Do you bet more games or fewer games? Volume vs selectivity debate

[CoachTony_Bets]

I've been thinking about this question a lot lately as I review my betting patterns from this season. Right now I'm averaging about 8 to 10 bets per week across all sports, which feels pretty selective to me. But I know some successful bettors who make 20 or 30 bets per week, and other successful bettors who only make 2 or 3.
The argument for higher volume is that if you have a genuine edge, you want to maximize your exposure to that edge by betting more games. If you're hitting 55% at minus 110 odds, you're more profitable making 50 bets per month than 10 bets per month, assuming your edge holds across that volume.

The argument for selectivity is that most bettors don't actually have an edge on that many games. By being highly selective and only betting your strongest plays, you maintain better quality and avoid marginal bets where your edge is minimal or nonexistent. Quality over quantity.
Personally I lean toward the selective approach because I find that when I bet too many games I start making bets I'm not confident in just because I want action. But I also wonder if I'm leaving money on the table by not betting enough when I do have legitimate edges.
What's everyone's philosophy on this? Do you bet every game where you think you have even a small edge, or do you save your bets for spots where you have high conviction?

 

[SharpEddie47]

This is one of the most important strategic decisions a bettor makes and most people get it wrong. The answer depends entirely on whether you actually have a proven edge and how you define that edge.

Let me start with the mathematical reality. If you have a genuine edge that produces 55% wins at minus 110 odds, your ROI is approximately 4.5%. If you can maintain that edge across 100 bets per month, you should absolutely bet 100 games per month because you're maximizing your expected value. The more you bet into your edge, the more money you make.

The problem is most bettors dramatically overestimate how many games they have an edge on. They think they have an edge on 15 games per week when really they have an edge on maybe 2 or 3. The other 12 are either breakeven or negative expectation bets that they're making because they want action or because they've convinced themselves they know something the market doesn't.

Here's how to think about this properly. You need to define what constitutes having an edge in your betting approach. For me, an edge means I've identified a fundamental mismatch that I can quantify through my models, or I'm getting positive closing line value indicating the market moved in my direction after I bet. If I can't point to a specific reason why I have an edge on a particular game, I don't bet it.

With that strict criteria, I typically find 3 to 5 bets per week that meet my standards across NFL and NBA combined. That's not a lot of volume but those are bets where I have genuine conviction based on my process. I'm not betting games just to have action or because I have a mild preference for one side.

The data on this question is clear from academic research. Recreational bettors who bet high volume lose money at much higher rates than selective bettors. The reason is simple: they're betting too many marginal games where they have no edge. Professional bettors can sustain higher volume because they have systematic edges that scale, but recreational bettors almost never have edges that work across 20 or 30 games per week.

Tony's concern about leaving money on the table is valid but only if you actually have unused edge. Most bettors don't. They think they have edge on games where they really don't, and increasing volume just means betting more breakeven or negative games. The way to know if you have unused edge is to track your results by confidence level. If your high confidence bets win at 58% and your medium confidence bets win at 54% and your low confidence bets win at 49%, you should eliminate the low confidence bets entirely and possibly the medium confidence ones too.

My recommendation is to start very selective, maybe 2 to 4 bets per week, and track your results meticulously for an entire season. If you're profitable with strong ROI over 100 plus bets, then you can consider adding volume by betting your next tier of plays. But if you're not crushing it with your best bets, adding more bets is just going to make your results worse.

The amateur betting approach is to bet every game that seems interesting or where you have an opinion. The professional approach is to only bet games where you can articulate a specific edge and you have data supporting that edge exists. Most of the time the professional approach means lower volume.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

I definitely bet way too many games lol. Like I'll bet 15 or 20 games some weekends just because I'm watching football all day and I want to have action on the games. Reading Eddie's post is making me realize that's probably a huge reason why I'm not profitable.
The thing is it's so boring to only bet a couple games when there's like 15 NFL games on Sunday. I want to have something to root for in every game I'm watching. But I guess wanting action and having an actual edge are totally different things.

I've definitely noticed that some of my bets are way more confident than others. Like I'll have 2 or 3 games where I really think I know what's going to happen, and then I'll have 10 other bets where I'm just kind of guessing or betting based on vibes. Those vibes bets are probably where I'm losing the most money.
Eddie's idea about tracking results by confidence level is really smart. I bet if I did that I'd find out that my "I really like this game" bets do okay but my "eh why not" bets are losing me tons of money. That would tell me I should only be betting the games I actually feel strongly about.
But then how do you deal with the boredom of watching games you don't have money on? That's honestly my biggest struggle. If I only bet 3 games on Sunday I'm going to be watching 12 games with no action and that sounds terrible lol.

 

[FadeThePublic]

The volume versus selectivity question is interesting because the right answer depends on your betting style and edge. Eddie's approach of extreme selectivity makes sense for his methodology but it doesn't necessarily work for every strategy.

My contrarian public fade approach actually requires moderate volume because I need to see enough games with public overreaction to find betting opportunities. Some weeks there might be 5 or 6 spots where the public is hammering one side and creating value on the other. Other weeks there might only be 1 or 2. I can't artificially limit myself to 2 bets per week if there are 6 good spots, but I also can't force bets when the opportunities aren't there.

My average is probably 6 to 8 bets per week which is moderate volume. But the key is every single one of those bets meets specific criteria: heavy public action on one side, line movement indicating sharp money on the other, and a matchup that makes sense. I'm not betting games just because they're on TV or because I have an opinion. I'm betting games that fit my systematic approach.

Eddie's right that most bettors bet too much and they're making marginal bets where they have no edge. But the solution isn't necessarily ultra low volume. The solution is having a systematic approach where you can clearly articulate why each bet meets your criteria. Whether that results in 3 bets per week or 10 bets per week depends on your methodology.

Princess to answer your question about boredom, you need to separate entertainment from investment. If you're betting for entertainment and you're okay losing money for the sake of having action on games, that's fine. But don't lie to yourself that you're investing or trying to be profitable if you're betting games just to avoid being bored.

The harsh truth is profitable betting is boring. You watch a lot of games with no action. You pass on games that seem interesting because they don't meet your criteria. You do the work during the week and then on Sunday you have a few bets and you watch them play out. That's not exciting but it's what's required to be profitable.

If you want excitement, bet small amounts for entertainment and accept the cost. If you want profit, bet selectively with larger amounts on your best plays and accept the boredom. You can't have both.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

I think Fade makes a good point that the right volume depends on your approach. My situational betting style probably lands somewhere between Eddie's extreme selectivity and a high volume approach.

When I'm looking at a week's slate of games, I'm identifying situational advantages like lookahead spots, revenge narratives that are overblown, coaching mismatches, rest advantages. In a typical week I might find 6 to 8 games that have meaningful situational factors worth betting. Some weeks it's more, some weeks it's less.

Eddie's criticism about betting marginal games is valid though. I've definitely caught myself making bets on games where the situational factor was weak just because I wanted action. When I review my results, those marginal situational bets are much less profitable than my strongest situational plays.

What I've started doing is ranking my potential bets by confidence level at the beginning of the week. Tier one is games where I have high confidence in the situational edge. Tier two is games where there's a moderate edge. Tier three is games where there's a minor factor but nothing compelling. I only bet tier one and occasionally tier two. Everything in tier three I skip even if it's tempting.

This has naturally reduced my volume from 12 to 15 bets per week down to 6 to 10, and my results have improved. I'm betting less but I'm betting better, which is what Eddie's talking about.

Princess I sympathize with the boredom issue because I love watching football too. But here's how I think about it. If you bet three games on Sunday and you win two of them, you make good money and you enjoyed watching those three games. If you bet 15 games and you win eight of them, you might break even or lose money after the juice, and you spent the whole day stressed about 15 different bets.

The focused approach is actually more enjoyable in my experience because you're not splitting your attention across too many games. You can really focus on the games you bet and enjoy them more. The games without bets become background entertainment instead of sources of stress.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Fade and Tony both make reasonable points about volume depending on methodology. I want to clarify that I'm not advocating for ultra low volume as a universal rule. I'm advocating for only betting when you have a clearly defined edge based on your specific approach.

If your approach identifies 10 bets per week with legitimate edges, bet 10. If it only identifies 3, bet 3. The mistake is betting 10 when your approach only identified 3 and you're forcing the other 7 because you want action.

The way to know how many bets you should be making is to track your results by different categories and see where your actual edge is. Here's a concrete exercise everyone should do. Take your last 100 bets and categorize them into three groups: high conviction bets where you had a strong reason to bet, medium conviction bets where you had a decent reason, and low conviction bets where you were stretching or betting for action.

Calculate the win percentage and ROI for each group. I guarantee most people will find their high conviction bets are profitable, their medium conviction bets are breakeven, and their low conviction bets are losing money. Once you have that data, you should be betting only the high conviction games and maybe some of the medium conviction games.

This will naturally determine your appropriate volume. For some bettors that might be 15 bets per week because they have a systematic approach that generates many high conviction plays. For most bettors it will be closer to 3 to 5 per week because they don't actually have edges on that many games.

Princess your point about boredom is telling because it reveals you're betting for entertainment not profit. That's fine but you need to be honest about it. If you're betting 20 games per weekend for entertainment, treat it as an entertainment expense and budget accordingly. Set aside $100 or $200 for Sunday entertainment, make small bets on games you're watching, and accept that you'll probably lose that money over time.

But if you want to be profitable, you cannot bet based on wanting action. You bet when you have an edge and you sit on your hands the rest of the time. That's the discipline that separates profitable bettors from losing bettors. Most people can't do it which is why most people lose at sports betting.

The question isn't whether you should bet high volume or low volume. The question is how many games do you actually have a provable edge on, and are you disciplined enough to only bet those games. Answer that honestly and your volume question solves itself.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

Eddie you're totally right that I'm betting for entertainment not profit. I guess I need to decide what I actually want. If I want profit I need to bet way less and only on games where I really think I have an edge. If I want entertainment I can keep betting a lot of games but I need to accept that it's costing me money.

The exercise you mentioned about categorizing my last 100 bets by conviction level is a really good idea. I'm pretty sure if I did that I'd find exactly what you said, that my high conviction bets are winning and my low conviction bets are losing. That would make it really clear that I should only be betting the high conviction games.

I think what I'm going to try is limiting myself to 3 to 5 bets per Sunday instead of 15 to 20. Only bet games where I actually have a real reason to like one side, not just because I want action on that game. It's going to be hard to watch games without betting on them but like Fade said, I can't have entertainment and profit at the same time.

Maybe I can do like really small bets on other games just for fun, like $5 or $10, but save my real bets for the games I actually feel strongly about. That way I still have some action for entertainment but I'm not betting serious money on games where I'm just guessing.

 

[FadeThePublic]

Princess that's actually a reasonable compromise. Betting $5 on games for entertainment while betting $50 on games where you have genuine conviction is a smart way to scratch the entertainment itch without destroying your profitability on your real bets.

The key is being disciplined about which bets are which. Don't let the entertainment bets creep up to $20 or $30 because you're excited about a game. Keep them small and keep them separate from your serious bets mentally and in your tracking.

I want to add one more perspective on the volume question. Higher volume also means higher variance in the short term even if you have an edge. If you're betting 20 games per week you're going to have weeks where you lose 12 or 15 of them just due to variance. That's psychologically brutal and it can lead to tilt and bad decisions.

Lower volume means lower variance. If you're betting 3 games per week and you lose all three, that sucks but it's not the end of the world. You regroup and move on to next week. But if you're betting 20 games and you lose 15, that feels catastrophic even though it might just be normal variance.

So volume management is also about managing your own psychology. Betting fewer games makes it easier to stay disciplined and rational because individual losses don't hurt as much. That's another argument for selectivity beyond just making sure you have genuine edges.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

Fade's point about variance and psychology is really important. I've noticed that on weeks where I bet 10 or 12 games I'm much more stressed and emotional about the results than weeks where I bet 5 or 6 games. The increased volume increases the mental load even if the individual bet sizes are the same.

Princess I like your plan of limiting yourself to 3 to 5 serious bets and then maybe having small entertainment bets on other games. That gives you the best of both worlds as long as you're disciplined about keeping the entertainment bets small.

One thing I'd add is you should do your serious betting analysis during the week, not on Sunday morning. If you wait until Sunday to decide what to bet, you're more likely to talk yourself into marginal bets because you're in the moment and you want action. But if you do your analysis on Tuesday or Wednesday and write down your 3 to 5 best plays for the weekend, you're more likely to stick to that plan.

I actually write down my planned bets at the beginning of each week and then I don't allow myself to add bets on Sunday unless something major changes like late injury news. That discipline has helped me avoid betting marginal games just because I'm watching and want action.

The broader lesson here is that selectivity is a skill that needs to be practiced. Most bettors naturally want to bet too much because betting is fun and watching games with action is more exciting. Learning to sit on your hands and only bet your best spots is difficult but it's essential for long term profitability.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Tony's suggestion about writing down your bets earlier in the week is excellent advice. It creates a commitment device that prevents in-the-moment emotional betting on Sunday.

Let me add some final thoughts on this topic with specific recommendations for different types of bettors.

If you're a recreational bettor betting for entertainment, bet whatever volume you want but keep the stakes small enough that losses don't affect your life. Budget $200 per month or whatever you can afford, divide that by your planned number of bets, and bet accordingly. Accept that you'll probably lose money but you're buying entertainment.

If you're trying to be profitable but you're still learning, start with very low volume. Make 2 to 4 bets per week maximum. Track everything meticulously. Only increase volume once you've proven over 200 plus bets that you're consistently profitable at low volume.

If you're experienced and profitable at low volume, you can consider increasing volume only if you have a systematic approach that identifies additional plays with similar edges to your best plays. Don't just bet more games, bet more games that meet your proven criteria.

If you're experienced but struggling to be profitable, reduce your volume dramatically. Cut your bets in half and focus only on your absolute best plays. You're probably betting too many marginal games and reducing volume will likely improve your results.

The common thread is that selectivity should be the default and volume should only increase when you have data proving you have edges on additional games. Most bettors do the opposite: they bet high volume by default and wonder why they're losing money.

One final point. The sportsbooks love high volume bettors because high volume means more juice paid and more opportunities for the house edge to grind them down. The books hate selective bettors who only bet when they have genuine edges. That should tell you everything you need to know about whether you should be betting 5 games per week or 25 games per week.