natural born loser

**xyz** · 05-09-10, 01:28 AM

Finding someone with a 20% hit rate over a large sample size on -110 bets is almost impossible.

**IrishTim** · 05-09-10, 02:19 AM

I think finding someone at 46% vs. -110 lines over a large sample size is nearly impossible.

**Flying Dutchman** · 05-09-10, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by JayTrotter

fellow think tankers...

In my experience, It is much easier to find a person who has a 20% hit rate, than it is to find a person who hits 80%, even though both, statistically speaking should be rarities...

anyone wish to explain this mystery?

Neither one of these guys exist, so why talk about it?

**Rio DiNero** · 05-09-10, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by xyz

Finding someone with a 20% hit rate over a large sample size on -110 bets is almost impossible.

Makes sense, because if you are hitting at 20%, I don't think you will be around long enough to get a large sample size.

**Nuggz** · 05-10-10, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Rio DiNero

Makes sense, because if you are hitting at 20%, I don't think you will be around long enough to get a large sample size.

**Marginalis** · 05-10-10, 04:37 AM

**DukeJohn** · 05-10-10, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Rio DiNero

Makes sense, because if you are hitting at 20%, I don't think you will be around long enough to get a large sample size.

**Thremp** · 05-10-10, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by IrishTim

I think finding someone at 46% vs. -110 lines over a large sample size is nearly impossible.

Well... You need to assume someone isn't betting huge negative ROI bets vs the market. Many people who aren't betting into terrible prices could attain this. I'm almost positive you can soulcrush this at SIA/Bodog/etc betting into the shade.

But yes, I agree with your point in general. Plop those guys down at Cris or Pinny and they'll pick ~50% give or take a couple for variance or preternatural ability.

**donjuan** · 05-10-10, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

Well... You need to assume someone isn't betting huge negative ROI bets vs the market. Many people who aren't betting into terrible prices could attain this. I'm almost positive you can soulcrush this at SIA/Bodog/etc betting into the shade.

But yes, I agree with your point in general. Plop those guys down at Cris or Pinny and they'll pick ~50% give or take a couple for variance or preternatural ability.

This. I wouldn't be surprised if SIA had a significant number of bettors who hit around 46% on their -110 bets. If you take your standard super square who exclusively bets favs right around game time on nationally televised games, you're looking at a huge number of their bets being off market by a point in the wrong direction. In basketball, if you bet -3 when the market is -2, you're going to hit 46%.

**IrishTim** · 05-11-10, 06:30 PM

That's a good point re: guys betting into the wrong side of the shaded lines at Bodog/SIA. But them going 46% isn't helpful to faders who wouldn't be able to bet the other side of their plays at the same line for very long.

**JayTrotter** · 05-13-10, 02:02 AM

I must be delusional. Cuz I got imaginary friends who are hitting at a rate much lower than 46%..

once again, I am speechless..

This has been my route to gambling success. in 3 steps.

1. go to work
2. listen to who my co workers pick as mortal locks
3. bet the other way.

I was hoping someone would explain this phenomena...

**Dark Horse** · 05-13-10, 03:22 AM

It has been explained above.

It was assumed that you use '20%' as a figure of speech, because long term it would be as unattainable as 80%, and it was suggested that super squares could hit in the 40%. It is quite possible that there is a 43% picking square for every 57% picking sharp. To someone who picks that low it may feel like he can't win anything. A 40-something % reality may create a '20%' impression.

Or your imaginary friend could be experiencing a losing streak.

Sometimes a gambler coming up through the ranks may not realize that he can't trust blindly on a method he used with success in the previous season. If he's stubborn about that old gem, and doesn't yet understand that many angles are seasonal, he could lose for a long time.

There is no such thing as a natural born loser. If a person does lose at a steep clip, he simply isn't taking the hint. He chooses to lose. If he took the hint he would improve his perception. Squares may go around in circles because they refuse to go back to square one.

**Sawyer** · 05-13-10, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Rio DiNero

Makes sense, because if you are hitting at 20%, I don't think you will be around long enough to get a large sample size

**thebayareabeast** · 05-13-10, 05:04 AM

20%? After what? 10 picks???

**beanbag** · 05-13-10, 06:07 AM

**fletch49** · 05-13-10, 11:06 AM

Losers at sports gambling happen because of no discipline, no research and no control over their emotions. I am not sure however that I have ever met an 80% loser.

**JayTrotter** · 05-20-10, 01:58 PM

I know a lot of people who are average sports bettors in theory, and 20% bettors in practice..

And no they are not hitting 20% over 10000 events, I could care less about long term dynamics because I would have to live 100s of years for them to bother me.. People tend to perform seasonally, as is the case with sports, bad teams sometimes have good years, but they don't have good decades..

I am not really into theory that much, because even the sharpest sharp has a 2% advantage over the long term, if he has to bet 1000s of times, and if you have that you should bet as many times as you want.

my question was, everyone knows that guy, and statistically he is a 45% if he was given a full sample, and in reality almost everytime his money gets put down, he actually has made a bet, he loses. I was wondering what this said either about the behavior of the people who are this way, or the prices that the sportsbook give out that this could be possible. I did not know that i was going to have to debate the existence of the phenomena.. Maybe my home town is just full of losers??

I am saying that this proves the market to be inefficient, since statistically speaking all you knuckleheads are right..

**Peeig** · 05-20-10, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by JayTrotter

I know a lot of people who are average sports bettors in theory, and 20% bettors in practice..

And no they are not hitting 20% over 10000 events, I could care less about long term dynamics because I would have to live 100s of years for them to bother me.. People tend to perform seasonally, as is the case with sports, bad teams sometimes have good years, but they don't have good decades..

I am not really into theory that much, because even the sharpest sharp has a 2% advantage over the long term, if he has to bet 1000s of times, and if you have that you should bet as many times as you want.

my question was, everyone knows that guy, and statistically he is a 45% if he was given a full sample, and in reality almost everytime his money gets put down, he actually has made a bet, he loses. I was wondering what this said either about the behavior of the people who are this way, or the prices that the sportsbook give out that this could be possible. I did not know that i was going to have to debate the existence of the phenomena.. Maybe my home town is just full of losers??

I am saying that this proves the market to be inefficient, since statistically speaking all you knuckleheads are right..

You could do quite well hitting 45% if all your bets are > +200 odds