is there a 'best way' to loose money at a book?

[jat63]

What I mean is - all books will all limit me if I keep on making money with them - and at times even close the book for further bets. That is a 'bad thing'. So, the question is - is there a 'best way' to loose money at a book to try and postpone this event - or at least make the most out of while you can?

let me start with the following comment I saw several times:

"Incremental betting is one of the telltale signs of someone with a gambling problem" Dr. Nigel E. Turner, Ph.D.,expert researcher and scientist, Center for addiction and Mental Health.

That sounds like someone who might loose a lot of money.

There is also a lot of information about the 'Kelly Criterion' [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyATmCJf4fc&feature=channel_page]YouTube - Understanding Kelly Criterion[/ame] (is a simple place to start understanding the idea) and how betting more than that amount will guarantee to loose you money in the longer term. Again loosing money - and the faster the better - sounds good.

Finally there is a lot of information about the magical "Martingale Betting System" where you always double your bet until you win.

So - putting all these together my proposed method to loose money is:

Start with a lowish deposit into the book say £100.

Then always bet your full balance on each bet - limits will make that impossible sometimes - so probably wise to only bet on big match games.

Always fully underlay all bets - winning at the book is bad and you need to be compensated.

Now if we assume we are making bets at an average of 2.0 and we have great luck after 6 bets we will have £6400 from our £100 starting point - and probably a book who no longer wants our business (however, i have books that let me still have £20,000 on big games so maybe not the end). However, the chance of getting to this position is 1.56% so on average we will need to make quite a few attempts before we get there.

When you loose start back a step 1 with another £100 deposit.

And remember - we did underlay each bet fully so maybe not that bad an end point if we did win with that final £6400 bet we made?

[Gibber]

I don't get what your on about are you looking for arbs at a specific book and underlaying to only give 100% return at the exchange at each time? There is no way to ensure you 'lose' at a bookie.

[Andy]

I think i understand what you are doing and the theory is sound but im not sure why you would want to do it?

Using reverse Martingale to bust out of bookies is a good idea I do that a lot at reload sites.

Forget using Kelly criteria it is completely irrelevant to what you would ever want to do (I think).

IF you are trying to lose money at bookie and bust out then the only "strategy" would be reverse Martingale but it is then actually pretty obvious you were trying to lose, thus defeating the point. They really want people who lose whilst trying to win. You could always start backing Norwich, Scotland and Liverpool football clubs, they fail to win at crucial times quite a lot!

[jat63]

Andy - I agree that the reference to Kelly is probably not needed here - it was just myself thinking that if I have a positive EV on bets (say 1%) and always bet less that kelly I am less likely to ever loose at the book in the longer term - (probably especially true for places like IW where my average bet is probably on or about kelly for that book due to limits).

So - if i want to have a better chance to 'loose' I should at least be betting more than Kelly per bet to try and be on a negative expected path - even with a +EV on my bets.

Now the real question im my mind was - what % above Kelly would be best? 100% is probably too much but what would a better figure be?

[Andy]

Im going to level with you, i have no idea whatsoever.

When im trying to bust at a book though i always put my entire balance on it though, and keep rolling it up as much as possible, to try to lose it all. Unfortunately limits kick in though. I hedge reload offers i do to make $s when i win somewhere with a wagering or very very small $s or breakeven if the reload site loses (because i can start again).

There is no easy or garunteed way to lose though, no matter what stakes you use or what odds you use. As you pointed out though, if you are underlaying or hedging it appropriately you will still make $s overall, making up for the inconvieniance of going on the winning run.

[munk]

I think you have an additional issue in that how do you know when the price you've taken is the actual current price and not a 'value' price? If the price is 'value' (ie it's higher than it should be), then any kind of maths you do is going to be wrong and you'll end up betting too much if you're trying to use some kind of rigid formula.

I still really don't follow what you're saying either, why are you trying to lose (sorry, no offence intended but you keep saying 'loose', it's 'lose'!) if you're using a formulaic approach to winning optimally? The point of the Kelly Criterion from what little I know of it is it's a theory that states what the optimal stakes you should bet given various factors and I can't see how you're trying to use it here.

Are you saying you want to know what the best way to minimize your losses are? Confused...

[AlTeRnAtEcApSmAn]

You could always try backing and laying multiples to reduce your chance of picking winners( I do remember a thread in another forum way you lay each leg of the multiple depending on the result of the previous match- never got round to trying it myself but the maths involved did seem to work) personally I have found the only way you can guarantee losing at the bookies is not to lay it

[jat63]

Sorry - will have a final go before I hide my head in shame and think of something else to ponder

I find that when I have finally withdraw money form quite a few books I got limited - but not before. While I have had 1000's of winning in and been making large bets they have been quite happy with me - only after I withdraw do they seem to care (normally the same day).

So the idea was to try and postpone for as long as possible the needing to withdraw - while at the same time betting large amounts as often as possible.

Sounds like it was probably a silly idea - off to look again at my plan B

[munk]

No it's not silly at all, it's a very interesting question.

What I personally do is underlay all of my bets on any arb that is profitable so that I make no profit/loss if it loses, but if it does win then I make a much larger profit. That way I'm compensated a bit better for winning at the bookie side (compensated because I'm more likely to get limited there in future after winning).

I don't think about what my stake is particularly, it makes no difference to me although various mathematical theorem probably suggest it does! There was an interesting post recently about a book linked to on google which covered a similar theme, what the optimal stake size should be for a given bet, I'll try and find it now... OK it was you that posted it!!!

All I can say is that for me the best way to prolong the life of bookmaker accounts - which I think is what you're really asking? - is to not take profitable arbs too cheaply - ie don't back/lay to optimize the return when you have a really profitable big arb, always underlay so you make a lot lot more if it does win.

[lazza_w]

is there a 'best way' to loose money at a book?

Bet on Norwich. Always works!