Computer Picks: 13/02/2010—Olympic Outlook

Updated: February 13, 2010 at 7:44 am by Jeff Tay

Computer Picks will undoubtedly be back after the break, with more in-depth analysis and possible new features. Until then though, it appears that my personal worst week of the season (in terms of dollars) will end on a quiet note.

One of the major contributors to my downfall this week though, aside from a couple of rough results, was actually the way that I managed my bet sizes, and I would actually like to take this opportunity to start a discussion with the rest of the Dailyfaceoff community regarding this topic. As far as I can tell, my biggest mistake over the last few days was clearly betting too much on the plays that lost and betting too little on the plays that won (a fantastic recipe for disaster). What I would like to find out now is how everybody else manages their bankrolls, and what kinds of rules or systems are out there to help tackle the daunting task of bankroll management.

Meanwhile, I have also come up with a tentative system myself, that I personally plan to implement after the Olympic break—a system tailored to the general ‘small-ball’ bettor (one who prefers to make lots of little bets instead of a few big bets). On the contrary to this, I had actually been swinging for the fences over the past few days (trying to hit some dingers), and Nashville losing to the Islanders, PIT/NYI going under 5.5, LAK/EDM going under 5.5, and the Blue Jackets relinquishing a lead to the Canucks, made for 4 very crucial strikeouts, but I do believe that I will be taking a more balanced approach to betting for the remainder of the regular season (no more 10 unit bets next to other 1 unit bets on the same day). My tentative balanced-approach system goes a little like this:

Daily Objectives:

1) To make balanced bets (in terms of dollars), such that no loss of any two bets in a single day will automatically eliminate any chance of having a profitable day.
2) To, as best as possible, make the maximum potential profit in any single day at least equivalent to the amount of money that was bet during that day.

The first of these two objectives is quite straightforward, and it is meant to place restrictions on erratic bet sizes. The second of these two objectives though, actually manages to address two other separate problems. The first of these two problems is the “case of the vanishing profit”. Imagine making three -125 bets every day for $10 each, and making $6 one day (going 2-1), $6 the next day (going 2-1), and then going 1-2 the day after that. You would actually be right back at where you started (dead even), despite having two winning days and one losing day. I am hoping that with the second objective in mind, I (or anybody else trying to achieve this objective) will be forced to make underdog bets to balance out the juice lost on betting favourites. This then leads right into the second problem that this objective could address. How often do we see those +200 underdogs that we think about taking but don’t feel comfortable pulling the trigger on, and how surprisingly often do they come through? With objective number two in mind, a small bet on an underdog or two would balance out the juice on some of the favourites, and I am hoping that this extra reason to take a shot with some dogs will translate into profit in the long-run.

These are just a few thoughts for now, and it is perfect timing because there will soon be two weeks ahead to really think things over. Of course, the current week isn’t exactly over yet either, so also feel free to discuss Saturday’s games here as well. I’m just drained for the time being (a dented bankroll can have that kind of effect), but I can’t wait to get rolling again after the break, and I am also looking forward to getting into any kind of discussion that should emerge here over the weekend. I hope that most of you end up finishing this week a lot stronger than how I’m about to finish. It shouldn’t be too difficult though.

The following two tabs change content below.
Bookmark and Share


Disqus