[HUY]

An argument that is frequently made is that the stock market is analogous to the sports betting market, and, since the stock market can be beaten, the bookmakers can be beaten.

I disagree with this approach, because there is a subtle but extremely important difference between the stock and sportsbetting markets: The former was created by the governments to make access to funding easier for companies and thus accelerate economic development. The latter was created by governments and/or private companies with the sole reason to part gamblers from their money.

This is the reason I tend to believe that making a living from sportsbetting is impossible; it's very difficult finding +EV plays, and even if you do you are quickly limited by the bookmaker or maybe the +EV play was an opening line with a miniscule betting limit anyway. This would never happen in the stock market, because the stock market has not been set up strictly to move money from one group of investors to another.

It is, of course, possible to use the sportsbetting system to win money short-term, but this is like using a broom to play pool with (instead of a cue). Yes, it can be done. Yes, it's been done. But don't expect to make a living from it.

Do you agree with this line of reasoning?

[bettilimbroke999]

Both are generally pretty good ways to **** off money for the small-timer and pretty good ways to make a killing for the rich

Rich have all the inside information about whats going to happen before its ever released in the stock market and so its too late for you to capitalize on the information by the time you receive it and the rich are the casinos and sportsbooks that gamble with the odds in their favor on virtually every bet they take, if they perceive you have a clue they simply ban/limit you

[tukkk]

rip htt

[JD426]

I would argue that the stock market cannot be "beaten" any more than a bookie can. Historically the stock market has gone up, so unlike sports betting the majority of people are likely to have positive returns, however in order to say you beat the market you have to have higher positive returns than the market. If you look at the research that's been done you'll see that very few people/mutual funds have been able to consistently do this. Of course there will be some who do (just as there is in sports gambling), but when millions of people are doing something the odds are that someone will consistently succeed. Just like if a million people were to play 20 rounds of roulette, it would be expected that a small number of people would win all 20 rounds.

For the average person (no inside information) The stock market is obviously a better investment than sports betting ( fewer fees, positive market returns, buy and hold mentality rather than keep playing til your bank roll is gone mentality of gamblers), but I don't think it's any easier to "beat".

[HUY]

I would argue that the stock market cannot be "beaten" any more than a bookie can. Historically the stock market has gone up, so unlike sports betting the majority of people are likely to have positive returns, however in order to say you beat the market you have to have higher positive returns than the market. If you look at the research that's been done you'll see that very few people/mutual funds have been able to consistently do this. Of course there will be some who do (just as there is in sports gambling), but when millions of people are doing something the odds are that someone will consistently succeed. Just like if a million people were to play 20 rounds of roulette, it would be expected that a small number of people would win all 20 rounds.

For the average person (no inside information) The stock market is obviously a better investment than sports betting ( fewer fees, positive market returns, buy and hold mentality rather than keep playing til your bank roll is gone mentality of gamblers), but I don't think it's any easier to "beat".

But we're not talking simply about "beating", as in "positive ROI" here. We're talking making a living, which is possible on the stock market but not in the bookies, since the amounts you can bet on the bookies are miniscule.

[mathdotcom]

RIP htt x2

[josie88]

Both markets can be beaten in my opinion, however it is much easier to make money in the stock market. After spending maybe two years really learning how to win in sportsbetting, I was then left with the logistics of how to implement the knowledge. I quickly found out, at least for me, the resources and time involved to succeed would make it impossible. That, and I still could not know with certainty that I could do it since my track record was too small.

My sportsbetting retirement was cemented when I had the luck of buying a used car from a key player in one of the big syndicates here in Vegas. After the purchase we talked a bit and he shared about how they did some things. It was clear I neither could nor desired to do what was necessary to (maybe) get those profits. Nice fellow he was. Like any business, you need startup capital and years of experience and the right team. Maybe those who can bet the internet books could do better or even fly solo; I don't know.

What I did know, however, was the time learning about sports betting would give me an edge in the stock market. Doing nothing more than maxing out my Roth IRA and investing with a buy and hold strategy in growth stock mutual funds, I was basically matching the market. Nothing to write home about I tell you. So, I stopped being a passive investor and put the same energy into stocks as I did sports. My first year trading individual stocks with purpose was exceptionally lucky, over 600%. I seem to be on a longer term trajectory of 30-ish % which will make my retirement a joy. And unlike sportsbetting, I don't think I can do it - I know I can do it.

But make no mistake, the results came from the same approach one would take to beat the books. Unlearn what you think works (mechanical systems, betting progressions, etc), acquire the best information, model, learn to read charts, etc.

And it was this forum that taught me how to think. To all the posters that shared resources, books, theories, my thanks.

[arabbeast13]

over analyzing

[MonkeyF0cker]

there is a subtle but extremely important difference between the stock and sportsbetting markets: The former was created by the governments to make access to funding easier for companies and thus accelerate economic development.

This would never happen in the stock market, because the stock market has not been set up strictly to move money from one group of investors to another.

Contradicting yourself?

[Waterstpub87]

An argument that is frequently made is that the stock market is analogous to the sports betting market, and, since the stock market can be beaten, the bookmakers can be beaten.

I disagree with this approach, because there is a subtle but extremely important difference between the stock and sportsbetting markets: The former was created by the governments to make access to funding easier for companies and thus accelerate economic development. The latter was created by governments and/or private companies with the sole reason to part gamblers from their money.

This is the reason I tend to believe that making a living from sportsbetting is impossible; it's very difficult finding +EV plays, and even if you do you are quickly limited by the bookmaker or maybe the +EV play was an opening line with a miniscule betting limit anyway. This would never happen in the stock market, because the stock market has not been set up strictly to move money from one group of investors to another.

It is, of course, possible to use the sportsbetting system to win money short-term, but this is like using a broom to play pool with (instead of a cue). Yes, it can be done. Yes, it's been done. But don't expect to make a living from it.

Do you agree with this line of reasoning?

First off, the government did not create stock markets.


Both are beatable. And your logic doesn't follow, if you actually have positive expectation in the short term, you will have positive expectation in the long term .

Also, consider the participants in both markets. If 5% of sports bettors are sharp, you are competing with 95% of people who have no idea what they are doing. A large % of financial market participants are institutional investors with massive supercomputers and years of education on how to beat the markets. Who would you rather compete against?

[TMoney33]

This would never happen in the stock market, because the stock market has not been set up strictly to move money from one group of investors to another.

I disagree. I think that is exactly the case. The history of the at least the U.S. markets have shown this to be the case time and time again. The rich get richer.

I'm not saying I'm against the stock market, but I do believe that until I figure out how to make the same moves as those pulling the strings, I'll never really be successful.

[357vegas]

You can beat the bookie, just do your homework. History will rebeat.

[suicidekings]

An argument that is frequently made is that the stock market is analogous to the sports betting market, and, since the stock market can be beaten, the bookmakers can be beaten.

Who's making this assertion? Are you purposely skewing your argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[HUY]

Contradicting yourself?

You are suggesting that funding companies is equivalent to moving money from one group of investors to another. It isn't, as when you buy stock you buy part of the company as well. Buying stock is not simply a bet that the stock will go up at some point in the future.

[HUY]

Who's making this assertion? Are you purposely skewing your argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I've read this argument many times, on this forum and elsewhere. Even in this very thread people are saying that both markets are beatable, using more-or-less the same tools. So please add to the discussion or take your smartass posts elsewhere.

[HUY]

Both are beatable. And your logic doesn't follow, if you actually have positive expectation in the short term, you will have positive expectation in the long term .

Yes, but how long is that long term and how much money can you get on? We've all had bets that we knew with almost certainty that were +EV plays but they come so rarely that to rely on them for a living would be unwise.

Also, consider the participants in both markets. If 5% of sports bettors are sharp, you are competing with 95% of people who have no idea what they are doing. A large % of financial market participants are institutional investors with massive supercomputers and years of education on how to beat the markets. Who would you rather compete against?

I didn't say beating the stock market is easy, I merely said that it's possible. Different things.

[nikossf]

JOSIE...Im curious as to what the guy who sold you the car told you. How they roll, how that particular syndicate got down...Thanks!

[MonkeyF0cker]

You are suggesting that funding companies is equivalent to moving money from one group of investors to another. It isn't, as when you buy stock you buy part of the company as well. Buying stock is not simply a bet that the stock will go up at some point in the future.

Uhh. It isn't? So every corporation pays a dividend? Are you kidding?

[HUY]

Uhh. It isn't? So every corporation pays a dividend?

The decision of whether it will pay a dividend or not ultimately depends on the shareholders; thus you can influence it by buying stock.

[MonkeyF0cker]

The decision of whether it will pay a dividend or not ultimately depends on the shareholders; thus you can influence it by buying stock.

So, that's the difference? You're saying that they aren't the same (when you already stated they are) because you think that you get an insignificant vote?

Please send me a list of corporations that decide dividends based on shareholder vote rather than through the board of directors. Actually, you can post it here. It won't be a very long list.

[HUY]

So, that's the difference? You're saying that they aren't the same (when you already stated they are)

I haven't stated that they are the same.

Please send me a list of corporations that decide dividends based on shareholder vote rather than through the board of directors. Actually, you can post it here. It won't be a very long list.

And who selects the board of directors?


Look, what you are suggesting is that the stock market is a purely speculative one. This argument does not hold water at all, it's ludicrous, just drop it.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I haven't stated that they are the same.



And who selects the board of directors?

LMAO. Seriously?

Look, what you are suggesting is that the stock market is a purely speculative one. This argument does not hold water at all, it's ludicrous, just drop it.

I'm not the one stating absolutes. You are.

You said the stock market was not setup to move money from one investor to another. That's precisely why it was created. Why do you think companies go public exactly?

[Inkwell77]

But we're not talking simply about "beating", as in "positive ROI" here. We're talking making a living, which is possible on the stock market but not in the bookies, since the amounts you can bet on the bookies are miniscule.

[HUY]

LMAO. Seriously?




I'm not the one stating absolutes. You are.

You said the stock market was not setup to move money from one investor to another. That's precisely why it was created. Why do you think companies go public exactly?

Look, I think we've pretty much stated our positions, there's no need to keep reiterating them. You believe that the stock market is more similar to the sports betting market than I do. I think that the very few who are interested in our discussion have already decided who they agree with, so let's call it a day, OK?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Look, I think we've pretty much stated our positions, there's no need to keep reiterating them. You believe that the stock market is more similar to the sports betting market than I do. I think that the very few who are interested in our discussion have already decided who they agree with, so let's call it a day, OK?

Fine with me. I'm just wondering why you're here if you think sports are unbeatable and you're going to be bullheaded about it.

There sure are a lot of hutennis' popping up around here lately.

[chunk]

How does the average guy know whether sportsbetting can be successful long run or not? It seems to me that unless you have many years of experience at a major sports book that it would be difficult to make a definitive statement either way.

[Pancho sanza]

"The reason beating the stock market is possible but beating the bookies is not "

The investor is the house re stocks.

thread closed.

[muffins]

Anyone who thinks sportsbetting can't be beat is disagreeing with virtually all the world's bookmakers, who actively close and restrict clients who beat them or who they think will beat them.

I suggest starting a private equity fund, seek funding from like minded investors, purchase one of the european books and contacting every restricted/closed customer on their books advising that you will re-open their account and they can bet to unlimited stakes. Then advertise broadly stating all customers welcome, no bet restrictions applied. You will very quickly become the biggest bookie in europe, you will also in all likelihood go broke very quickly.

[chunk]

Anyone in there right mind would limit Croatian badminton. Would this opinion apply to major sports markets like football and basketball?

[mathdotcom]

The reason beating the stock market is possible but beating the bookies is not

I beat the bookies as do many others, therefore the statement is false. End of thread.

Thanks
MDC Industries

[josie88]

Nikossf, the group is pi-yee publishing, specifically King Yao. There was nothing that was shared that was anything different than what has already been covered in other posts. He did mention that they were increasing their wagering in prop bets. Take it to mean as you will, and that the conversation is 2 years old now.

Mathdotcom and others are correct. The books can be beaten.

Free drinks are my objective now. On the rare occasions when I throw a few bucks at Red Rock, I really prefer spending at Hachi which has exceptional sushi.

[HUY]

Anyone who thinks sportsbetting can't be beat is disagreeing with virtually all the world's bookmakers, who actively close and restrict clients who beat them or who they think will beat them.

Kicking in an unlocked door here buddy?

This is pretty much the entire point of the thread, that you can't beat the bookies because they actively limit or ban you.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Kicking in an unlocked door here buddy?

This is pretty much the entire point of the thread, that you can't beat the bookies because they actively limit or ban you.

So, there are no books in the world which won't cripple legitimate bettors, and there are no ways to circumvent the measures that other books take in an attempt to eliminate sharp action.

That's the basis of your argument?

[HUY]

So, there are no books in the world which won't cripple legitimate bettors, and there are no ways to circumvent the measures that other books take in an attempt to eliminate sharp action.

That's the basis of your argument?

You are bending my words a bit there, so let me explain myself.

a) There are books that don't limit selectively per-bettor, but they do have very low universal limits on soft markets anyway. Betting exchanges can be categorized here as well, as they typically have very low liquidity on soft markets.

b) If a book does have safeguards against sharp action, any attempt to "circumvent" (as you put it) those safeguards is valid reason for you to get banned and also for any winnings to be confiscated. SBR deals with cases like that every day.

[MonkeyF0cker]

You are bending my words a bit there, so let me explain myself.

a) There are books that don't limit selectively per-bettor, but they do have very low universal limits on soft markets anyway. Betting exchanges can be categorized here as well, as they typically have very low liquidity on soft markets.

b) If a book does have safeguards against sharp action, any attempt to "circumvent" (as you put it) those safeguards is valid reason for you to get banned and also for any winnings to be confiscated. SBR deals with cases like that every day.

A) So you're saying that "recreational" books have higher limits on softer markets than those which "don't limit selectively per-bettor?"

B) Valid in whose eyes?