Congrats, comments, question

[Sports Junkie]

Well, the comment and question will come later, but for right now I wanted to give a big congratulations to a couple of people for some nice capping yesterday. Forgive me if I don't cover everyone cuz this is just from memory reading the picks in the forum yesterday. I feel these folks deserve a particularly big pat on the back for last night.

Nick for his ANA play

Whaler for his TB play

and I think it was Froggy with VAN and VAN over in a parlay.

Definitely needed to edit this to include Way Out West.


I'll be back later in the day with a question about whether a progressive betting approach is possible in hockey.


Have a good day everyone.

 

[Frogy]

Well you read my mind.

SAM
TIME TO $$$
NICK
WIGS
TV
REBLE
HORNS
STAG
AND ALL THE OTHERS, SOME NEW, SOME OLD NAMES IN HERE.
FAT DAD
WAY OUT
DJEZE.
I COULD GO ON AND ON BUT TX FOR YOUR TIME.

MR MO TX FOR THE P.O.D.
all the others i forgot......i'M sorry.....

 

[Sports Junkie]

Here's the comment and question part

Here's the comment and question part

Hockey, much like baseball, can be a day to day grind. I have found over the last few years that it is very easy to get burned out betting hockey so I am sure I am not alone in saying that I welcome the upcoming All Star break. I also think it will be nice to have another big break for the Olympics.

I would guess I am also not alone in saying that this has been a whacky season so far. Very inconsistent with both sides and totals (unless you are Sam!) I have not been able to get on a good run since about mid November and stand at 14-14-3 since the start of the New Year and down 3 units. That puts me down about 2 units on the whole year. Very disappointing to say the least, but I will say that it could be a lot worse if not for a relatively strict money management approach.

That being said, I am considering trying a little experiment starting today and after the All Star Break to sort of make things more interesting (maybe alleviate the day to day grind aspect) and to hopefully achieve a reasonable profit by the end of the regular season.

I had read some discussion on this type of money approach on a couple of sites in the past, and a discussion in the NCAA forum here yesterday sort of got me thinking about it again. I had been toying around with trying this for a while and would like some input on whether you think this is manageable. Can a progressive money approach work in betting hockey in light of the varying lines? What I mean is a daily increase in the bet amount after a win for 5 days, then either start over after the 5 days or after a loss, which ever comes first. The problem with this is obviously picking just 1 game per day (and the fact that I have not had more than a 2 wins in a row for quite some time). lol


For my example I am assuming your risk amount is $50 per bet and that you win. I am also assuming just for the sake of the example that each bet is ?150. This is where the problem comes in with the lines in hockey and may not make this a prudent approach to try.

Day #1 $50/33.33
Day #2 $50/33.33 - So now you have won $66.66
Day #3 $60/40 - Won $106.66 now
Day #4 $80/53.33 - Won $159.99 now
Day #5 $120/80 ? +$239.99

Then start over with $50 wager.

As you can see, after the first 2 days you are always risking only a portion of the profit. You would start over after a loss or at the end of the 5 days like I mentioned. Thoughts about this anyone???

 

[TIME TO MAKE $$$]

SJ,

Congrats on your wins, the way I see it is that after 5 straight wins you should increase your wager slightly. But be careful oh those high fav ML as they could wipe out your profits in just 1 loss.


GL

 

[Sports Junkie]

Time, that is just an example of one possibility, not wins.

The amount each day would be a flat amount and the next day (after the first 2 days) would be a slight increase and remain a flat amount. (not to win $50, but a flat $50 to win whatever based on the line). So basically losing on a high ML would not lose anymore than usual. I would never be cutting into the profit after the first day. Betting a slightly higher amount each day but never above the total amount won for the week. Of course all of this makes the huge assumption that you can string together 3-4 wins in a row consistently.

I hope all this makes sense. Perhaps I did not explain it as clearly as I could have. Maybe it is not even viable with the high puck and MLs in hockey??

 

[Sports Junkie]

Does anyone have any other thoughts on this?

 

[Nick Douglas]

Unless I am mistaken, this strategy is only gonna be beneficial if you win 5 straight.

If you win 2 and then lose, you are out an extra $10
If you win 3 and then lose, you won an extra $10 but lost back an extra $30
If you win 4 and then lose, you won and extra $30, but lost back an extra $70.

This is a good theory is you feel that when you win at least two straight, you are going to win at least five straight a majority of the time. Personally (and this may only be because I play so many dogs), I find that I often win 2, 3 or 4 in a row, but only hit 5 in a row once or twice a season.

Perhaps a better way (if you really want a progrssive scheme) is the way I play blackjack. $10 and a $10 raise in the bet after every win. If I lose, I go back to $10. Basically it is the theory of hot streaks. If have a 1 win streak, that is a loss of $10 vs. standard. 2 win streak is a loss of $10 vs. standard. 3 win streak is the same as standard. 4 win streak is +$20. 5 win streak is +$50. 6 win streak is +$90. 7 win streak is +$140. 8 win streak (my highest since I have played this system) is +$200.

Generally this has been successful for me because if you have a large enough bankroll ($250 minimum at $10 per hand), you will usually play long enough to hit at least a few good streaks (5 or more) and leave the table up at least $100. Obviously if it is a hot table I will stay longer. My real recommendation on blackjack, however, is to simply not play. You cannot beat the house long term without counting cards.

One thing I would say is that I would only recommend a progressive scheme if you are dedicated to ONE GAME PER DAY. You don't want to be on a large wager with three or four plays and have them all lose.

 

[Sports Junkie]

I used the imaginary line of -150 for the ease of explaining it. The big lines are what makes me think this won't work. Of course, hitting a dog in the 5 days makes it more manageable.

Yes, I would have to limit it to ONLY 1 per day in this scenario. Also, I would not say it would only be beneficial if I win 5 straight, but rather would be the MOST beneficial if I win 5 straight. The key would be winning the first 2 days. I am gonna break it down again and tell me if I missed something in the $$ lost or gained.

If I were win 2 days in a row on flat $50 bets I would be "up" $66.66 in my example. I would then risk a flat $60 on day #3 (keeping the $6.66 profit). If I lose on day 3 I would still have a meager profit of $6.66 and start over. If I were fortunate enough to win on day #3 ($40 on the $60 in my example) I would be up $106.66 for the 3 days. I then risk $80, keeping the $46.66 profit. Again, lose on day 4 and you start over and have $46.66 in profit for the 4 days.

I see what you are saying about doubling after every win and starting back to square #1 with the loss. I guess I could approach it that way too. In the example win $33.33 on the $50 risk and then risk a flat $60 or $70 on the next play and so on. Again, I think the problem with trying this is the puck and moneylines. There is no consistent return on the risk like -105 or -110 in hoops or football. Unless you were to have a hard and fast rule of taking no games over ?150 or something like that?

 

[infinii]

IMO, this type of strategy is too hard to carry out simply because of the number of games each day.

When you have multiple games going on at once, would you have the discipline to ONLY bet one of those games and wait for result before wagering another bet?

Also, it's almost no use to even try to calculate the payoffs/risk with such a betting strategy because we dont pay a fixed juice in hockey.

It might be fun to try it but I'd suggest a limit of 3 or 4 on the winning streak simply because it's not easy to pick 5 winners in a row.

 

[Sports Junkie]

Thanks for the feedback, folks. I sort of thought this would provoke more discussion, but the comments I received were helpful. After working through the numbers some more last night and talking to another friend of mine who is quite a hockey capper himself I decided this is not a worthwhile experiment. More for the profit being risked (and potentially lost) in the 4th and 5th days (if you get that far) than anything else. Passed last night.

Good luck to everyone.