Arbusers

Wolfie wrote: If we take for granted you have a solid value formula and you did go from 5K to 2.5K than it means its just variance. So losing streak will end. Now that the winning streak comes in you will find yourself with lower stake resulting in less winning than you should have, destroying your whole strategy altogether. One experiment i would try is after a loosing streak dont lower your stake but rise it. Because just like blackjack card counting strategy when you see many Low cards going out what you do is rise the stake because now the probability of a High card coming out is way higher.

@De Graaf i would not be so sure because i can see that i did not go bankrupt.

Wolfie wrote: If we take for granted you have a solid value formula and you did go from 5K to 2.5K than it means its just variance. So losing streak will end. Now that the winning streak comes in you will find yourself with lower stake resulting in less winning than you should have, destroying your whole strategy altogether. One experiment i would try is after a loosing streak dont lower your stake but rise it. Because just like blackjack card counting strategy when you see many Low cards going out what you do is rise the stake because now the probability of a High card coming out is way higher.

This strategy doesn't make sense if you just think about mathematics. Blackjack is a game where each round have less cards that the previous one, because there is not replacement, so when you discard one card, it affects to the probability of the rest of them.
Value Betting is a different game, where the value of the odds are not affected by the past results, or if it is affected that changes is already in the odds.

In my opinion, and just, looking in a mathematics way, You don't have to change your strategy never, even if you lose or if you win. Of course, your strategy depends on your bankroll, but, past results DON'T AFFECT future results.

If you find a 3% value bet, this bet has 3% of value, and that's it.
What happen is: If you have a bad streak, and your results are behind the real value that you take, and you still betting in the same strategy than before,  AFTER  thousands and thousands of bets, you will be sure that the value will goes to the average.

I hope that everyone understand it.

pd: I don't say that could be other forces involved on it, but, looking JUST in a mathematics way of think, There is no reason to change nothing after a bad streak. And the same after a good performance.

I am not implying that rising stake is going to give results after bad streak. It is an experiment i wanted to try but never did. If you read my opinion correctly is keep 1% of initial bankroll stake if your value formula is solid. And this is backed by math and experience too.

Anyway, based on mathematics, if you bet on value betting, you will win in the end. If you bet more, you will win more.
What i say, is just that past performances, are not a reason to modify our stakes. And the example of BlackJack doesn't apply here, because is a different kind of game, where the probability of a card is different each hand.

But as i said, if you bet on value, it doesn't matter how much you bet. You will win in the long haul.

CharlieSheen99 wrote: Anyway, based on mathematics, if you bet on value betting, you will win in the end. If you bet more, you will win more.
What i say, is just that past performances, are not a reason to modify our stakes. And the example of BlackJack doesn't apply here, because is a different kind of game, where the probability of a card is different each hand.

But as i said, if you bet on value, it doesn't matter how much you bet. You will win in the long haul.

If you bet value its true you win in long houl no one can dispute it, but changing staking plan can get you into a lot of variance.
I understand that there is a difference from blackjack, but in this also there is a finite amount of future timeline win lose, even if they are a lot more than blackjack number of cards.
Rising stake after a losing streak has been mentioned before in forum cant remember post now. I am curious if anyone tried it. In my personal data mining if i had risen stake after losing streak i would have been more profitable. But this is very messy to judge where should you start rising stake, after what loss.

Wolfie wrote:

CharlieSheen99 wrote: Anyway, based on mathematics, if you bet on value betting, you will win in the end. If you bet more, you will win more.
What i say, is just that past performances, are not a reason to modify our stakes. And the example of BlackJack doesn't apply here, because is a different kind of game, where the probability of a card is different each hand.

But as i said, if you bet on value, it doesn't matter how much you bet. You will win in the long haul.

If you bet value its true you win in long houl no one can dispute it, but changing staking plan can get you into a lot of variance.
I understand that there is a difference from blackjack, but in this also there is a finite amount of future timeline win lose, even if they are a lot more than blackjack number of cards.
Rising stake after a losing streak has been mentioned before in forum cant remember post now. I am curious if anyone tried it. In my personal data mining if i had risen stake after losing streak i would have been more profitable. But this is very messy to judge where should you start rising stake, after what loss.

Raising stakes after losing run should work IMO. But one should have a decent formula/method. Otherwise its just chasing the wind.. If you have a 2 week downrun and you know that avg losing run is 1 week and you know you still have your edge but its just a bad run then sure, dont see why raising stakes would not work. But like blackjack, you must be sure about having a clear edge.

For example, i did this when i followed a portfolio of tipsters. If some had a bad run at the start of month and i knew statistically that 7 out of 10 will end up the month in green, i would go a bit bigger with their selections. So instead being up 1-2 units for tipster(like he would be) i was up 3-4units.

You need to have a proven winning formula in place. This means that your sample is large enough so you can trust it. But at the same time, you must be vigilant to understand when a pattern is changing, when a bookmaker is adjusting odds, etc.
If you have all this, then you can modestly raise the stake after a losing streak.
Read some more here:
https://arbusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=9
https://arbusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=7

Thank you a lot guys  I'm still confused a bit, but I'm trying different approach.

I bet to win 1% of my bank on every wager. My bet size is constantly adjusted after the completion of every bet. Honestly I could have bet 2% or a fraction of kelly and made a lot more $ the last couple of years but comfort level is important.

Valuebetting means that if you bet more,you will win more.1/100 stake does not make sense.If you find value 2/100 cannot bet the same amount of money with a 10/100 value.

Of course you should bet more when you find 10/100 value.But you should be sure that this real value!

When you find 2-3/100 value,bet with 1-2 /100 of your bankroll.When you find more than 7/100 value,bet with 3-7/100 of your bankroll.

Maths will give you profit in the end.Try to search all the time and keep in front of computer more than 25 hours per week.Bankroll plays a big role for profits.More bankroll means much easier profits,if you know what you are doing

In the end, if you bet more money, you will win more money. Theorically, and with a very high bankroll, you should bet the maximum in every bet with value, no matter about the % of value.

You are right.Everyone has a different style of betting.In theory this is perfect.In practice i do not think is the best because your account will not last.After mug betting,if your first bets are 2k-3k you are already in red flag(if you win).But if you bet smaller amounts,your account maybe will last.(200-500 euro).It depends from thousands factors(geolocation is important).

The positive of arbing is that if you start betting high amounts and you lose too much on soft sides,most of times they will not limit you(example you lose 40k in 3 months via arbing on soft side).This is not rule,but why a company to kick out a guy that has lose 40k after a lot of bets in 3 months?

Of course if you start having profit they will limit you instantly.And also if the trader is clever and see that you bet only values may kick you.But if you camouflage your account with negative arb bets(big matches),you may last a lot.And of course you gain profit from the arbs with almost max stakes.

But this is rare,because you pick value,so you will win at soft side.

I know if I bet on prematch on softs and beat the pinnacle closing lines , I will profit on longer term.
What about live value betting? how much juice and efficient pinnacle is live compared to prematch?
I want to introduce live betting also, i can scale my turnover on softs and look like gambler