Can you be profitable without an edge?

**InTheRed** · 06-20-11, 01:18 AM

Let me know who you bet on and i'll take the opposite.

**Inspirited** · 06-20-11, 01:23 AM

The only way you can win on your own without an edge is if you get lucky and even then long term in all probability you'd come out a loser. No money management system alone can turn you into a winner.

To gain an edge you really need data and need to learn techniques to analyze that data. There are also other techniques you can use to win. I recommend reading Conquering Risk to see the range of possibilities available.

Once you know about this stuff you need to put in some work and not be lazy.

I suppose you might be able to win by finding some good threads at this forum and following SBRer members' picks.

**rfr3sh** · 06-20-11, 01:25 AM

understand the market, learn how lines move and what it means, you can create an edge for yourself without a model by betting offmarket numbers and such, one of the easiest ways to do this is during the NBA season you will notice the market price for a game will be say -7 -110/+7 -110 , at sportsinteraction for some games you will be able to get +7.5 -105 , sometimes even a whole point more like +8 -110

**illfuuptn** · 06-20-11, 02:36 AM

5dimes has 5-cent lines for baseball. With lines that tight you're either picking right or picking wrong. If the vig gets to you there then you r a straight up coin flipper.

Really study the market. Obvious trends will present themselves. I can crush baseball because I know the INS and outs of how everything works. But I net I could pick 52% in the NBA without knowing anything and that's because I know certain intricacies with how the the lines are set etc.

**Dark Horse** · 06-20-11, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by keel44

can anyone win without a quantifiable edge?

Anyone can. But nobody can for a sustained period.

Originally posted by keel44

I need a really good theory on how to succeed at sports betting.

Have you heard of the Q method?

**That Foreign Guy** · 06-20-11, 05:03 AM

You can be profitable as a break even bettor. You just need to learn how to use bonuses and other promotions to their fullest.

**thekid667** · 06-20-11, 09:45 AM

Im useless the future is comin on its comin on.!!

**ScreaminPain** · 06-20-11, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by keel44

can anyone win without a quantifiable edge?

Of course not, at least not for any sustainable period. An analogy would be the lottery. Sure, a few strike it rich without ANY edge, but what were their odds.....somewhere around 17 million to 1, I suppose. Gamblers ruin would certainly follow with an attempt to survive on lottery winnings.

To sustain a profitable betting future, one MUST have a method, and there are several.

Being somewhat analytical, I personally choose to model. As an example, yesterday Philly was favored by -164 with Hamels pitching. I loved everything about the game, but my model had the odds at Philly -130. Fortunately, I passed and Philly got beat. But the point here is about a quantifiable edge. Because baseball is driven by moneylines, in this case I didn't have an edge. Should I pay $164 dollars for something worth $130? Sure, I may have one that game but in the long run I will lose betting games with a negitive edge.

I suppose in summation, without a reliable model, I may have placed that bet and many others without knowing if there was an edge or not.

**keel44** · 06-20-11, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Anyone can. But nobody can for a sustained period. Have you heard of the Q method?

I have not heard of the Q method.

Thanks for all the input.

**keel44** · 06-20-11, 10:01 AM

How do you know that Philly game should be -130?

I have made my own lines before. Right now, I kind of have a range in my mind of what I think the line should be. I thought that Philly game was about right. I thought the Brewers yesterday should have been -110 to -120, but they were the underdogs.

I guess it comes down to "MY" model versus the general public's perceived model?

Maybe I don't have a model at all; just mentally weighing the relative strength of the teams for that given day? My perception versus the sportsbook's perception? It just seems to me that nobody really knows what is going to happen. At least not enough to beat the juice.

**u21c3f6** · 06-20-11, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by ScreaminPain

Of course not, at least not for any sustainable period. An analogy would be the lottery. Sure, a few strike it rich without ANY edge, but what were their odds.....somewhere around 17 million to 1, I suppose. Gamblers ruin would certainly follow with an attempt to survive on lottery winnings.

To sustain a profitable betting future, one MUST have a method, and there are several.

Being somewhat analytical, I personally choose to model. As an example, yesterday Philly was favored by -164 with Hamels pitching. I loved everything about the game, but my model had the odds at Philly -130. Fortunately, I passed and Philly got beat. But the point here is about a quantifiable edge. Because baseball is driven by moneylines, in this case I didn't have an edge. Should I pay $164 dollars for something worth $130? Sure, I may have one that game but in the long run I will lose betting games with a negitive edge.

I suppose in summation, without a reliable model, I may have placed that bet and many others without knowing if there was an edge or not.

I am not sure I follow your "didn't have an edge" comment. Isn't your model telling you that you would have an edge if you could wager on the other team at +131 or better?

Joe.

**bztips** · 06-20-11, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by u21c3f6

I am not sure I follow your "didn't have an edge" comment. Isn't your model telling you that you would have an edge if you could wager on the other team at +131 or better?

Joe.

Exactly my thought too.

If your model has Philly at -130, then presumably it has the other side at +130 (ignoring vig). And if the market is pricing Philly at -164, then presumably you can get the other side at, say, +154. So why aren't you betting the other side??

Unless you don't believe your model and you're going to go with your "gut", in which case it's all irrelevant anyway.

**MonkeyF0cker** · 06-20-11, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by bztips

Exactly my thought too.

If your model has Philly at -130, then presumably it has the other side at +130 (ignoring vig). And if the market is pricing Philly at -164, then presumably you can get the other side at, say, +154. So why aren't you betting the other side??

Unless you don't believe your model and you're going to go with your "gut", in which case it's all irrelevant anyway.

Ignoring vig? Why would someone be inputting vig into their FV calculations? Standard error? Yes. Vig? No.

**bztips** · 06-20-11, 01:42 PM

valid point, my bad.

**keel44** · 06-20-11, 03:01 PM

Maybe screaminpain thought the Phillies would still win the game, so he didn't want to bet on the Mariners--valuable or not. Maybe he wanted a good deal on a favorite. This is not a point spread type bet to where he would be getting more points with Seattle to cover a point spread bet. Maybe he was looking for favorites at a better (valuable) price and Philly did not qualify.

Just a thought...

**bztips** · 06-20-11, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by keel44

Maybe screaminpain thought the Phillies would still win the game, so he didn't want to bet on the Mariners--valuable or not.

If that in fact was his reasoning, it's a virtual guarantee that he's not a winning bettor.

**uva3021** · 06-20-11, 03:15 PM

He probably made up the whole scenario

**sharpcircle** · 06-20-11, 03:25 PM

Bet lots of sports, you'll find your niche.

**BigDofBA** · 06-20-11, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by ScreaminPain

Of course not, at least not for any sustainable period. An analogy would be the lottery. Sure, a few strike it rich without ANY edge, but what were their odds.....somewhere around 17 million to 1, I suppose. Gamblers ruin would certainly follow with an attempt to survive on lottery winnings. To sustain a profitable betting future, one MUST have a method, and there are several. Being somewhat analytical, I personally choose to model. As an example, yesterday Philly was favored by -164 with Hamels pitching. I loved everything about the game, but my model had the odds at Philly -130. Fortunately, I passed and Philly got beat. But the point here is about a quantifiable edge. Because baseball is driven by moneylines, in this case I didn't have an edge. Should I pay $164 dollars for something worth $130? Sure, I may have one that game but in the long run I will lose betting games with a negitive edge. I suppose in summation, without a reliable model, I may have placed that bet and many others without knowing if there was an edge or not.

What model did you use?

I always here people say things like this but I always wonder if their "model" is just them taking a wild guess at what they think the line should be.

I do this for fun. I think you have to have some sort of connections with inside info to be a consistent winner. I mean really, how many people make money doing this every year?

I constantly see people claiming to be up x amount of units then I follow them for the week and they have lost money.

**stikymess** · 06-20-11, 03:48 PM

Keel,

if you are 12 years in and still searching for answers, you need to maybe evaluate if this is what you want to do?

If you still want to do this, my advice would be:

Go back to your records! You say you don't have records? Well start keeping them! I will tell you I can't name 10 NHL players, so you know what I don't bet the NHL. Find the sport you are good at. Don't bet a basketball game in Athens at 2 in the morning because it's there.

Research, there are tons of outs for info thanks to the internet. Before ever betting on a team, you should know who is in, who is out. If you don't know by now who is replacing Albert Pujols then you need to find out. Etc. ETC. ETC. If you don't know every detail of a game before you bet it, don't bet it.

Some one brought up the Philles, I say know your public teams and look for value the other way, people blindly bet the Philles, Yanks, Bo Sox, so go the other way instead of over paying. Look for value in teams that are overachieving, The D'backs and Indians have been great plays this year, also Pittsburg has done very well.

Best of luck to you in the future.

**jgilmartin** · 06-20-11, 03:54 PM

OP, based on your comments ITT, I think you need to remember you are wagering on probability not outcome. When you are betting a +200 ML dog, it doesn't mean you believe it is probably going to win. It means you think it has a better chance of winning than 33.33% (as the implied probability of +200 is 33.33%).

**keel44** · 06-20-11, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by stikymess

Keel, if you are 12 years in and still searching for answers, you need to maybe evaluate if this is what you want to do? If you still want to do this, my advice would be: Go back to your records! You say you don't have records? Well start keeping them! I will tell you I can't name 10 NHL players, so you know what I don't bet the NHL. Find the sport you are good at. Don't bet a basketball game in Athens at 2 in the morning because it's there. Research, there are tons of outs for info thanks to the internet. Before ever betting on a team, you should know who is in, who is out. If you don't know by now who is replacing Albert Pujols then you need to find out. Etc. ETC. ETC. If you don't know every detail of a game before you bet it, don't bet it. Some one brought up the Philles, I say know your public teams and look for value the other way, people blindly bet the Philles, Yanks, Bo Sox, so go the other way instead of over paying. Look for value in teams that are overachieving, The D'backs and Indians have been great plays this year, also Pittsburg has done very well. Best of luck to you in the future.

Good advice indeed. I just realized some of the things you said just this year. I guess it is just about honing in on value.

**sharpcat** · 06-20-11, 07:43 PM

This sub-forum has really gone down hill.

**bztips** · 06-20-11, 09:52 PM

Yep. Where's Bill The Cop when you need him to liven things up?

**Sawyer** · 06-21-11, 02:46 AM

Keel 44,

Wait for October and folllow my NHL Iron Dog Plays. I hope you don't jinx it

**Inspirited** · 06-21-11, 02:53 AM

I wish I had followed. I knew about the thread, but I never got up to it!

**RickySteve** · 06-21-11, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Have you heard of the Q method?

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

**Dark Horse** · 06-21-11, 04:02 PM

Especially for your dumb ass, RS. The long awaited Q method: Quit.

**chunk** · 06-21-11, 04:38 PM

So many say so much that means so little.

**bettorjon** · 06-21-11, 05:06 PM

i dont believe in edge or reading the line movement coz there is, then why do underdogs win in baseball a lot and why do totals are very hard to predict.

**constrictor** · 06-21-11, 05:48 PM

another billion-dollar question. what u mean by 'edge'?

**moneyordoh** · 06-21-11, 06:16 PM

bookies always win simple as

**keel44** · 06-21-11, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by constrictor

another billion-dollar question. what u mean by 'edge'?

Yes. my point exactly. That is why I ask, can you win without an edge since after all it could never be quantified. Can common sense and a sound money management plan prove profitable? Common sense meaning a good general knowledge of the sport.

**BigFish** · 06-21-11, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by keel44

Yes. my point exactly. That is why I ask, can you win without an edge since after all it could never be quantified. Can common sense and a sound money management plan prove profitable? Common sense meaning a good general knowledge of the sport.

Is this discussion really happening?!?

OP -- no, you cannot win without an edge! Once you find a way to consistently win, you then -- by definition -- have some type of edge.