Tweet
There are so many points that were covered in the "JR Miller's Record" thread that a
number of them deserve their own threads. Here is my try:
JR Miller has his "flat bet" approach (which sounds much better to me than any other
system), and although JR has been very stern (OK, perhaps arrogant, too) with SLAMDUNK's assessment of the Kelly Criterion, I really enjoyed to see SLAM comment about what it takes to many any system work and that is the learning experiences of a gambler from his own mistakes. (see page 3 7/21 7:11pm) One must have stumbled through enough mistakes to actually reach a point where he can make use of any money management approach. What good is any system if the player does not have the capability,patience or discipline to implement it and stay with it?
If you read that entry, SLAM concedes that, "Over the years I have made many, many bets that I have since learned should not have been made." Who among us hasn't? (There were many bets I have made that I knew ten pitches into the game I was dead.)
It is only with this kind of long-term experience that one can develop the self-control, talent and instinct for betting sports. How often have we made plays that were handicapped after we had a fight with our girlfriend/wife, or after having only 3 hours sleep the night before, or we bet just to have "action", or because we had a grudge against a team or player we didn't like or whatever? (Maybe after a couple or six beers, laying 15½ points didn't seem so scary after all!) What are our winning percentages from bets made in those situations?
The point here is that we as non-professionals, many times don't know when to bench ourselves, to back off, when we're not in the best frame of mind to make a solid assessment of a game to bet or whether to bet at all. How many times have we suffered a bad-beat, and then turned around and said, "F--K It" and come back with a larger amount on the next game (usually the
same day). How many of us have started with a modest bankroll betting games for $100-$200 a pop, and after finding ourselves in a hole down the road, we land up betting $800-$1,000 on a game we didn't even like nearly as much as some of the $100 plays we made earlier?
True, gambling is not for those who lack self-control, but let's be honest, how many of us have found ourselves in a big hole with the games at some point in our betting careers? (Ok, everybody raise their hands...)
This is why JR MILLER's preferred "flat-bet" system gets my vote. One can argue mathematics all one wants, but don't look past the real-life situation of why we find ourselves involved in betting the sports; the two main reasons for most of us are GREED
and EGO (you can probably throw in LAZINESS, too - I plead guilty to all three!) The
"flat-bet" theory is sound enough to force the player to think long-term, not bet games on a "whim" during any kind of streak, and does not encourage the player's internal propensity for greed (to make a "killing" during a win streak, thinking that one is on a "high").
Overall, it is a smoother ride no matter how the streaks are running, and with some discipline applied, can keep the player from his own self-undoing.
With the "flat-bet" approach, one starts with a bankroll, bets no more than 1%-2% of that bankroll on any given play, and risks EXACTLY the same amount on every straight bet. In working it this way, you treat your bankroll like a bank deposit earning interest, except the interest that can be earned with even a so-so season can dwarf the interest offered by any bank or other short-term investment. (You absolutely, positively bet the same amount on every game, yes even if you are playing a +2.40 underdog! Because if you play less on the dogs, you are costing yourself profits when they win, and at some point they will win.)
If you are like JR MILLER and choose predominately underdogs, lay no more than 20¢ in juice in most cases (including parlays) - then at season's end - you do not need to win 52.3% to see some kind of profit. If you were to play almost all dogs at +1.05 or higher, if you hit even 51% of those games, you would still see a decent profit!
It is this kind of long-term thinking approach that JR MILLER is trying to educate people with at his website www.professionalgambler.com The school of thought that says, "I need to increase my bets by a certain percentage as I go along, so that I can maximize my winnings by season's end" to me is not the best way to go, because you can get hurt in the short run, and in the long run it will play on your own greed factor when you start winning because it can change the "mental value" of your bankroll (What fun is it to play $200 games, after you have had a few $1000 or $1500 bets?). How many of us have the mental stamina to stay consistent with such a system over the long haul? The "flat-bet" approach takes enough discipline let alone a snowballing effect of increasing plays.
To me, the biggest drawbacks to the "flat-bet" scheme are that you need to make a lot of plays to earn good cash (2-3,000 plays a year), and if you lay juice on most games you can juice yourself to death with only average winning results.
In my opinion, the biggest factor that is self-undoing of gamblers is GREED. More than
anything else, greed allows players to allow themselves to distort the value of money, to
over assess their own capabilites to handicap an event, and to get involved in games they never should have bet because they're intoxicated with the thought of getting richer quicker than the laws of chance dictate - or to chase they money the just lost.
We all know the tremendous mental pounding we take when we are in an extended losing
streak. That dreadful feeling when you can't hit the broad side of a barn with your plays. Watching the players you bet on make turnover after turnover, or squander solid scoring chance after scoring chance, or blowing solid leads. Using a "flat-bet" system makes this stress an easier part of the cycles we all go through. It doesn't allow you to get too high when you win, or too low when you lose. It doesn't put you under extra-pressure to win a game or games just because you have more at risk on them. It can keep you focused and looking at the big picture, and in the long run, with even decent handicapping skills, WILL make you money. Will it be less money than another system? (Please don't tempt me, I trying like hell to not to be GREEDY!)
Unlike, JR, I think SLAM makes a good case for what he believes works the best. But, the Kelly Criterion or other systems won't get my vote because:
A) I believe in the long run it is better to play the same amount on every game, it keeps most players from fooling themselves that some plays or price values are "better" than others. In the short run one can make a score by picking right, but what happens if a few "big plays" are wrong here and there, is that bettor sharp(or tough)enough to adjust his play accordingly? And even if he can, do you realize the extra stress imposed on him by having to turn it around? The
kind of stress that often times leads to disasterous outcomes? Why put too many eggs in one basket? (I plead guilty there, too!)
B) For the Kelly Criterion especially it would appear the that the onus is on the player to assess an actual number as to the percentage chance of a team/player winning an event. Maybe SLAMDUNK or possibly the Kosher Kids can do that, but to be honest I can't. (By the way, what is that percentage number based on? I could see in the case of the Computer Boys knowing when they had a big
percentage edge, but how do others arrive at a 58% probability of a team winning a game?
Could somebody teach me that?)
c) Having to calculate a different betting amount on each game may cause an undue distraction to the player, because it might negatively effect his choice of teams based on what he might win, rather than searching out the board to focus on the play(s)that WILL win.
All anyone needs to do is to look at JR Miller's website and hold it up next to any other tout/advisor's site and you can see at first glance that JR is a top-notch act. Like his direct (arrogant) writing style or not, his site is the greatest effort I have come across to educate gamblers on what it takes to win in the long run. I believe on the site he showed his house being built in Tennessee. I don't think he earned the money for that by returning Pepsi bottles for 5¢ each. I have not met him nor have I subscribed to his services, but after visiting his site, there is so much food for thought there, that most will find themselves
going back often, if for anything else just to see what games he picked tonight.
Gentlemen, we can debate mathematics till the cows come home (I would give the nod to
the "flat-bet" system there also), but like SLAMDUNK himself you need to have the
experience and personal fortitude to make any system work, and I would say for most of us seeking to make a living from the games, or a consistent side income, the "flat bet"
approach is the ONLY way to go. It makes for the smoothest ride possible along with the most realistic chance of financial gain.
For me the right combination of mathematics along with an approach to help offset the
insanity of gambling.
Just because your holding Babe Ruth's bat in your hands, doesn't mean you can hit a home
run.
Good Luck to All! Larry-LB/FCC
[This message has been edited by Landmark95 (edited 07-22-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Landmark95 (edited 07-22-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Landmark95 (edited 07-22-2000).]
number of them deserve their own threads. Here is my try:
JR Miller has his "flat bet" approach (which sounds much better to me than any other
system), and although JR has been very stern (OK, perhaps arrogant, too) with SLAMDUNK's assessment of the Kelly Criterion, I really enjoyed to see SLAM comment about what it takes to many any system work and that is the learning experiences of a gambler from his own mistakes. (see page 3 7/21 7:11pm) One must have stumbled through enough mistakes to actually reach a point where he can make use of any money management approach. What good is any system if the player does not have the capability,patience or discipline to implement it and stay with it?
If you read that entry, SLAM concedes that, "Over the years I have made many, many bets that I have since learned should not have been made." Who among us hasn't? (There were many bets I have made that I knew ten pitches into the game I was dead.)
It is only with this kind of long-term experience that one can develop the self-control, talent and instinct for betting sports. How often have we made plays that were handicapped after we had a fight with our girlfriend/wife, or after having only 3 hours sleep the night before, or we bet just to have "action", or because we had a grudge against a team or player we didn't like or whatever? (Maybe after a couple or six beers, laying 15½ points didn't seem so scary after all!) What are our winning percentages from bets made in those situations?
The point here is that we as non-professionals, many times don't know when to bench ourselves, to back off, when we're not in the best frame of mind to make a solid assessment of a game to bet or whether to bet at all. How many times have we suffered a bad-beat, and then turned around and said, "F--K It" and come back with a larger amount on the next game (usually the
same day). How many of us have started with a modest bankroll betting games for $100-$200 a pop, and after finding ourselves in a hole down the road, we land up betting $800-$1,000 on a game we didn't even like nearly as much as some of the $100 plays we made earlier?
True, gambling is not for those who lack self-control, but let's be honest, how many of us have found ourselves in a big hole with the games at some point in our betting careers? (Ok, everybody raise their hands...)
This is why JR MILLER's preferred "flat-bet" system gets my vote. One can argue mathematics all one wants, but don't look past the real-life situation of why we find ourselves involved in betting the sports; the two main reasons for most of us are GREED
and EGO (you can probably throw in LAZINESS, too - I plead guilty to all three!) The
"flat-bet" theory is sound enough to force the player to think long-term, not bet games on a "whim" during any kind of streak, and does not encourage the player's internal propensity for greed (to make a "killing" during a win streak, thinking that one is on a "high").
Overall, it is a smoother ride no matter how the streaks are running, and with some discipline applied, can keep the player from his own self-undoing.
With the "flat-bet" approach, one starts with a bankroll, bets no more than 1%-2% of that bankroll on any given play, and risks EXACTLY the same amount on every straight bet. In working it this way, you treat your bankroll like a bank deposit earning interest, except the interest that can be earned with even a so-so season can dwarf the interest offered by any bank or other short-term investment. (You absolutely, positively bet the same amount on every game, yes even if you are playing a +2.40 underdog! Because if you play less on the dogs, you are costing yourself profits when they win, and at some point they will win.)
If you are like JR MILLER and choose predominately underdogs, lay no more than 20¢ in juice in most cases (including parlays) - then at season's end - you do not need to win 52.3% to see some kind of profit. If you were to play almost all dogs at +1.05 or higher, if you hit even 51% of those games, you would still see a decent profit!
It is this kind of long-term thinking approach that JR MILLER is trying to educate people with at his website www.professionalgambler.com The school of thought that says, "I need to increase my bets by a certain percentage as I go along, so that I can maximize my winnings by season's end" to me is not the best way to go, because you can get hurt in the short run, and in the long run it will play on your own greed factor when you start winning because it can change the "mental value" of your bankroll (What fun is it to play $200 games, after you have had a few $1000 or $1500 bets?). How many of us have the mental stamina to stay consistent with such a system over the long haul? The "flat-bet" approach takes enough discipline let alone a snowballing effect of increasing plays.
To me, the biggest drawbacks to the "flat-bet" scheme are that you need to make a lot of plays to earn good cash (2-3,000 plays a year), and if you lay juice on most games you can juice yourself to death with only average winning results.
In my opinion, the biggest factor that is self-undoing of gamblers is GREED. More than
anything else, greed allows players to allow themselves to distort the value of money, to
over assess their own capabilites to handicap an event, and to get involved in games they never should have bet because they're intoxicated with the thought of getting richer quicker than the laws of chance dictate - or to chase they money the just lost.
We all know the tremendous mental pounding we take when we are in an extended losing
streak. That dreadful feeling when you can't hit the broad side of a barn with your plays. Watching the players you bet on make turnover after turnover, or squander solid scoring chance after scoring chance, or blowing solid leads. Using a "flat-bet" system makes this stress an easier part of the cycles we all go through. It doesn't allow you to get too high when you win, or too low when you lose. It doesn't put you under extra-pressure to win a game or games just because you have more at risk on them. It can keep you focused and looking at the big picture, and in the long run, with even decent handicapping skills, WILL make you money. Will it be less money than another system? (Please don't tempt me, I trying like hell to not to be GREEDY!)
Unlike, JR, I think SLAM makes a good case for what he believes works the best. But, the Kelly Criterion or other systems won't get my vote because:
A) I believe in the long run it is better to play the same amount on every game, it keeps most players from fooling themselves that some plays or price values are "better" than others. In the short run one can make a score by picking right, but what happens if a few "big plays" are wrong here and there, is that bettor sharp(or tough)enough to adjust his play accordingly? And even if he can, do you realize the extra stress imposed on him by having to turn it around? The
kind of stress that often times leads to disasterous outcomes? Why put too many eggs in one basket? (I plead guilty there, too!)
B) For the Kelly Criterion especially it would appear the that the onus is on the player to assess an actual number as to the percentage chance of a team/player winning an event. Maybe SLAMDUNK or possibly the Kosher Kids can do that, but to be honest I can't. (By the way, what is that percentage number based on? I could see in the case of the Computer Boys knowing when they had a big
percentage edge, but how do others arrive at a 58% probability of a team winning a game?
Could somebody teach me that?)
c) Having to calculate a different betting amount on each game may cause an undue distraction to the player, because it might negatively effect his choice of teams based on what he might win, rather than searching out the board to focus on the play(s)that WILL win.
All anyone needs to do is to look at JR Miller's website and hold it up next to any other tout/advisor's site and you can see at first glance that JR is a top-notch act. Like his direct (arrogant) writing style or not, his site is the greatest effort I have come across to educate gamblers on what it takes to win in the long run. I believe on the site he showed his house being built in Tennessee. I don't think he earned the money for that by returning Pepsi bottles for 5¢ each. I have not met him nor have I subscribed to his services, but after visiting his site, there is so much food for thought there, that most will find themselves
going back often, if for anything else just to see what games he picked tonight.
Gentlemen, we can debate mathematics till the cows come home (I would give the nod to
the "flat-bet" system there also), but like SLAMDUNK himself you need to have the
experience and personal fortitude to make any system work, and I would say for most of us seeking to make a living from the games, or a consistent side income, the "flat bet"
approach is the ONLY way to go. It makes for the smoothest ride possible along with the most realistic chance of financial gain.
For me the right combination of mathematics along with an approach to help offset the
insanity of gambling.
Just because your holding Babe Ruth's bat in your hands, doesn't mean you can hit a home
run.
Good Luck to All! Larry-LB/FCC
[This message has been edited by Landmark95 (edited 07-22-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Landmark95 (edited 07-22-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Landmark95 (edited 07-22-2000).]
Comment