            You say that you have plays that you KNOW are 65% plays. Lets take a sample of 120.
            Bankroll $30000. Unit 2% or $600. Payoff 6.5 to 1. Winning percentage 27.46% on parlays and 65% on straight bets.

            Parlays
            winners 10.98 x 3900 = $42822
            losers 29.02 x 600 = $17412
            Profit $25410

            Straight bets
            winners 78 x 600 = $46800
            losers 42 x 660 = $27720
            Profit $19080

            So it is easy to show that at 65% parlays pay a much higher return. Unfortunately I cannot distinguish my 65% plays from the rest and therefore cannot take advantage. If many people could these bets would not be offered.

            Even more important is the effect of parlays on your bankroll during a losing streak. If you look at the math I think that you will admit you were way off on your analysis.

            Bankroll $30000. Bet size 2%. 40% winners. Payoff 6.5 to 1 on parlays. Winning percentages 6.4% on parlays vs. 40% on straight bets.

            Parlays
            winners 1.84 x 3900 = $7176
            losers 38.16 x 600 = $22896
            loses $15720

            Straight
            winners 48 x 600 = $28800
            losers 72 x 660 = $47520
            loses $$18720

            The math tells me that if you can hit 65% you would win MUCH more money by betting parlays. And it also tells me that during a cold streak you have MUCH less risk then you would with straight bets. You certainly do not need to lower your unit size given your paramiters.

            The math does not lie. The only question that remains is do you really have a 65% expectation on some of your plays.


            Comment


            • 65% chance of winning,get real I wonder is this whole thing done on paper in a push-paper office with nothing to better to do or does any real money actually change hands.But I havent a clue right S Dunk cause I happen to agree with jr miller.
              When I run one of my horses at Saratoga next week maybe i should tell him/her what % chance he/she has of winning,what if they ask me have i factored in the possibility of a slow start(error on an easy fly)the loss of a shoe at the 1/4 pole(catcher drops an easy throw home to allow the tying run in)or maybe they might say the crowd will get too loud and cause me to lose concentration and blow the race boss(base running error by a fast pinch-runner to end the game)Has any of the number guys ever played any sports yeah right.....

              Comment


              • steve p

                Your calculations in the second half of your post are a little off - easy to do in the heat of the moment.

                Anyway they reinforce your argument.

                ---------------

                Even more important is the effect of parlays on your bankroll during a losing streak. If you look at the math I think that you will admit you were way off on your analysis.

                Bankroll $30000. Bet size 2%. 40% winners. Payoff 6.5 to 1 on parlays. Winning percentages 6.4% on parlays vs. 40% on straight bets.

                Parlays
                winners 2.56 x 3900 = $9984
                losers 37.44 x 600 = $22464
                loses $12480

                Straight
                winners 48 x 600 = $28800
                losers 72 x 660 = $47520
                loses $18720

                ---------------

                Two points, both made previously in this horrendously long thread.

                1) No one is going to find many games where they can hit 65 percent. So the odds of finding three of them on the same day at the same book are infinitesimal so the situation being discussed here is purely hypothetical.

                2) If you look at reasonable expectations - say 55 percent - your math will still hold up. The parlay approach will seem superior. It will generate more revenue than straight wagers in terms of ROI but the risk will be signifigantly higher. You have a much higher probability of being wiped out than you do with straight wagers. That's why Slam Dunk is reducing the amount he wagers on parlays.

                Comment


                • Wintermute

                  According to your own math parlays lose $6240 less than straight bets at 40% over 120 games. It is shown right in your own math on your last post. But you then conclude that you would have to bet less on parlays because your risk is higher and you have a much higher probability of being wiped out. Huh???

                  As to point number 1. Who told you that a parlay had to be bet on the same day?

                  Comment


                  • steve p

                    You don't have to bet the same day but in almost all sports lines are only posted a day at a time. I'm not aware of any books that will allow you to carry parlays forward from day to day. Or do you simply mean that you manage the parlay yourself? In other words if you win your first wager you dump all your profits on a second wager etc.
                    In that case I guess you wouldn't have the restriction of picking all your lines at a single book too.

                    As far of wiping out - read your mentor JR's web page on binomial distributions. If you're going to bet parlays you're going to win less often, you're going to have longer losing streaks, you're going to lose your bankroll more often. It's not simply how much money you have at the end of the day - you also have to get to the end of the day.

                    Comment


                    • Steve P, Mute has answered your questions as I have earlier. If you do not want to agree, that is okay, but look at some binomial distribution charts and compare the differences on different probabilities, to get an idea of what I am saying.

                      To all sportsbettors, not familiar with stats and/or finance I would suggest a stats 101 class and a basic finance class, at a local night college. Much of stats has nothing to do with sports betting, but the parts that do
                      are eye opening to say the least.

                      Irish, in regards to horses, experts like Tom Brohamer, Barry Meadow, and **** Mitchell go through the process of assessing a fair odds line on each horse in each race they play. They may like a horse, but if it is not substantial VALUE, they will not make the bet. Sports(11/10) is like betting a 10/11 shot(between a 4-5 and 1-1) is your team
                      equivalent to a 1/1 shot(50% chance of winning) or a 3/5 shot(62.5% chance of winning). Whether you bet sports or Horses, the bottom line is VALUE, if you get enough of it you can win, if not, you will not win. The events you mentioned, slow start.... are similar to betting the Twolves, and watching K Garnett get injured in the 3rd quarter. They are the random things that will hopefully even themselves out OVER THE LONG RUN.

                      To those who think 60% games or 65% games is a pipe dream, my apologies for bringing it up. Just disregard everything I have said (until you reach a point where you can decipher a 60% game) and stick with the JR MIller way, because honestly, at 55% I am in complete agreement with him, 2% of bankroll, though I would be carefull with the parlays. For those of you out there that feel there are games that have a 60% probability, I feel doubling up is the right thing to do, but make your own choice. I can tell you from personal experience that it WORKS FOR ME.

                      In closing, in regards to hitting 60% winners

                      I want to discuss this prevailing attitude of
                      "I can't do it so nobody can". The problem with this outlook, is that instead of working harder to get better, you accept mediocrity. Look at the Lakers. Basically the same team, 1 year gets swept in the playoffs the next year wins the championship. They had a coach that challenged them to play as hard as they can and motivated them to be the best that they can be. Well, you are your own coach here. You can go on with the attitude that nobody can hit 60% winners, or you can strive for greatness. I know what the Books want you to do.

                      Comment


                      • Hi to everyone, I'm new to the site and after spending half a day browsing it I think I'm ready to contribute and believe I'll learn a lot from you all.

                        My 2c on the parlay bet size issue: first I think it is important to state that we are dealing with parlays in which the 2 events are independent of each other i.e. not something like a heavy favourite and the over of the same game where we are theorizing that if one hits then the other has a more likely chance of hitting as well.

                        If that is the case, then it is clear one must reduce the size of his wager on the parlay. Picking up wintermute's thread about managing the parlays yourself, imagine you parlayed 2 games, one afternoon and the other in the evening. If you win the first one then as the second one is starting, your situation is no different from betting the games individually and having a 1.91 unit play on the second game, which you would never do if you've rated the 2 games equally.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X