am I a whiz for this new strat? or am I a n00b?

[WackityWhiz]

I don't know how often the favorite in a series sweep their opponents, so I don't know how this strategy would work. But here goes:

Take a series in baseball where the lines are going to be close for every game. Let's say between +120 and -110. I'd make sure it's a home team as well, or maybe a really good road team, who knows, there is definately room for a more exact system. For game 1 of the series you would bet to win a half unit. Let's say that's 50. If you lose that game, then you bet to win 100 in game 2. If you happen to lose that one as well, bet to break even in game 3. So around 130-170. If your team gets swept, well then you're down 3 units. If your team wins any of the first 2 games, then you are done with that series and you move onto another one.

Thoughts?

I've thought about betting this way on a team that is expected to be around -140 for the whole series, but if they were to get swept, you would lost about 600 bucks. Prob not worth it there.

[primetime32]

Sounds ok, but you would have to win at least 8 out of 10 series to make a profit (presuming the juice works out to even). If you win 8 you make 50x8= 400. If you lose two, you are down 6 unites, which is about 300.

The problem is finding a situation when all the games are close to even. Usually there will be one bad pitching matchup that can skew the theory. Actually, you may find it very difficult to find a situation where the favorite in 2 of the 3 games isn't -130 or higher.

maybe others have actually tried this and have more to contribute.

[wadea]

This is a classic Martingale betting strategy, which has been proven unsuccessful over the long term. You can do a web search and find plenty of explanations of why it won't work. It's a risk/reward/non-infinite bankroll problem.
-w.a.

[primetime32]

its a little different than the classical martingale system in that you dont continually chase your losses. but it does have the same pitfalls.

[WackityWhiz]

Here is another strategy that I've thought about in the past year, but never acted on it. I'm sure you guys often go on streaks where you win 4 games in a row, but how often? Lets say you have $1000 to work with, you would take 2% of your roll and that is your starting point for 'step 1' of this system. You bet 20 bucks on game 1, you win $18, so you're at $38. If you lose, then you start at step 1 again. So you have 38 bucks pending your win, and you put it all on game 2, you now have ~$72. Only at step 2, so you move to step 3 and bet it all. Turn $72 into $135. Obviously this is all pending on the juice. This strat would work well during basketball season where you could bet almost every day with approx the same juice. IF you lose any of the steps, you go back to your original bet amount of 2% of your bankroll. But wait, you've only made it to step 3, now you have the almighty step 4. Pick a good game cuz you are gonna bet $135 and hopefully turn it into ~$255-$260. Now you are done. 4 games is all you have to win in a row to complete your cycle. You would have to lose about 15 times for every 4 game winning streak for this to be a breakeven strategy. So if you could go on a rampage every 10 losses, you would be making some sweet money. If you could get your roll up to 2000, then everytime you hit that elusive 4th step you win ~$500. If you have a 4000 bankroll, step 4 brings you a cool $1000.

Talk about a good long term investment [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ctv1116]

OK, this is just a reverse martingale strategy. Again, it doesn't work. Varying your bet size does not change your expected value per $ wagered. If you're taking -EV bets, you will lose money no matter how much you wager.

[tech]

Basically what others said ... there is no way to arrange your bet sizes to magically combine a bunch of -EV wagers into an overall positive expectation.

[WackityWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically what others said ... there is no way to arrange your bet sizes to magically combine a bunch of -EV wagers into an overall positive expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

alright, but do system 1 or system 2 offer a good money management way of gambling. I realize there is a gamble in everything related to sports... obviously.

Do you think I'd be a 'tard if I chose to do either of these systems? They are obviously not a "sure win" thing cuz that doesn't exist.

[wadea]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you think I'd be a 'tard if I chose to do either of these systems?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think so.

[smartalecc5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you think I'd be a 'tard if I chose to do either of these systems?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol