Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thaskalos
These "raise-your-bets-as-you-lose" betting systems have never appealed to me. IMO, sizing our bets is a great idea...but the size of our bets should be determined by our level of confidence in the particular race...not by whether or not we lost our previous bet. I've met a couple of people who tell me that they've been successful with progression methods where the bets get larger as the losses mount, and I have no real reason to doubt them...but this type of progression isn't for me.
Sizing one's bets effectively is a very difficult endeavor, IMO, and it requires a lot of skill. Most players would do better with flat bets, I think...
|
Again, it all depends on turnover and ROI. There is a very good reason why most serious bettors (at least those using computer models) "truncate outliers" and apply other standard statistical processes to clean the data before trundling off to bet. It avoids much of the self-delusion of "I'm profitable!!!" Unless one is very certain what one is doing AND has a fairly rapid turnover AND a decent ROI, money management approaches are much better in theory than in practice.
Conversely, as Dave pointed out above, if one has a real world negative ROI and the positive ROI is only on paper from past races, the best money management method is not betting at all.
In most cases, the positive ROI is an illusory cluster in a sprinkling of random data points. In such cases flat betting and percentage of bankroll schemes will keep a losing scheme in action longer. Good for the hobbyists and recreational bettors who would go belly up much faster if their strategies were applied more aggressively.
I cannot imagine sizing wagers according to some subjective feeling of "confidence" in a particular race. I wager according to computer models, not subjective (and highly prone to errors of judgement) feelings about a race. YMMV.
