***** OF LAYOFFS AND MAKE UP BETS *****
As often seems to happen, Sunday August 12, 2001 was a day in which my only two plays in baseball were gigantic underdogs. On that day, it happened to be Arizona in the morning and the Chicago White Sox in the ESPN night game. As also often happens, I gained a split and a nice profit on the day. In fact, the circumstances of the day were ostensbly ordinary. As an underdog bettor, I really only look to win about half of my plays, so a 1-1 day with a good profit theoretically would be anything but noteworthy.
What made this day one to think about was a conversation I had with fletcher from the message board as the Arizona game was wrapping up. Fletcher is a professional gambler who wagers large amounts and almost exclusively bets favorites in baseball.
Though the phone call was for another subject, fletcher brought up that I would be wise to lay off my evening play on the White Sox by betting Seattle and eating the ten or fifteen percent vig for that play. His reasoning was that no matter how strong I feel the White Sox are, I have a $1000 guaranteed profit for the day if I bet back Seattle and forgoe any action for the evening. Also, he pointed out that it is extremely rare for two +200 underdogs to win in the same day, and that I should just be happy hitting the first play.
Of course, my stubborn ass didn't listen and, of course, Seattle won and my profit for the day was cut in half. but what this series of events brought up in my mind is the fundamental questions of lay off bets, make up bets and playing day to day.
Logically, the game White Sox game and the D-Backs game had nothing to do with one another. None of the teams are competing with each other for playoff spots and they are not even in the same league. There is no mathematical or general logical reason that the result of one bet should affect the other. But fletcher made an interesting point. How often do you actually see two two-dollar dogs win in the same day?
In going over my results since mid-June (everything else is stored on a disk that I was too lazy to find) I found only two days in which I hit two dogs of +150 or more. One of those days was a +150 dog and a +155 dog. Another was a +170 dog and a +195 dog. Now, it is not like I bet every large dog on the board (if I did I would go broke so fast my head would spin), but with the number of dogs I bet I found it a bit surprising that in about two months worth of action I only had two days in which two of the large dogs I played hit in the same day.
Therefore, despite no logical evidence that the result of one large underdog game would influence another, it is fair to say that hitting two large dogs in one day is rare, and therefore consideration to laying off a late game if you hit a big underdog early in the day may be a good idea. I am not totally convinced that it is a good idea, just that it might be.
If you believe that laying off late bets after a positive start is a good idea, then logically, make up bets after a bad start would be a good idea as well. The very idea of the last sentance I wrote makes me cringe because as I am sure every gambler knows, there is arguably no greater sin than make up bets. Make up bets will absolutely ruin you when you get emotional and play games without the proper research or for more money than you can afford.
In moderation, though, make up bets may be reasonable. Part of what fletcher was telling me was that since two large dogs almost never hit on the same day, he was going to increase his bet on the Mariners that night just for that reason. He had already done his research and determined the Mariners to be a strong play, so now he was going to up his bet on that game because it is very unlikely that two -220 faves would lose in one day.
In this case, his strategy worked. Again, logically, there is no reason to believe that the Mariners became a stronger play because Arizona won, but it did work out for him in this instance.
What about in other sports? If you see three division leaders fall on Sunday morning in the NFL, would that mean that if another division leader is playing Sunday night, that you should place a large wager on them? I dunno. Maybe so but maybe that example is apples and oranges compared to the baseball example.
In a way, it all comes down to playing day by day vs. playing for the long haul. If you play for a profit each day, then layoffs and make up bets are a sound idea. You rely on making a profit each and every day, so if morning games give you a good profit, then your action can be lighter for the afternoon. If your morning games tank, then you would increase your afternoon or evening wagers to give yourself a chance at a profit each day.
If you are playing for the long haul, the the relation of two bets place on the same day would have no difference compared to the relation of two bets placed months apart. Each wager is sort of an island unto itself and the handicapper's job is to find enough value in each play to warrant a wager. If you win in the morning but you have a strong afternoon play that could jeopardize your profit for that day, you still play the late game because you found value in it on your initial analysis. If you get creamed in the morning, you would still play your late games without raising their amount because your morning losses have nothing to do with your later prospects.
Before asking for your input I should say that my strategy is to avoid playing day by day. I simply play each play as its own entity and I don't worry too much if a single day shows a profit or a loss. I like having a profit each day, but I believe over the long haul solid handicapping and consistent amounts on each play will result in a solid profit. I also should say that, according to fletcher, almost every professional handicapper (the guys that pay their bills placing bets) plays day to day. When this month's rent is dependent on you gambling results, then players just look to make money as many days as possible to maintain their success.
I am very interested to hear what other handicappers think of all of this. Do you guys play day to day? Do you think it is wise to lay off bets or play make up bets based on earlier results? Of course it has to be done in moderation, but is it a good idea even in some cases? Or do you steadfastly (stubbornly?) stick to your guns and simply play each game the same way and disregard the results of other games that day?
As often seems to happen, Sunday August 12, 2001 was a day in which my only two plays in baseball were gigantic underdogs. On that day, it happened to be Arizona in the morning and the Chicago White Sox in the ESPN night game. As also often happens, I gained a split and a nice profit on the day. In fact, the circumstances of the day were ostensbly ordinary. As an underdog bettor, I really only look to win about half of my plays, so a 1-1 day with a good profit theoretically would be anything but noteworthy.
What made this day one to think about was a conversation I had with fletcher from the message board as the Arizona game was wrapping up. Fletcher is a professional gambler who wagers large amounts and almost exclusively bets favorites in baseball.
Though the phone call was for another subject, fletcher brought up that I would be wise to lay off my evening play on the White Sox by betting Seattle and eating the ten or fifteen percent vig for that play. His reasoning was that no matter how strong I feel the White Sox are, I have a $1000 guaranteed profit for the day if I bet back Seattle and forgoe any action for the evening. Also, he pointed out that it is extremely rare for two +200 underdogs to win in the same day, and that I should just be happy hitting the first play.
Of course, my stubborn ass didn't listen and, of course, Seattle won and my profit for the day was cut in half. but what this series of events brought up in my mind is the fundamental questions of lay off bets, make up bets and playing day to day.
Logically, the game White Sox game and the D-Backs game had nothing to do with one another. None of the teams are competing with each other for playoff spots and they are not even in the same league. There is no mathematical or general logical reason that the result of one bet should affect the other. But fletcher made an interesting point. How often do you actually see two two-dollar dogs win in the same day?
In going over my results since mid-June (everything else is stored on a disk that I was too lazy to find) I found only two days in which I hit two dogs of +150 or more. One of those days was a +150 dog and a +155 dog. Another was a +170 dog and a +195 dog. Now, it is not like I bet every large dog on the board (if I did I would go broke so fast my head would spin), but with the number of dogs I bet I found it a bit surprising that in about two months worth of action I only had two days in which two of the large dogs I played hit in the same day.
Therefore, despite no logical evidence that the result of one large underdog game would influence another, it is fair to say that hitting two large dogs in one day is rare, and therefore consideration to laying off a late game if you hit a big underdog early in the day may be a good idea. I am not totally convinced that it is a good idea, just that it might be.
If you believe that laying off late bets after a positive start is a good idea, then logically, make up bets after a bad start would be a good idea as well. The very idea of the last sentance I wrote makes me cringe because as I am sure every gambler knows, there is arguably no greater sin than make up bets. Make up bets will absolutely ruin you when you get emotional and play games without the proper research or for more money than you can afford.
In moderation, though, make up bets may be reasonable. Part of what fletcher was telling me was that since two large dogs almost never hit on the same day, he was going to increase his bet on the Mariners that night just for that reason. He had already done his research and determined the Mariners to be a strong play, so now he was going to up his bet on that game because it is very unlikely that two -220 faves would lose in one day.
In this case, his strategy worked. Again, logically, there is no reason to believe that the Mariners became a stronger play because Arizona won, but it did work out for him in this instance.
What about in other sports? If you see three division leaders fall on Sunday morning in the NFL, would that mean that if another division leader is playing Sunday night, that you should place a large wager on them? I dunno. Maybe so but maybe that example is apples and oranges compared to the baseball example.
In a way, it all comes down to playing day by day vs. playing for the long haul. If you play for a profit each day, then layoffs and make up bets are a sound idea. You rely on making a profit each and every day, so if morning games give you a good profit, then your action can be lighter for the afternoon. If your morning games tank, then you would increase your afternoon or evening wagers to give yourself a chance at a profit each day.
If you are playing for the long haul, the the relation of two bets place on the same day would have no difference compared to the relation of two bets placed months apart. Each wager is sort of an island unto itself and the handicapper's job is to find enough value in each play to warrant a wager. If you win in the morning but you have a strong afternoon play that could jeopardize your profit for that day, you still play the late game because you found value in it on your initial analysis. If you get creamed in the morning, you would still play your late games without raising their amount because your morning losses have nothing to do with your later prospects.
Before asking for your input I should say that my strategy is to avoid playing day by day. I simply play each play as its own entity and I don't worry too much if a single day shows a profit or a loss. I like having a profit each day, but I believe over the long haul solid handicapping and consistent amounts on each play will result in a solid profit. I also should say that, according to fletcher, almost every professional handicapper (the guys that pay their bills placing bets) plays day to day. When this month's rent is dependent on you gambling results, then players just look to make money as many days as possible to maintain their success.
I am very interested to hear what other handicappers think of all of this. Do you guys play day to day? Do you think it is wise to lay off bets or play make up bets based on earlier results? Of course it has to be done in moderation, but is it a good idea even in some cases? Or do you steadfastly (stubbornly?) stick to your guns and simply play each game the same way and disregard the results of other games that day?
