Hey Jord - you must be a real idiot to play that amount on this shit -and play that many games. What are you a coin flipper!??!?!
At least you maintain some respect that way. I wouldn't agree - but like Bombs, who has rightfully called me at times, I'd have some respect. Not that you care about my respect, but the fact that kind of demeanor is accepted is pretty sad for the times.
Hate to bring this train wreck of a thread back to the top, but I couldn't resist responding when mentioned by name. The key to properly understanding, or at least thinking about, the more games, less games argument is in terms of bankroll utilization and application of an expected ROI on your total handle. The way to make money wagering on sports is to 1) pick games that produce a positive ROI and 2) maximize that ROI by playing amounts that do not stretch your bankroll. With #2 in mind, I would advise playing no more than 1% of your bankroll on a single game, with a substantial number of plays below 1% - 1% is a huge number. Let's say you make 10 0.5% plays a day to utilize 5% of your bankroll. in 20 days you will have wagered 100% of your bankroll. In a full year, you will wager 1825% of your total bankroll (your handle). If your initial bankroll was 10000, that would be a handle of 182500. If you are able to pull a 2% ROI over the entire year (not easy, except of course for all of you guys here), you will net yourself a handsome 3650 (not bad starting with 100 dollar wagers). Of course, if you adjust the amount you wager daily, the amount will go up as you win (down if you lose) so you have some escalators/de-escalators that will come into effect to help or protect you respectively. By keeping your average wager to 0.5% of your bankroll, it is unlikely you will go broke with streaks and slumps and if you do well (remember you need to pick winners) you will have a way to increase your bankroll. Over time, you can grow your bankroll, and if you really suck at this, like most people, you won't vaporize your entire bankroll.
The issue with playing less games is that there is really no warranted situation where you should be playing more than 1% of your bankroll because if you do this, when you go on a bad run (and everyone has bad variance runs), you will likely go broke, chase, and almost certainly screw yourself. So, to make the same amount of money over the course of a fixed amount of time you will either need to 1) dramatically increase your ROI (because of less games and therefore a smaller handle) or 2) increase the amount you play per game (highly risky and greatly increases your chances of going broke).
Consequently, what it comes down to is that you want to bet the most games you can and still achieve a positive ROI. If you can churn out a 2% ROI playing tons of games that's better than a 5% ROI with less games when taking into account the need to manage your bankroll. Furthermore, sustaining that 5% ROI might be easy over the short run but doing it over the long run will be difficult and if you are playing less games for larger amounts the down times will be very bad.
One other thing to consider is that sports wagering allows for you to, over time, "invest" more money than you actually have because the transactions in and out are continuous, sort of like interest capitalization. Unlike a stock where you would invest 10k and hope to make a set %, when wagering on sports you could start with 10k and over the course of the year invest 182500, and if you prevent yourself from going broke, you can really capitalize on winning picks.
Of course, nowhere in here do I mention anything about paying the vig. You are doing that either way every time you lose. Paying it less often is nonsense, as you are here to play, and it should be factored into your ability to win or lose. Jord is right, playing less games to avoid "paying juice" makes no sense. If that is your thinking, the way to pay the least juice is to pick no games at all.