Quote:
Originally Posted by Inzaghi
Without meaning to disrupt the fun, I wish to interject with two cereal questions:
1. Atop the sports betting sub-forum is a sticky thread entitled "PropPlayer's Awesome Sports Betting FAQ." In it, the member "PropPlayer" suggests a standard staking technique of betting around 1-2% of one's bankroll on any given event.
I'm sure we'd agree that this is wrong- Kelly's is surely the optimal staking method. Yet PropPlayer is a winning bettor so my question is:
How has he made this fundamental mis-judgement? Would he be far richer if he had followed Kelly's? Or is there, in fact, a case to be made for his flat staking approach?
2. Does there exist a mathematical proof of why parlays are bad?
You should only be using Kelly if you can definitively quantify your edge. Props recommendation of 1-2% will keep noobs out of trouble, and if youre in FAQ section, theres a decent chance youre a noob (which is fine. If youre in the FAQ section here youre off to a good start actually). Also I think most noobs tend to over bet as opposed to under bet in general, so theyd probably go broke quicker using kelly, as it is fairly aggressive.
And parlays aren't "bad" per se but people misplay them. I think sports fish get turned on by low risk, high reward stuff and tend to think that something that pays out 15-1 or whatever HAS to be good in the long run. Maybe they see it as a lottery ticket they can root for. But theyre great for getting around limits and getting in on some correlated stuff. Plus if you throw in a little favorite/over parlay on the monday night game its great cover.
If you, OP, are a noob starting out, youre asking the right questions.