I-Got-5-On-It says:
I wouldn't just limit myself to 1 pick a day as you might 3 or 4 cracking bets that you think will win and by only taking the 1 you're doing yourself out of potential profit.But then again you might really like 4 plays and go 0 for 4.

But I know what you're saying

As for me low volume is my style average of 2 to 3 bets a day and I've done alright so far this year at it

LeoEuler says:
The best (and by best, I mean mathematically) way to build your bankroll is Kelly Betting. if w = your winning percentage and v = the price you're laying/receiving, following this formula ((w*(v+1))-1)/v = % bankroll at risk/bet will generate maximum bankroll growth. So if you can pick -110 games with 56% accuracy, then you should bet ((0.56*((1/1.1)+1))-1)/(1/1.1) = 0.076 = 7.6%. So when you lose your bets are automatically scaled down and when you win, they're scaled up. This method is extremely aggressive and very volatile, but when applied over 1000's of trials (bets), your bankroll will grow without bound. When first starting out, it is best to undershoot the estimate of your win-rate. If you think you are a 56%-er, plug 55% into your formula so you wont burn up your bankroll if you pick a little less than 56%. Eventually the Law of Large Numbers will take over and your win-rate will settle to a average and this number can be used. The most important aspect of betting this way (and with sports betting in general) is discipline. This is extremely volatile and losing streaks will eat you alive if you get rattled easily. Stick to the formula and you'll either go broke because you suck at picking games (i.e < 52.4%) or, in the long run you'll be a millionaire. GL.

LeoEuler says:
@ Honolulubomber. Your opinion on whether or not it works is irrevelant because it does work. I can write you a mathematical proof that it works. J.R. Miller is the perfect example of the "Old Guard" in Las Vegas; Old hustlers who grew up in pool halls and sawdust joints that do things the way the always have because it seems works and are now on the internet selling their "winning picks". These's kinds of gamblers are rapidly being replaced by Math Ph.D.'s and quantitative analysts. The same thing is happening in poker and happened with computer science, neural networks, and backgammon in the late '80's. The math always tells the same story, aggressiveness gets the $. The only way Kelly doesn't work is if your a losing sports bettor. Plain and simple.

honolulubomber says:
The issue with all of the quantitative betting that is allegedly changing everything is that there is a false sense that an equation guarantees something is going to work. Any use of the Kelly method relies on the bettor accurately knowing their long run winning percentage with a fairly high degree of precision. It also requires that there are no negative, left tail risks. Use Kelly and go on a 2-20 streak and see what happens. Just as Long Term Capital Management miscalculated, just like Lehman miscalculated, a bettor can miscalculate probabilities. You had mentioned that it takes thousands of bets for the averages to play out. Over that large of sample size you could have a run of 10 or 15 consecutive losses that wipe you out. Distribution patterns, even for a successful long term gambler, mean that losing streaks will happen. Using Kelly can mean an excellent, long term picker of winners goes broke.

I am in full support of new ideas, quantitative analysis, etc. Both math doesn't equal certainty.

And for the record, the Kelly criterion was published in 1956. Talk about an old strategy that is in the dustbin of history.

wizardofroz says:
Ideally, I try to bet no more than 1 game per day or 7 games per week. And if you cannot PASS on a given day, you will never get ahead in gambling. Also, the window of winning is small, so when I see something I like, I usually bet heavily on that one game. And when I lose 3 or 4 in a row, I usually take at least a week off of gambling, as cutting my losses is just as crucial as winning. Also, I have found it best if I am fortunate to win a few in a row, it is best to wait to get paid before betting again. IMO, the guy betting 1 game a day for $500 per game is much better off in the long run than the guy betting 5 games per day at $100 per game.

hodge says:
AGGRESSIVELY

MATH

FAITH

LOGICALLY SITUATIONS

GOOD WORK

KNOWLEDGE (when to walk away when to run)

FIND HELPFUL PEOPLE

MOST OF ALL JESUS IS OUR GLORY /VICTORY

Charlie111 says:
Don't bet a game just to have action. Bet it if you think you have an edge over the line, not just because it is on TV or similar.

Weekday afternoon baseball games can be tempting just to give you some action to check out while at work. The same is so with the weekday prime time football games. If you bet a weekday football game, it should be for the same reasons you would bet it on the weekend.

PLEASE on Monday Night Football, don't bet to get back all your Sunday losses or to double up all your Sunday winnings. Bet it with discipline. MNF is a bookie's best friend.

Know you strengths. Use a rating system on the sports you are best at. Bet small straight bets on your weaker sports.

BEST ADVICE. Don't be drunk when placing bets!!!

THE_PUNISHER says:
finding the system and doing the hard work that requires of it is the hardest part. having alot of patience is def a big key. When i 1st started looking in to finding a system all i ended up doing was hitting a brick wall or hit a dead end. then had to start over. but eventually i found a nice stat. It has helped out greatly. With this crap economy and i have been jobless for sometime now, I dont know where i would be had i not done this hard work and came up with a winning plan. I will never tell a soul what my system is. but i dont mind giving out plays. Hit me up with a msg if ya want free plays. Good Luck all.