I think you guys think you are cleverer than you are. You cap Janes winning 22% of the time thats fuckin accurate can we get a decimal point on that too?
Yeah that's too specific obviously for me. I mean, if someone else wants to try to say they can actually cap to a specific percentage, fine by me but that's kinda crazy.
Still, the overall point is still valid. This isn't to bash
@BigNick100 because his philosophy may work great for him. But for me (and others based on what I've read) it's not about "chasing dogs" or "parlaying favorites that I really think will win". It IS simple math. And you don't need to nail it down to a specific % to make it work.
What I do is use ranges. Generally 10%, sometimes 15%. Let's use Felder/Ray today as the example since I just posted thoughts about that fight.
I missed Ray at -110. At open, I think there was slight value there because I believe he should win this fight 50-60% of the time. Which obviously means I give Felder a 40-50% chance of winning. So using a range like that, you can sort of figure out what you want to do. If you want to be conservative, use the low estimate for each guy (so 50% for Ray and 40% for Felder) and figure out where the odds are in relation to that. Felder at +164 has SLIGHT value based on my capping of his chances using my most conservative % chance of him winning. (+164 equates to his implied probability of winning being 37.88%, so if I think he has AT WORST a 40% chance of winning, he's a solid bet).
Same thing goes for props, it's just figuring out a % range of how likely you think a given prop is, and comparing it to the odds and the implied probability they represent. As was mentioned, this is FAR from a guarantee of being profitable. Because if your capping is off and you assign bad %'s to outcomes, it doesn't matter in the long run because the value you perceive was never real.
I know you already know all of this, but it seems like sometimes there's people that post here that don't get it.