opinion to be a better capper?

[Firefox14]

can you give some methods to manage money? i hear just use 5% to each bet. if i don't want to go bankrupt quick, what should i do?

Mikeanite,

While you are "learning the ropes", find a solid capper who posts his plays regularly. Meanwhile, use that money to place your own bets when comfortable. And follow the cappers who post not only their record, but their starting and present bankroll. A good example is Sawyer. I'm not sure if Dark Horse posts or not, but he will give you some great, knowledgeable advice along the way.

[mikeanite]

Mikeanite,

While you are "learning the ropes", find a solid capper who posts his plays regularly. Meanwhile, use that money to place your own bets when comfortable. And follow the cappers who post not only their record, but their starting and present bankroll. A good example is Sawyer. I'm not sure if Dark Horse posts or not, but he will give you some great, knowledgeable advice along the way.

this is a really good advice.

[mikeanite]

Mikeanite,

Don't ask for too much. You will be condemned unfortunately. I am only speaking from experience.

ya, i know, i'm full of question. for last couple yrs, i think i pay my dues. they only thing i want to do right now is to succeed.

[subs]

advice would be to read the tank because your question has been asked many times.

while you are doing this bonus whore. this is good because you will then have many many outs and be organized to always pick up the very best prices available out there and obviously a bigger bankroll. it will then be possible to scalp,or hit soft numbers, middles and reverse middles.

then your reading will find some +ev strategies that are worth exploring.

good luck.

[kisado]

Honestly I think 5% for each bet is too much.. I think a basic bet should be about 1% of your bankroll, and then go up to 2-4% for stronger plays.. Or just bet 2% on everything if you flat bet.. Say you go on a 6-16 run (which happens to just about everyone once in a while).. If you bet to win 5% of your starting bankroll for each play you would lose 58% of your starting bankroll (assuming each play is at -110). I think this is the main reason why so many new gamblers lose so much of their bankroll..

I concur. 5% is simply too much to be flat-betting with. I, personally would not bet that much. One bad week and your bankroll is severely damaged which will bring about the urge to double/triple up to regain your starting bankroll. 5% is OK if you are starting with a small bankroll, and want to build it up by picking some winners real quick. That way, if you go on a bit of a winning streak, your bankroll will increase that much faster. If you lose, then you only lost a small roll. But, as your bankroll increases, you need to protect it more, similar to one's chip stack in poker. I have to agree with this guy. 2% flat bets is what I would recommend and what I have been implementing for some years now.

Also, someone mentioned that you need to watch a ton of game/film. I disagree with this statement. Roughly half the time, I don't even watch the game/s I have action on. The reason for this is two-fold. Firstly, I don't want to be pulling my hair out with every point scored or not scored. Sports betting can be extremely stressful and emotional. It's much better to find out that you've been moosed by looking at the box score after the game is over, rather than seeing it happen live as you watch attentively. The latter has a much, much better chance of making you want to chase. The second reason why I don't watch all my bets unfold is time. You could be using that time to cap some more games. If you are a winning bettor and know that in the long term, you will be successful and make money, why even watch the game? Put your bet/s in and then cap some more and put those bets in. No need to be wasting time to watch the outcome of the game which is already essentially predetermined. I'm not saying I can read the future or that sporting events are pre-determined, but you've already placed your bet. There's nothing you can do about it. What I mean by pre-determined is that in the long run, I will make money from all my collective bets. 1,000 bets = I'll win more than I lose = profit. I don't need to watch the game/s to know this. Line movement, steam, price shopping, knowledge of the sport/s on which I bet, feel for the athlete's biorythmn/formline ensure that in the long run, I come out on top. Now, of course, you need to have an intimate knowledge of the sport you are betting on. Too many people spread themselves too thin by betting on too many sports. I would venture so far as to state, that it would be very difficult to be a winning bettor at a multitude of sports. I personally do not bet AT ALL on NFL. Some may gasp at this, but I'm in it to win it. I'm not in it to have some cash on some Sunday football action. I've found out that NFL is not the sport for me so I've completely ixnayed it. I bet mainly Tennis, MLB, and NBA. Stick to the sports you know. Know the athletes/players. Know what they're capable and what they're not capable of. FORM. FORM. FORM. A great team in shitty form can lose. A subpar team in super form can win. Value is key. Juice is your enemy. I'll end it here by echoing the sentiments of others and that is - the single greatest thing that helped me improve from a neophyte wannabe sports bettor to a successful, hopefully one day, semi-pro or professional sports bettor, is simply EXPERIENCE.

[Wrecktangle]

it would be wonderful if someone would take you 'under thier wing'...just doesnt work like thatkeep asking ?'s though

OK, firstly: your question has been asked here 10s of times, if not a hundred. The regulars get tired of repeating themselves.

Second, if you can't even put a decent sentence together (numerous spellos and grammar lapses in your single sentence) you come off as a dumb ass. Experience shows that DAs don't have what is takes other than to be a fish.

Third, the business is set up where we are all essentially competitors. I'll help a buddy or two, but certainly not in a public forum with the good stuff, and only if they've helped me. The more that essential information gets out, the more that the market erodes for all of us.

Fourthly, if you are not up to a decent level of math, you're essentially fodder for the market. Until you can get that level of math, you will remain a fish. BTW, the math and the books to read have also been mentioned here in the tank many times.

[Grind-It-Out]

OK, firstly: your question has been asked here 10s of times, if not a hundred. The regulars get tired of repeating themselves.

Second, if you can't even put a decent sentence together (numerous spellos and grammar lapses in your single sentence) you come off as a dumb ass. Experience shows that DAs don't have what is takes other than to be a fish.

Third, the business is set up where we are all essentially competitors. I'll help a buddy or two, but certainly not in a public forum with the good stuff, and only if they've helped me. The more that essential information gets out, the more that the market erodes for all of us.

Fourthly, if you are not up to a decent level of math, you're essentially fodder for the market. Until you can get that level of math, you will remain a fish. BTW, the math and the books to read have also been mentioned here in the tank many times.

His whole post is true, but I think that one part is what 99% of people here fail to realize. You always see statements like "We're all here for the same goal - to beat the bookie" but we can't ALL beat the bookie, so obviously the guys that have spent decades finding an edge can't afford to disclose it publicly.

That being said, anybody with the capacity and willingness to learn can get some great insight from the Tank. IMO your math doesn't necessarily have to be on par with guys like wrecktangle and ganchrow, but it has to be good enough that you can understand what they're talking about.

[simplydusty]

Only bet around 2% of your bankroll, it may be small in the beginning but your gaining some experience and a bad weekend won't blow all your money

Don't be afraid to go against the public. It's easy to listen to ESPN radio and hear about how good so and so is and how the line should be way higher, but if you study that game and find that the team you like isn't who everyone else likes, play your team!

You must realize that you will not win every game. It's not a sprint and you're not going to get rich in one weekend.

This is the most important point...don't bet games just to have action! Only bet the games where you find an edge. Does it suck not having a play for MNF? Yes, but lay off the bet and watch game so you can study the teams. If you absolutely must play the only game that's on, bet it very small.

[Grind-It-Out]

Don't be afraid to go against the public.

On that note, don't be afraid to go WITH the public either. Squares win almost 50% of the time, so the public side is often the right side.

[Salmon Steak]

This isn't much more sensible than suggesting that someone go play roulette and saying if they lose they're doing it wrong, but if they win they're doing it right.

But playing contests only is great advice for the vast majority of players, for the same reason limiting your action to futures bets is a good idea for most people.

I get what you are saying if they are just guessing randomly. If they are making picks for a reason it might help them find a way to improve their game. You can win gambling long term... most can't win in a casino long term. When I just started doing this I was taking poor bets. Using fake 500$ units helped me see that more quickly. Just look around here and see all the bad bets people make. It might save some people money. I am much more successfull because of it and also because of things you have posted on here Everyone should listen to Pokerjoe.

[pedro803]

I am much more successfull because of it and also because of things you have posted on here Everyone should listen to Pokerjoe.

I agree, I have found some real gems among the material that Pokerjoe has posted here! No nonsense, straight to the point and worth reading without a doubt IMO

[Wrecktangle]

Grind-it-Out makes an important point: "We can't all beat the bookie"

Indeed, if we did, either 1) the market will shut down (they will only stay in business if they make a profit), or more likely 2) the market will become so super efficient NOBODY but the books will make money (they have the vig to keep them alive).

I contend that we are well on our way to opening door number 2.

[pedro803]

Grind-it-Out makes an important point: "We can't all beat the bookie"

Indeed, if we did, either 1) the market will shut down (they will only stay in business if they make a profit), or more likely 2) the market will become so super efficient NOBODY but the books will make money (they have the vig to keep them alive).

I contend that we are well on our way to opening door number 2.

but to the extent that books try to balance the action on each side won't there always be value to be found....at least until the cumulative of all punters handicapping gets so efficient that the point where the action is split evenly is also the "true" line?

in other words, to the extent that books balance the action isn't it us against each other rather than us against the book's linemaker?

[That Foreign Guy]

It's supply and demand. The book has a limited supply of $ to bet at a good line

Imagine a very simple situation where there is precisely one sportsbook, one event, and ten punters. Eight of these punters make their bets by flipping coins. Two are sharp and know the no vig line and bet if there is +EV

The no vig line for this event is even money. The book hangs -120 +110. In a convenient fluke of randomness, exactly four squares will bet on each side. The two sharps will obviously bet on the +110 side. The sharps have a good chance of getting a +EV line because action is pretty balanced.

Now, let's imagine both the sharps reveal their models to one of their square friends. Now you have three square players on each side and four sharp players all on the +110 side. The book is getting over twice as much action on +110 as on -120, so it is very likely to change the odds. This means the original sharps are less likely to get a good line.

If each of these friends then tells one friend so you have 6 sharps and 4 squares you wind up with 8-2 action in favour of the sharp side. How long do you think +110 will last in that situation?
Now, life isn't that simple, there's an element of quid pro quo and there are both tangible benefits - I understand things better and build up credibility / goodwill (I hope, I am assuming I'm not an idiot here) that means others are more likely to help me in future and intangible benefits (good karma) to explaining things.

This is why you are much more likely to get help when you post a theory question like "I've found a book that lets me bet teasers over two weeks, what should I do" that makes people think and gives them a chance to learn by explaining their thought process than if you post asking for a handout of practical and valuable information like "tell me who has arbable lines. I want to arb!"

The first produces a two way exchange of ideas which has value to both participants, the second is basically begging a stranger to give you money out of his pocket.

[Wrecktangle]

but to the extent that books try to balance the action on each side won't there always be value to be found....at least until the cumulative of all punters handicapping gets so efficient that the point where the action is split evenly is also the "true" line?

in other words, to the extent that books balance the action isn't it us against each other rather than us against the book's linemaker?

Books seem to "balance the action" not on the larger public but on the sharpest punters playing into their market, and as the books watch each other's lines the market gets sharper. So, you are playing against the sharper players, i.e. the smarter they are, the worse off you are.

[pedro803]

Books seem to "balance the action" not on the larger public but on the sharpest punters playing into their market, and as the books watch each other's lines the market gets sharper. So, you are playing against the sharper players, i.e. the smarter they are, the worse off you are.

OK thanks, I see what you are saying and it makes sense -- if I understand it correctly it also would indicate that the circumstances would vary with how much the sharps are on a paticular game and how much interest the public has in the same event. i.e. if this is the case there may still be value to be found where the public is on heavy and the sharps aren't pounding.

This follows from my assumption that if I develop an edge of my own based on some factor, it doesn't mean that the factor I am using as an indicator is the same indicator that other sharps are using.

In other words, imagine I have an edge by watching factor A and another guy is sharp by watching factor B and both of these edges have about the same magnitude but they are independent of each other and each of us hit about 55% against average lines using our respective methods/edges.

games will fall into four categories -- no plays for both of us, no plays for me, no plays for the other guy, and games that are plays for both of us. The first three categories are of no consequence to my discussion.

But in instances where we both have plays indicated, the plays will be either in allignment with each other or it could even be that our indicators disagree. I am running on about nothing, sorry, my point is just supposed to be that I presume there are indicators that are independent of one another but still valid, and come to think of it category two above (a play for me but no play for the other bettor with an edge) is also of consequence here, because I have a play that the other sharp is unaware of.

In other words I am hoping that it is possible that if I develop my own edge it may differ enough from the models that others use so that it could find value in different specific spots than more prevalent models. So I don't know if I am making sense, maybe an easy way to say it is "two guys could both be sharp to a similar magnitude and it doesn't mean they will agree about every play"

Now of course this is a question of how often they would differ and still both be winners over the long haul, but I am hoping this ratio could be substantial enough so that sports betting could still be worthwhile for a modeler with original ideas for at least some time to come even though the market has gotten really efficient.

[pedro803]

One more thing Wrecktangle, and anyone else that cares to join in......

you said it seems the books try to balance the smart action rather than balance the total action

So what do they do about being exposed on some games? Maybe they just make sure they are exposed on the side that agrees with the sharps and figure that it will be a positive in the long run, I am naive and new but this seems quite plausible to me. Do you think this is the case?

[rfr3sh]

I was reading in mathletics that the books do not set the line for 50/50 action, and that when the line moves, essentially they can create arbs for themselves many times

[Data]

Third, the business is set up where we are all essentially competitors. I'll help a buddy or two, but certainly not in a public forum with the good stuff, and only if they've helped me. The more that essential information gets out, the more that the market erodes for all of us.

I recall what I believe was Doyle Brunson's take on this matter after he published his book that by educating masses on the basics, and even intermediate stuff as well, he attracted more players and more money to the game. There are many more people who think they can make it comparing to a number of people who actually can. To wit, if you share something outside of your golden goose and whatever you shared attracts 10 more losers along with one winner, sharing should be an +EV proposition in the end.

[Data]

Imagine a very simple situation where there is precisely one sportsbook, one event, and ten punters.

See my previous post. My take on this is that, within the model you suggested, if you increase those punters confidence level they will tend to bet more which will result in larger market which we can translate to an opportunity for a sharp to win more by wagering more (bigger limits). It is a zero-sum game and if the squares are willing to bring more money to the table that only means that there is more money for the sharps to win.

[Snowball]

know your sports.. pick whatever sport you know the most about how it's won
and who makes up the teams, what makes those teams tick..
it helps to know the game.
try your chances on 2nd half wagering.. by studying the first half action, and what may change
or stay the same in 2h.
most important thing is money management and restriction of plays.
don't think that a high number of bets is in your favor, it is not.
some guys go crazy for an entire season, months and months of grinding just to net 60% which is difficult ATS. and only 10% return on your money.
you're better off carefully choosing a heavy favorite WHICH IS AT HOME AND YOU ARE VERY CONFIDENT WILL WIN - it can be (-500), and guess what. that one bet pays 20% which is equal to hitting 70% of your plays. Utlize heavy favorite ML parlays but be careful. If you tease, take max points always.
Never I mean Never chase. Ride streaks and cut bad rolls before they kill you.
Don't approach wagers with a mind to win.
It is NOT about choosing winners. It's only about avoiding losses.
When you make big enough money, take it out. Then work with
your original roll and do it over again.

[Inspirited]

Well, I'm no capper, but...

-You should read what you can on these forums, articles, maybe some books...
-You should learn how to do simple expectation value calculations.
-Keep track of all your bets, their type and all kinds of information so you can study it later to see if you can find leaks.
-Experiment with different systems but keep in mind sample sizes and dynamics of sports seasons.
-Go read Sawyer's posts.

[Wrecktangle]

I recall what I believe was Doyle Brunson's take on this matter after he published his book that by educating masses on the basics, and even intermediate stuff as well, he attracted more players and more money to the game. There are many more people who think they can make it comparing to a number of people who actually can. To wit, if you share something outside of your golden goose and whatever you shared attracts 10 more losers along with one winner, sharing should be an +EV proposition in the end.

While I've not thought about Brunson has said, but I can see what Brunson says might be true in a good economy (much different now), but I'm in this for a different reason. I enjoying working with sports statistics as well as building predictive models (I do it for a living in the "real world.") Further, I give out a few pointers from my own experience so that folks might improve and enjoy the game more by getting up to a reasonable level of handicapping where you don't burn your BR overnight.

My idea is to use your BR to enjoy life, i.e. like going on vacation: you set up a small BR to last for the entire season just like you set up a vacation fund to last the entire vacation. You don't budget more than you can afford, you don't harm your family life, you don't become a Player's Talk degenerate.

In the biz, even sharps who once made a living are now hand-to-mouth. The best still get by, but the sports market is getting sharper if only because the economic contraction has concentrated the market, leaving the ratio of sharps to "fish" larger than in years past.

[BeatingBaseball]

Could not agree with you more, Wreck.

The numbers seem to be getting harder to beat every year - and the economic contraction has taken a great number of the unschooled fish out of the pool.

[kittsuno]

usually 1-2 % own bankroll, no confidence etc

[That Foreign Guy]

I recall what I believe was Doyle Brunson's take on this matter

I don't have a copy of Super/System, at the moment but what you say sounds familiar. Even if it's not what he said, it's a valid argument.

See my previous post. My take on this is that, within the model you suggested, if you increase those punters confidence level they will tend to bet more which will result in larger market which we can translate to an opportunity for a sharp to win more by wagering more (bigger limits). It is a zero-sum game and if the squares are willing to bring more money to the table that only means that there is more money for the sharps to win.

Sports betting is actually a negative sum game (unless you include the bookies in the system).

I'm not sure if a bigger more efficient market is a good thing or not. Limits might be higher but your edge is lower so your correct bet size may not increase much.

Don't get me wrong, overall I am in favour of helping people but not in terms of a complete handout - the right questions help the answerer learn too.

[Cappy]

the amount that you bet on each outcome should be directly proportional to your bankroll size and your edge. In an ideal world you would also calculate in variance, but you should be able to find some cheap programs that will calculate your bet size as a product of bankroll and estimated edge.

[Wrecktangle]

the amount that you bet on each outcome should be directly proportional to your bankroll size and your edge. In an ideal world you would also calculate in variance, but you should be able to find some cheap programs that will calculate your bet size as a product of bankroll and estimated edge.

Yep, it's called MS Excel, you build the algorithm. As far as any other programs are concerned, if the math is opaque to you, the program is not cheap but worthless.

[That Foreign Guy]

Excel isn't cheap (I think, I got mine on a bundle from work) but it is very useful.

If you don't have excel and don't want to spend / steal it, then Open Office is decent.

[Data]

Sports betting is actually a negative sum game (unless you include the bookies in the system).

Of course I do, are their money any worse than others?

I'm not sure if a bigger more efficient market is a good thing or not.

Certainly not for everyone, for my niche, the bigger the better.

[Wrecktangle]

One more thing Wrecktangle, and anyone else that cares to join in......

you said it seems the books try to balance the smart action rather than balance the total action

So what do they do about being exposed on some games? Maybe they just make sure they are exposed on the side that agrees with the sharps and figure that it will be a positive in the long run, I am naive and new but this seems quite plausible to me. Do you think this is the case?

Pedro,

I missed this earlier.

Unbalanced action on "fish" money is +EV to them long term. If they have one or two bad weeks per year, i.e. the favorite teams happen to all come in on one week as certainly will happen in the NFL, it is one bump on a long profitable road.

Go look at JJGold's spreadsheets. You can get a small window into the average guy's selection capability with that. If the books balanced on "fish" bets, JJ's picks would average close to 50%. Instead he is routinely in the 47-48% category. That extra 2-3% difference is due to the books watching the sharper players pushing the lines.

[BeatingBaseball]

And as to those couple of bad NFL weeks per year, Wreck - the sportsbook managers I have known over the years are actually glad to see them happen - they don't want customers to be consistently, totally defeated to the point they lose interest or give up.

The idea that books always balance their action is a myth. They almost always have a side. It's an old saw in the business that they have their ups and downs - they say, "Sometimes we make money - sometimes we make more."

[Wrecktangle]

Probably the most flagrant show of books taking a side came after a very square year which, as I recall, was the 1999 NFL season where in the first 6-8 weeks the books "shaded" NFL sides lines 1-2 points against the favorites. There was heavy one-sided action on most games and by mid-season a lot of the public had Winchestered their bankrolls. I'd thought there was something wrong with my model at the time as it showed only dogs as sides plays in the early season.

For me, that season blew away the fairytale told to the public of books only being interested in "balancing the action."

[BeatingBaseball]

The former Director of Sports and Race at the LV Hilton, Art Manteris, actually revealed such side interest in his book, Superbookie.

Their profit on sides is used to offset the drop in hold that occurs as a result of the times they get middled on games or the times they end up with a push-loss on a game. If it wasn't for the profits on sides their hold would be less than 3%. And it takes about 3% hold to show any reasonable profit after expenses at a major book.

One thing you can be sure of - when they do have a side - more often than not it's the right one - and they have it at a better price than we can ever get it.

[phillybul]

I'd say what made me successful getting my money and times worth from being a handicapper, is like with any thing in life thats makes you successfull...following the model of successful people like the legendary frank rosenthal, yes the guy they made Casino about lol, I uses to go to his website everyday, the guy who system I probably learned the most from though was John Morrison, i dont wanna type to much but you can check him out here