The math behind multis

[brett128]

Hey everyone, I've only really scanned this board the last few days, but it seems multis are all the rage here. Yes, I use multis too, but they are only the small part of a kelly optimal solution in maximization of expected bankroll growth.

If you're a zero edge sports bettor (and tbh, if you haven't come across terms like the 'kelly criterion' in your sports betting forays before, you most likely have zero edge);

Your goal should be to:

To lose money as slowly as possible whilst maximising your expected utility (entertainment/contentment).

That's the only way to rationalize in my own mind why zero edged punters bet.


Ganchrow at SBR probably best described the math behind multis with this article:

http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicapper-think-tank/2071-parlays.html

Notice how a 50% ATS (zero edge) bettor betting at -110 ($1.91) compounds 3 individual bets at negative edge of -4.5% on each individual bet to a multi bet with an edge of -12.5%.

Once you get into 4 + leg multis, the vast majority of people are better off going to their local tabaret and losing their money more slowly playing the pokies (whilst hopefully deriving more entertainment).

Anyone curious about the Kelly Criterion should read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

Cheers

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

i f you are referring to the impossible 9 leg multi, I don't think anyone is genuinely expecting to win that, it is simply a bit of fun with a sense of competition against other posters. It is certainly more entertaining than puting $10 through a poker machine. It also makes games you don't normally care about more interesting

 

[Lensen]

you are so smart and so totally not pretentious

 

[hfc70]

Hey everyone, I've only really scanned this board the last few days, but it seems multis are all the rage here. Yes, I use multis too, but they are only the small part of a kelly optimal solution in maximization of expected bankroll growth.

If you're a zero edge sports bettor (and tbh, if you haven't come across terms like the 'kelly criterion' in your sports betting forays before, you most likely have zero edge);

Your goal should be to:

To lose money as slowly as possible whilst maximising your expected utility (entertainment/contentment).

That's the only way to rationalize in my own mind why zero edged punters bet.


Ganchrow at SBR probably best described the math behind multis with this article:

http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicapper-think-tank/2071-parlays.html

Notice how a 50% ATS (zero edge) bettor betting at -110 ($1.91) compounds 3 individual bets at negative edge of -4.5% on each individual bet to a multi bet with an edge of -12.5%.

Once you get into 4 + leg multis, the vast majority of people are better off going to their local tabaret and losing their money more slowly playing the pokies (whilst hopefully deriving more entertainment).

Anyone curious about the Kelly Criterion should read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

Cheers

So what are your tips for this weekend & margins ?

Thanks in advance

 

[McCrann]

you are so smart and so totally not pretentious

I got the same vibe. Brett seems to speak a great deal of zero edge punters. Is he speaking from experience?

 

[brett128]

I am showing three plays that have a win percentage of 60%:

Sydney -8.5
Melbourne -21.5
North Melbourne +18.5

I only bet against a spread, as it maximizes kelly expected bankroll growth.

I would bet the Sydney and North Melbourne games now. I've already inputted final weather into the Sydney game, whilst the North game is a dome game, so that's fine, there's no weather effect on HFA. I usually don't bet until just before the first bounce, as I like to know weather and pitch conditions before generating a final win %.

Use this to determine your optimal betting amount:

http://www.sbrforum.com/betting-tools/kelly-calculator/

Input 3 indepedent events, all at a win % of 60%, and change american odds to decimal odds and type in what the book is giving you. Insert your bankroll amount in the starting bankroll cell.

What spits out is the kelly optimal betting solution for the three plays.

A $10K roll should spit out $1129 per 60% play, with only $686 in various permutations of multis. As can be seen, multis only form 16.8% of the total outlay in a kelly optimal approach to these three plays.

 

[asanque]

Don't get me wrong, I like your posts

However, I'm not sure this is the right board for such detailed information and strategy.

I don't see how there is any room for new fangled concepts such as 'maths, 'statistics', 'systems' when you need to compete against punting gurus such as:
1. 'soho'
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/sohos-awesome-thread-of-hot-tips.784291/
Awesome strategies including a variation on 'Martingale'.

2. 'Duritz's Mega Orb'
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...l-knowing-all-profiting-2012-mega-orb.920178/


On a more serious note, it would be nice to have a thread with a good discussion on optimal punting strategies.

 

[redandwhite]

the real questions is do u hit on 12?

 

[Lensen]

Don't get me wrong, I like your posts

However, I'm not sure this is the right board for such detailed information and strategy.

I don't see how there is any room for new fangled concepts such as 'maths, 'statistics', 'systems' when you need to compete against punting gurus such as:
1. 'soho'
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/sohos-awesome-thread-of-hot-tips.784291/
Awesome strategies including a variation on 'Martingale'.

2. 'Duritz's Mega Orb'
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...l-knowing-all-profiting-2012-mega-orb.920178/


On a more serious note, it would be nice to have a thread with a good discussion on optimal punting strategies.

there's certainly room to discuss them and I welcome it but to come in as arrogantly and pretentiously as he has is going to get most offside, I'd say

 

[lewigie]

the real questions is do u hit on 12?

Only if the dealer has a 2 or a 3.

 

[Nothing]

the real questions is do u hit on 12?

I wait until they are at least 18. Never can be to sure.

 

[KardiniaPark]

WOT?

 

[Donkson]

if you can estimate your edge accurately why are you betting multis?

thanks for your infinite wisdom though.

stay at sbr imo.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Donkson shoots and scores

 

[brett128]

Awesome strategies including a variation on 'Martingale'.

It's sad to see anyone following someone that contemplates Martingale. Loss chasing systems are abysmal failures in +EV investment.

there's certainly room to discuss them and I welcome it but to come in as arrogantly and pretentiously as he has is going to get most offside

Sorry but that was not my intention. It's evident from reading through some threads on this board that a lot of people here do not understand fundamental sport betting concepts.

if you can estimate your edge accurately why are you betting multis?

I'm not sure if you haven't read what i've written, or do not understand it:

Yes, I use multis too, but they are only the small part of a kelly optimal solution in maximization of expected bankroll growth.

Here's an applied example:

Input 3 indepedent events, all at a win % of 60%, and change american odds to decimal odds and type in what the book is giving you. Insert your bankroll amount in the starting bankroll cell.

What spits out is the kelly optimal betting solution for the three plays.

A $10K roll should spit out $1129 per 60% play, with only $686 in various permutations of multis. As can be seen, multis only form 16.8% of the total outlay in a kelly optimal approach to these three plays.

Let me know if you're still not clear.

 

[Donkson]

thanks for not answering my questions.

why would a statistics god need 17% of his plays to be multis?

 

[asanque]

It's sad to see anyone following someone that contemplates Martingale. Loss chasing systems are abysmal failures in +EV investment.

The linked thread is probably the best example of why not to do it He was getting to the $1 million dollar bets at one stage.

 

[Lensen]

Sorry but that was not my intention. It's evident from reading through some threads on this board that a lot of people here do not understand fundamental sport betting concepts.

it should also be probably clearer through reading some threads on this board that a lot of people here bet for fun mostly and profit is a bonus (note: I'm not one of these but I don't visit this baord for SBR type analysis)

it's like going to a flea market and announcing to vendors "i'm college educated and have read a lot of books about business and marketing and you are not currently maximising the fundamentals and here is a long winded answer as to why"

 

[Donkson]

he doesn't actually answer anything though, his reasoning is just "my model says so"

 

[KardiniaPark]

I went to college when I was very young...I hit my ball over the fence and had to go and get it.

 

[Lensen]

I went to college when I was very young...a ball I bowled got hit over the fence and had to go and get it.

fixed

 

[KardiniaPark]

Pfft I was in the Victorian Schoolboys team. Certified gun.

 

[brett128]

it should also be probably clearer through reading some threads on this board that a lot of people here bet for fun mostly and profit is a bonus (note: I'm not one of these but I don't visit this baord for SBR type analysis)

it's like going to a flea market and announcing to vendors "i'm college educated and have read a lot of books about business and marketing and you are not currently maximising the fundamentals and here is a long winded answer as to why"

Yeah I'm quickly getting the vibe around here as betting being a form of entertainment rather than a legitimate asset class. I think my time would be better devoted elsewhere.

he doesn't actually answer anything though, his reasoning is just "my model says so"

why would a statistics god need 17% of his plays to be multis?

I really cannot fathom how you do not understand my answer. But I've now underlined the most important part of my prior statement.

the small part of a kelly optimal solution in maximization of expected bankroll growth.

It's not 'my model' that says so. Assume any win % or edge you want on any given sports investment. The Kelly Criterion tells you exactly how to bet it. You cannot increase expected bankroll growth over what is Kelly optimal.

 

[Lensen]

Do you bet full Kelly?

Do you not find it unacceptably risky and capable of wiping you out on a not-overly-extended run of bad variance?

As a mathematical model, it's mathematically correct. In practice, it is very risky.

 

[brett128]

I just outlined my experience of 12 months betting at full kelly in the line movement information thread.