#Why sports bettors should bet to risk, not to win

Enlarge Image

Race and Sports SuperBook at the Westgate Las Vegas Casino.
Getty Images

When betting on sports, one critically important aspect of bankroll management that largely gets overlooked is the difference between “bet to risk” and “bet to win.”

Betting to risk means you are betting a specific amount of your choice regardless of the odds. If you win the bet, your payout is determined by the price of the odds. Betting to win means you have to risk a predetermined amount based on the odds in order to win your desired amount. Betting to win means having to risk more when betting on favorites and risk less when betting on underdogs.

This might sound confusing, so let’s offer a real-world example to illustrate the difference.

Let’s say the Yankees are a -150 favorite on the moneyline. You want to bet $100 on the Yankees. If you bet to risk, this means you are risking $100. Based on the -150 favorite price, this means if the Yankees win the game you win roughly $66.67, plus you get the $100 you risked back. If the Yankees lose the game, you lose the $100 that you risked.

On the flip side, if you bet to win $100 on the Yankees, this means you would need to risk $150 up front based on the -150 moneyline price. If the Yankees win, you win $100 plus you get the $150 that you risked back. If the Yankees lose, you lose the $150 that you risked.

By betting to risk, you have far more control over your bet. You decide how much you want to risk, instead of letting the price of the odds dictate your amount.

The dangers of betting to win become more amplified as you make more and more wagers, specifically on favorites. For example, let’s say you want to bet on the Cubs, Red Sox and Mets. All three teams are -150 favorites on the moneyline. If you bet to win $100 on each, this means you would need to risk $150 on each bet, which totals $450 combined. If all three lose, you lose the full $450 you had to risk. However, if you bet to risk $100 on all three teams and all three lose, you only lose the $300 that you had to risk. By betting to risk instead of betting to win, you saved yourself $150 if all three lose.

Let’s flip the moneyline prices and say the Cubs are a 150 underdog. If you bet to risk $100 on the Cubs and they win the game, you win $150 based on the plus-money underdog price, plus you get the $100 that you risked back. If you bet to win $100 on the Cubs, you would only have to risk $66.67 based on the 150 underdog price. If the Cubs win the game, you win $100 plus you get the $66.67 that you risked back.

On the surface, it might seem as though betting to win is the smarter bet when it comes to betting underdogs. After all, it allows you to risk far less up front. However, you must remember that betting to win on underdogs cuts into your potential profits and forfeits the advantages of plus money payouts.

Say the Cubs, Red Sox and Mets are all 150 underdogs. You bet to win $100 on all three, which means you risked $66.67 on each, totaling roughly $200 overall. If all three win, you win $300 plus you get the $200 that you risked back. However, if you bet to risk $100 on all three and all three win, you win $450 based on each team’s 150 price, plus you get the $300 that you risked back. By betting to risk instead of betting to win, you increase your underdog payout substantially. In this case, you would win $450 betting to risk, versus only winning $300 by betting to win. Betting to risk earns bettors $150 dollars more in profit if all three win.

For these reasons, bettors should always bet to risk, not to win. Sure, there are pros and cons when it comes to betting favorites and underdogs. But overall, the name of the game is limiting your risk and maximizing your reward. Betting to risk affords bettors this opportunity. Betting to win does not.

Josh Appelbaum writes for VSiN, the Sports Betting Network.