[WorkHorse]

Most young and inexperienced bettors may scoff at hitting 56% for a football season, but professional bettors will tell you there's nothing wrong with that percentage at all. Such a percentage will lead to a nice profit.

Many bettors assume they are going to achieve the magical figure of 60% winners, if not higher, when heading into a new football season. While such a percentage may be achieved over a short period of time, it's nearly impossible to maintain over a long stretch.

One well know professional bettor describes the 60% fallacy by saying if you begin with a $1000 bankroll and wager 10% of your money on one game a day, while laying -110 odds, while maintaining a 65% winning ratio, after 2000 wagers your initial $1000 would be worth $550 billion. Yes, billion. Something to remember the next time you see a TOUT claiming to hit 65% over the last 10 years.

Always remember new guys, if it sounds to good to be true, RUN like hell! There's always something down there trying to gobble up your soul.

Towns Van Zandt - The Hole

[mlb]

Nice. .. Good luck this season

[WorkHorse]

Thanks Mlb. When I first came to SBR last year, there was a guy claiming he had hit 90% on certain plays and a lot of other bullshit. If I remember correctly, I joined SBR to expose this SOB. He was trying to build up a name list and fated like all these assbutts do. I hate these bastards who try to take advantage of posters who are young and learning.

Any Goddamn horseshoe or tout who tries this shit in college football this year will be HAMMERED...that's a promise. Nothing turns my stomach like a bunch of lying, con-artist whores.

If I don't get you, BigdaddyQH will.............no need to cheat these kids...NO NEED!

[Wrecktangle]

Yeah, they've moved it down to 65%

Once was you'd see 80% winners all over the place. Now the "boyz" think they can float 65% as believable.

No one gets above ~57% long term. Matter of fact, 55% is quite respectable.

[BigdaddyQH]

Exactly. My long term rate (30+ years) has been at 57.5%. As of late, it is 58.5%. The best I ever did during a season was slightly over 62%. The best I have ever seen was 65%, hit once. I remember when Mark Lawrence won the Stardust "Handicappers Championship" against 15 other touts with a total winning percentage of 52.3%. That was the winning percentage. Do not let these guys blow smoke up your tail. 55% is very respectable, and certainly a legitimate goal for any bettor to have for a season.

[fishmonger]

I hit a good percent but it seems like I ALWAYS lose the bets that I bet more on than I usually bet. It's like when I think I have a huge edge I am good fade material.

[WorkHorse]

Fish, I learned a long time ago to bet all games the same. I don't believe in the unit BS of betting one game more than another. I set a bankroll for the season, determine how much to wager per game based on the bankroll and hope like hell I have a good season. If I lose my bankroll before the season is over, I stop betting.

Betting is just like running a marathon. A good marathon runner determines a pace and sticks with it. He doesn't sprint 300 yards then slow down for awhile then sprint 500 yards etc...winning bettors don't treat gambling as a sprint race but rather a long grind without stopping.

[chunk]

Fish, I learned a long time ago to bet all games the same. I don't believe in the unit BS of betting one game more than another. I set a bankroll for the season, determine how much to wager per game based on the bankroll and hope like hell I have a good season. If I lose my bankroll before the season is over, I stop betting.

Betting is just like running a marathon. A good marathon runner determines a pace and sticks with it. He doesn't sprint 300 yards then slow down for awhile then sprint 500 yards etc...winning bettors don't treat gambling as a sprint race but rather a long grind without stopping.

I tend to agree with this strategy because I mostly play sides in football and basketball where I think that it is a little more difficult to zero in on "edge" and trust that it can be quantified accurately. This would be especially true for the NFL for instance when you have years of games, but the sample is still small. On occasion when I feel that I have a play with a higher probability of winning I make it a 1.2 unit play rather than the standard 1 unit.

I also agree that giving the young guys a dose of reality is a good thing. I'm still not sure what the long run is, but let's say 2000 games over 5 years for the sake of argument. If you can do 55% over this span, I would say that you are likely going to be able to hold your own in this racket. Winning percentage should be presented along with volume of games played or it is kind of meaningless for obvious reasons. Last year I played over 400 football and basketball games and finished in the 57% range. This is achievable with lots of hard work. I would also add that you would be better off spending your resources with something more productive.

I'm certainly no expert on the subject of services, but I would suspect that it is like most things in life, some good, some bad. I agree with these guys that outlandish claims would be an immediate red flag. "Due diligence" goes a long way whether it be tailing amateur or pro cappers.

[fishmonger]

Fish, I learned a long time ago to bet all games the same. I don't believe in the unit BS of betting one game more than another. I set a bankroll for the season, determine how much to wager per game based on the bankroll and hope like hell I have a good season. If I lose my bankroll before the season is over, I stop betting.

Betting is just like running a marathon. A good marathon runner determines a pace and sticks with it. He doesn't sprint 300 yards then slow down for awhile then sprint 500 yards etc...winning bettors don't treat gambling as a sprint race but rather a long grind without stopping.

I totally agree. But I will grow my bankroll by a little and take a shot on a game with the growth. But you never put a little more on the bowl games or super bowl? If not then you are way more disciplined than any one I know.

[RPP]

If you need a tout you probably shouldnt play....

[BigdaddyQH]

I totally agree with Workhorse here. I ALWAYS wager the same amount of money on games. To me, it is very simple. The game is either worth wagering on, or it is not. I have a computerized system that selects the games to wager on. After I get the choices, I depend one other thing to make my final decision. Thaat is my gut instinct. Normally, my gut instinct will not tell me to wager on a game, but will tell me NOT to wager on a game. To be successful, you have to have that gut instinct that tells you "when to hold 'em" and "when to fold 'em".

[WorkHorse]

First, good post Chunk...that's what SBR should be and is all about. Thanks Bud.

Second, RPP's post "If you need a tout, you probably shouldn't play." If we guys here at SBR can't come up with winners then SBR needs to shut down. I totally agree with my friend RPP. Granted, come CFB season every hard dick in the country will be offering advice on this site. Stay with the "LOCALS" and we (you) will have a great chance of getting an honest return.

The College Football Notebook will offer free plays as well as other respected, honest posters. Fools will and can "Chase" the other fools on this network. Have at it and pay the piper!!!!

[bornselling]

Most young and inexperienced bettors may scoff at hitting 56% for a football season

[chunk]

Most young and inexperienced bettors may scoff at hitting 56% for a football season

Agreed. Many love that instant gratification and focus too much on short term where you can hit high %'s. I think that if they pay more attention to long term, they will realize how good 56% really is. Or is it that you get your ass kicked long term.....I can't remember.

[wiffle]

52.5% is excellent, long term

[andywend]

To anyone who claims they can pick 65% winners even by being very selective, the following offer is always on the table:

I will wager up to $100,000 against anyone saying you can't pick at least 60% winners over the course of at least 100 games.

You can be as selective as you want and have up to one year to place the 100 wagers. You can bet 20 games in a day or go a full month without picking any as long as you make your 100 selections over the one year timeframe.

4 conditions would have to apply:

1. We would need some sort of reputable 3rd party to hold the funds (I would trust someone like Bill Dozer or Lou @ SBR).

2. All selections must be made using lines available at the time of selection with a -110 maximum (any selection made over -110 would be on a game by game basis).

3. You have to tell me before the contest begins how many selections you would like to make with 100 being the minimum number. Obviously, if you wanted to make over 100 selections that would be acceptable.

4. You can only bet on one side of any event.

While there will be several responses saying how unfair this offer is, I wholeheartedly agree but remember I am NOT the one claiming I can pick 65% winners in my sleep the way some others do.

Picking even 60% is next to impossible and I realize I have a huge edge if anyone ever took me up on this wager.

[Wrecktangle]

Andy, You should offer: out of the next 500 games, if you have a 100 game run where you hit 60% the bet is on. Or offering 10-1 odds.

Otherwise it is a totally BS offer.

[chunk]

To anyone who claims they can pick 65% winners even by being very selective, the following offer is always on the table:

I will wager up to $100,000 against anyone saying you can't pick at least 60% winners over the course of at least 100 games.

You can be as selective as you want and have up to one year to place the 100 wagers. You can bet 20 games in a day or go a full month without picking any as long as you make your 100 selections over the one year timeframe.

4 conditions would have to apply:

1. We would need some sort of reputable 3rd party to hold the funds (I would trust someone like Bill Dozer or Lou @ SBR).

2. All selections must be made using lines available at the time of selection with a -110 maximum (any selection made over -110 would be on a game by game basis).

3. You have to tell me before the contest begins how many selections you would like to make with 100 being the minimum number. Obviously, if you wanted to make over 100 selections that would be acceptable.

4. You can only bet on one side of any event.

While there will be several responses saying how unfair this offer is, I wholeheartedly agree but remember I am NOT the one claiming I can pick 65% winners in my sleep the way some others do.

Picking even 60% is next to impossible and I realize I have a huge edge if anyone ever took me up on this wager.

I'm not sure why your challenge would come in this thread where the posters essentially agree with you, but if it was reformulated to approach some semblance of reality, it might get interesting.

[eeks]

The best I have ever seen was 65%, hit once. I remember when Mark percentage. Do not let these guys blow smoke up your tail. 55% is very respectable, and certainly a legitimate goal for any bettor to have for a season.

I saw a guy go 78% from week one to end of regular season in college with over 150 plays. It was unbelievable. I wish i would have tailed him. But i didnt think anyone could keep it up at that pace Then he flopped in the Bowl season. The next year he went tout and won less than 50%.

[Vin_vermillion]

I will hit at 70% this CFB season. Will post all my Saturday plays so that you all can see them

[WorkHorse]

Horseshit

[Vin_vermillion]

can't wait to prove you all wrong....

[chunk]

Oh boy. Wait til Andywed sees this.

[BigdaddyQH]

I will hit at 70% this CFB season. Will post all my Saturday plays so that you all can see them

Would you like to put a little money on that prediction?

[BigdaddyQH]

To anyone who claims they can pick 65% winners even by being very selective, the following offer is always on the table:

I will wager up to $100,000 against anyone saying you can't pick at least 60% winners over the course of at least 100 games.

You can be as selective as you want and have up to one year to place the 100 wagers. You can bet 20 games in a day or go a full month without picking any as long as you make your 100 selections over the one year timeframe.

4 conditions would have to apply:

1. We would need some sort of reputable 3rd party to hold the funds (I would trust someone like Bill Dozer or Lou @ SBR). That would be no problem, though I would trust you.

2. All selections must be made using lines available at the time of selection with a -110 maximum (any selection made over -110 would be on a game by game basis). Does that include "College Football Games of the Year" (aka "future") wagers?

3. You have to tell me before the contest begins how many selections you would like to make with 100 being the minimum number. Obviously, if you wanted to make over 100 selections that would be acceptable... No way. No one knows in advance how many selections they will make. 100 or more is acceptable, but no set number.

4. You can only bet on one side of any event... Bull S**t. One of the huge advantages that professional gamblers have is playing "middles". If you knew what you were doing, you would know this. The winning gambler is going to combine "Game of the Year" wagers with lines that actually come out on the week of the game to find winning middles. He is also going to wager on certain games the minute the lines come out (the Sunday preceeding that weeks action) in Vegas, in hopes of capitalizing on bad lines that will be corrected as the week wears on.

While there will be several responses saying how unfair this offer is, I wholeheartedly agree but remember I am NOT the one claiming I can pick 65% winners in my sleep the way some others do.

Picking even 60% is next to impossible and I realize I have a huge edge if anyone ever took me up on this wager.

At least your last two statements are true. Seeing as how big of an edge you would have, you would also have to give big odds. 2-1 or better. Picking 60% in any given year is very difficult, but certainly not "next to impossible". I have seen it done. I did it once myself. Again, very difficult, but not impossible. I totally agree that 99.9% of the people who post in various forums and claim to win anything over 65% over a year are basically liars, to be blunt.

[Vin_vermillion]

I've hit over 70% for the past two years - so sure....

I am not puttin 100,000 on it though....

[Vin_vermillion]

actually - why should Ihave to put money down? Are you going to pay me double for the winners? I mean, you should be making a huge profit by taking my games, so why do you need to bet me?

[WorkHorse]

Horseshit and another Horseshit.

Goddamn golden boy on little SBR when he could be at the Las Vegas Hilton or Stardust with his 70% winners making huge...HUGE amounts of money and he's here with us little puppies.

What you bet, he's trying to sell picks.........I hate these hollywood bastards. Anyone who has hit 70% for two years would keep his mouth shut and just rake in profits. Horseshit...Horseshit...Horseshit.

Goddamn junior high school!!! When the season starts, the flood gates will open with these HOTSHOTS.

[Vin_vermillion]

LOL workhorse...I see where you arecoming from. I won try to sell you shit - this year - LOL

All free picks on Saturday. I say you guys all have to give me 1000 betpoints if I do it.

[fishmonger]

What happens if you don't hit 70%? Because you won't.

[chunk]

Get home from the golf course to see that the Feds are at it again. I see it coming.....the feds legalize and regulate sports gambling. So now, to overcome -120 and taxes, we're all going to have to tail Vinny Vermillion because it's going to take 70% to win.

[WorkHorse]

Chunk, I hate to be ugly to a young poster and Vinny must be. I'd rather be up front early than let some really young guys get taken by some silly BS poster during the football season. They don't know the difference (college kids) and get hurt big time and I AIN'T going to stand by and see it happen.

Chunk, thanks for your activity here at the SBR football forum...we appreciate you sir.

[WorkHorse]

My wish is that Vinny becomes a solid poster here at SBR. He's no dummy, just needs some priorities adjusted and maybe he will be something good for SBR College Football. Let's rock Vin and make this a special place for CFB lovers and hopefully many winners.

[chunk]

Nah, I think Vinny probably knows his stuff. Just likes to yank our chain a little bit.

[allabout the $$$]

i have a friend who is a book he has been giving me and a buddy of mine the most lopsided plays on saturdays and sundays and i can honestly say that we have cleaned up at a 60% or better clip for the past 2 football seasons not me handicapping just getting a good source