Wagering methods compared

Updated on July 25, 2015 in General Discussion
3 on July 17, 2015

Hello everyone,

I want to discuss several wagering methods and developing trust in SDQL-Trends.
I deeply started tracking my plays based on SDQL since End of January. Before it was just about collecting information, gaining knowledge and getting used to it. However I am very aware that this may cause confusion but I want to start a deeper discussion about trust in Trends and how to use them.
I think just as important it is to find trends, it is nearly as important to define their worth.
I tracked my plays based on trust and compared them to single stakes.
With variable staking my Yield is about 5%, while flat stakes have 2%.
So why my need to discuss this? Do you like to treat Trends Equal? Do you use measurements beside from numeric ones to value them to each other. Do you look for sports specific measurements?
I don’t treat NFL trends like NBA ones and MLB are just another headache. So apart from z-values, Yield and number of games, I look for sport specific defining variables. I started to categorize the variables by worth and trust. If they are included in a trend and have heavy value, my trust growths.
I hope this isn’t to abstract.

Looking forward to a healthy and straightforward discussion.

  • Liked by
  • parlayfenk
  • pcg
Reply
0 on July 24, 2015

In my opinion, all trends should be looked at as equal. I think you get into a erroneous territory when you try to put ratings or values on systems. I like how PCG and Weatherwizard and some other good posters put it in the past at the other forum: does a system PASS a number of specific checks. It is either a yes or a no. 

The bigger question is how you make the decision to bet something?
Do you avoid any and all conflicts or do you bet when you have more systems for and less against and maybe go with the biggest differentials. It depends on how many systems you have in your arsenal. Personally, I don’t have a huge ton (in an excel database) so I just make the bet when a system I like is up and there aren’t any conflicts against it, but I could see that method not working if you store 200+ systems per sport.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on July 25, 2015

I’m doing something similar to parlayfenk.  Once I’ve qualified a method as being worthwhile, I consider it to be equal to all the others.  I’ve made attempts to gauge the strength of them, but it appears I’m falling into the trap of overfitting.

With that being said, if you have a way of gauging the strength, and it’s producing more profit, stick with it.  You’re probably doing something very different from what we’re doing, and we’re probably the wrong ones to help.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on July 25, 2015

I too do many scenarios and try to keep it as simple as possible and limit the variables as much as possible. Here is an example of such in the NBA I have played personally ATS since 2004
AF and p:L and total >= 198 and playoffs = 0
here is a link to SDB.com that covers from 1995 to 2014
NBA Spot Play
Only 6 out of 20 seasons were losers.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel