- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,573
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 63
This guide is for bettors who are making money on individual bets but finding their results are more volatile than expected, or anyone who wants to move from random weekly betting to an actual structured approach.
Why Portfolio Construction Matters in Golf
Golf betting has natural correlation problems. If you bet on three players to make top-10 and they're all ball-striking grinders who need firm, fast conditions, you haven't diversified anything. When conditions turn soft and receptive, all three bets are compromised at once. You might as well have bet on one player at three times the stake.
A proper portfolio spreads risk across different bet types, different player profiles, different tournaments, and different time horizons. This doesn't eliminate variance but it stops you from concentrating all your risk in ways you didn't realize. You're building something that can absorb bad weeks without the whole structure falling apart.
The goal isn't to bet on everything possible to create artificial diversification. That's just making more bets for the sake of it. The goal is to be deliberate about which types of bets you're making and how they interact with each other, so your overall results are smoother than they'd be from placing bets randomly.
Core Holdings - The Base Layer
Your core holdings are the bets you make most weeks because you have genuine process for them. For most golf bettors this means outright winner bets or top-10 bets on players where you've identified value through analysis. These should make up 50-60% of your total betting action.
Core holdings work because you're betting on things you actually understand. You've developed a process for evaluating players, courses, form. You track results. You know what your edge is and where it comes from. This is the foundation of the portfolio - the bets that should be profitable over large samples if your process is sound.
The mistake people make is treating everything as core holdings. They bet outrights on six tournaments, top-10s on four more, each-ways scattered around, all with the same level of analysis and attention. That's not a core holding strategy, that's just making lots of bets. Core holdings should be selective - you're only betting when your process identifies something worth betting, not betting because a tournament is on TV.
You should know your win rate and ROI on core holdings because you're tracking them separately from other bet types. If you don't know whether your core strategy is profitable, you can't build a sensible portfolio around it. Everything else is speculation built on a foundation you haven't verified.
What Qualifies as Core
Core bets have three characteristics. First, you have a repeatable process for identifying them. Not gut feeling, not narrative, actual process you can articulate and follow consistently. Second, you've got enough sample size to know the process works - at least 100-200 bets tracked properly. Third, the bet type has enough liquidity that you can get your money down at reasonable odds.
If you're betting PGA Tour outrights on players between 15.0 and 30.0 odds using a process based on recent strokes gained data and course fit, and you've tracked 150 bets that show 8% ROI, that's a core holding. You know it works, you know how to identify good spots, you know the expected return.
If you're occasionally betting European Tour longshots when they "feel right" but you haven't tracked results and don't have a clear process, that's not core. That might become core if you develop proper process and track results, but until then it's speculative.
Satellite Positions - Calculated Risk
Satellite positions are bets outside your core strategy that have positive expected value but higher variance or less certainty. These might be longshots you think are mispriced, matchup bets on players you don't normally follow, or markets where you've spotted something but don't have deep process yet.
These should be 20-30% of your portfolio. The stake size should be smaller than core holdings - maybe half or two-thirds of your standard unit. You're taking shots at +EV opportunities without overcommitting to bets where your confidence or edge is lower than your core strategy.
The reason to include satellites is that some of the best value in golf betting exists in spots you don't bet every week. Maybe there's a tournament where field strength is weak and a couple of mid-tier players are massively underpriced. You don't normally bet these players, you don't have years of data on them, but the spot is obviously good. That's a satellite position - good bet, just not part of your core process.
Satellites also let you explore new bet types or markets without wrecking your bankroll if you're wrong. Want to try betting 72-hole matchups? Start with satellite-sized stakes until you've proven to yourself the approach works. Once you've got sample size and positive results, maybe it becomes part of core holdings.
Hedges and Insurance - Protecting Downside
This is controversial because most sharp bettors say never hedge. I mostly agree with that, but there are specific situations in golf where hedging makes sense for portfolio management.
If you've got outright bets on two players who both make it to Sunday with real chances to win, you can hedge by backing other contenders or laying off some of your exposure. This caps your upside but it also ensures you don't go from "great week" to "okay week" if both your players finish second and third.
Another hedge is betting different formats or bet types that move inversely. If you've loaded up on favorites in outrights, taking some longshot top-10 positions balances the portfolio. Favorites hitting means your outrights profit, favorites missing means your longshot top-10 bets have more room to cash. It's not a pure hedge but it reduces correlation.
Hedges should be maybe 5-10% of your portfolio at most. You're not hedging everything, you're making selective adjustments when exposure gets lopsided or when Sunday situations develop where locking in profit makes sense. Too much hedging and you're just making -EV bets to reduce variance, which defeats the purpose of betting in the first place.
When Hedging Makes Sense
You've got a player at 40.0 pre-tournament who's now 3.0 to win going into Sunday with a two-shot lead. You're up 39 units on the bet if he wins. Do you hedge? Depends on your bankroll and risk tolerance. If 39 units is 10% of your bankroll, maybe you let it ride. If it's 50% of your bankroll, hedging some of that by backing other contenders isn't crazy.
The math usually says don't hedge because you're making a -EV bet to reduce variance. But portfolio management isn't pure math, it's also about keeping your bankroll intact so you can keep betting. If one bet going wrong would seriously damage your ability to continue betting, hedging that exposure is reasonable even if it costs you expected value.
Bet Type Diversification
Don't just bet outright winners. Different bet types have different variance profiles and different edges available. Outright winners have massive variance - you might go 0-for-20 even with good selections. Top-10s or top-20s have lower variance and cash more frequently. Each-way bets combine both dynamics.
A balanced portfolio might be 40% outrights, 30% top-10/top-20 positions, 20% matchups or head-to-heads, 10% speculative or satellite bets. These percentages are arbitrary, adjust based on what you're good at. The point is you're not putting everything into one bet type that could have a long cold streak.
Matchups are particularly useful for portfolio balance because they're less correlated to outright results. Your outright picks can all miss badly but you can still profit from matchups if you've identified the right pairings. The skills required are different - outright betting is about identifying underpriced winners, matchup betting is about relative performance between two specific players.
Each-way betting deserves its own allocation if you do it regularly. The structure is different from straight outrights - you're getting paid for top-5 or top-10 finishes at reduced odds. This creates different variance profiles and different optimal strategies. Don't just lump each-way bets in with outrights, treat them as a separate bet type with separate tracking.
Tournament Selection Strategy
You don't need to bet every tournament. Most bettors would improve results by being way more selective about which tournaments they bet. A portfolio approach means deciding in advance which tournament types you'll focus on and which you'll skip.
Some bettors only bet PGA Tour signature events because that's where their research is strongest. Others focus on smaller European Tour events where markets are softer. Others bet majors heavily and skip most regular season events. The specific choice matters less than having a deliberate choice rather than just betting whatever's on that week.
Field strength affects your portfolio balance too. Betting favorites in elite fields is different risk than betting favorites in weak fields. If all your bets are in elite-field tournaments where the top-20 players in the world are competing, your variance is different than if you're betting weak-field events where anyone can win.
I tend to focus on 15-20 tournaments per year where I've got strong process and good understanding of the venue. That's about one tournament every 2-3 weeks. The rest of the season I might make occasional bets if something obvious shows up, but I'm not forcing action just because golf is happening. This keeps the portfolio concentrated on high-confidence situations rather than diluted across mediocre bets.
Geographic and Tour Diversification
Betting only PGA Tour events means you're exposed to one set of market conditions and one competitive ecosystem. Adding European Tour, Asian Tour, or other tours diversifies this. Markets on different tours have different levels of efficiency - PGA Tour markets are sharp, European Tour markets are softer outside big events.
This doesn't mean blindly betting tours you don't follow. But if you've developed expertise in multiple tours, allocating your portfolio across them reduces correlation. A bad week on the PGA Tour doesn't necessarily mean a bad week on the European Tour because different factors are driving results.
The downside is researching multiple tours is time-intensive. If you've only got time to properly analyze PGA Tour events, forcing yourself to bet European Tour just for diversification is counterproductive. Better to be deep in one tour than shallow in three.
Actually, that's not quite right. What I mean is, diversification is only valuable if you maintain the same level of edge across different areas. Diversifying into markets where you're worse just creates more variance without improving expectation.
Time Horizon Balance
Golf betting portfolios can include both short-term bets (this week's tournament) and longer-term positions (futures on season-long awards, major championships months away). Mixing these creates different types of exposure.
Short-term bets resolve quickly. You know within four days if you've won or lost. This is most of your portfolio because liquidity is good and results come fast enough to validate or adjust your process.
Longer-term bets tie up bankroll for weeks or months but sometimes offer better value because markets are less efficient far from the event. Betting a major championship three months out before the market fully forms can find prices that disappear closer to the event.
The balance depends on bankroll size and personal preference. If you've got limited bankroll, tying up 20% of it in futures that won't resolve for months might not be practical. If you've got comfortable bankroll, putting 10-15% into longer-term positions adds different types of opportunities without compromising your ability to bet weekly tournaments.
Correlation Is the Hidden Killer
You bet on three players in the same tournament who all have similar profiles - great ball-strikers, average putters, play well on firm fast courses. The course plays soft all week. All three underperform at once. Your portfolio just took three losses that were highly correlated because the underlying driver was the same.
Avoiding correlation means betting on players with different profiles and different edges. One ball-striker, one elite putter, one long hitter, one scrambler. They're not all vulnerable to the same conditions or course setups. When one type of player struggles, another type might thrive.
This applies to bet types too. If you're betting three outright winners and two top-10 positions all on players ranked 10-20 in the world, those bets are correlated. They're all mid-tier favorites who need things to break right. When favorites underperform collectively - which happens some weeks - your whole portfolio suffers.
Better to spread across different odds ranges and different player types. One favorite, two mid-range, one longshot. One grinder, one aggressive scorer, one consistent veteran. The bets still need to be good bets individually, but by varying player types you reduce the chance they all fail for the same reason.
Tracking and Adjusting the Portfolio
None of this works if you're not tracking results by bet type, tournament type, and player profile. You need to know which parts of your portfolio are working and which aren't. Maybe your core outright strategy is profitable but your matchup bets are losing money. That information changes how you allocate going forward.
Track everything separately. Outrights, top-10s, each-ways, matchups. PGA Tour versus European Tour. Favorites versus longshots. Course types, field strengths. The more granular your tracking, the better you understand where your edge actually exists versus where you think it exists.
Adjust allocation quarterly or after 50-100 bets, not week to week. Short-term variance will make everything look broken even when it's not. But if you've made 100 matchup bets and shown consistent losses, stop making matchup bets or seriously revise your approach. Don't keep allocating to strategies that aren't working just because they're part of your original portfolio plan.
What a Real Portfolio Looks Like
Here's a rough template, adjust based on your strengths. 50% core holdings - outrights on 15.0 to 30.0 players where your process is strong. 25% top-10/top-20 positions for variance smoothing. 15% satellite positions - longshots, different tours, experimental bet types. 10% hedges and adjustments.
Within that, you're spreading across different player types, different tournaments, different odds ranges. You're not betting six players in one tournament, you're betting 1-2 per tournament across multiple tournaments. You're not loading up on favorites exclusively or longshots exclusively.
The whole thing should make sense as a structure. If someone asked you "why did you make these bets this way," you should have coherent answers about risk management, edge location, and portfolio balance. Not just "these seemed like good bets."
FAQ
How many bets should be in a portfolio?
Depends on your bankroll and how much you're betting per tournament. If you're flat staking one unit per bet, probably 5-10 bets per week is reasonable for most bettors. More than that and you're either over-betting or your unit size is too small to matter. Less and you're not getting enough action to smooth variance.
Should I bet the same tournaments every year?
If your edge is strongest at specific venues or tournament types, yes. Don't force yourself to bet tournaments where you don't have an edge just for diversification. Better to be selective and bet your best spots repeatedly than spread across tournaments you haven't analyzed properly.
What if my portfolio is mostly losing?
Then your core strategy needs work before you worry about portfolio construction. Fix bet selection first, portfolio structure second. If you can't identify +EV bets consistently, building a complex portfolio around those bets doesn't help. Get core profitable, then worry about optimizing the structure.
Last edited:
