Do u agree w/ Wall Street Journal that less than 100 people in the world can hit 55%?

[ABanks]

I was reading an article from 2007 about a professional handicapper in the Wall Street Journal and a certain paragraph caught my attention....

"Gamblers wagering against a point spread must win more than half their bets (about 53%) to make a profit and must be closer to 55% to make a comfortable living. This is no small feat. Experts say there may be fewer than 100 people who can sustain these rates over time. Most of them belong to professional betting syndicates that hire teams of statisticians, wager millions every week and keep their operations secret."

Here is a link to the article http://hpb.online.wsj.com/article/SB...037267731.html

Do you think it is true that there are fewer than 100 people in the world who can win at a 55% rate ats long term?

[wiffle]

why would you want to

[RickySteve]

Anyone even 51% vs close should be filthy rich.

[illfuuptn]

"Gamblers wagering against a point spread must win more than half their bets (about 53%) to make a profit and must be closer to 55% to make a comfortable living. This is no small feat. Experts say there may be fewer than 100 people who can sustain these rates over time."

[ ] Experts

[ABanks]

It would be interesting to know which experts they talked to. It is very surprsing to me (if it is true) that less than 100 people can hit 53-55% long term.

[ThaddeusB]

I was reading an article from 2007 about a professional handicapper in the Wall Street Journal and a certain paragraph caught my attention....

"Gamblers wagering against a point spread must win more than half their bets (about 53%) to make a profit and must be closer to 55% to make a comfortable living. This is no small feat. Experts say there may be fewer than 100 people who can sustain these rates over time. Most of them belong to professional betting syndicates that hire teams of statisticians, wager millions every week and keep their operations secret."

Here is a link to the article http://hpb.online.wsj.com/article/SB...037267731.html

Do you think it is true that there are fewer than 100 people in the world who can win at a 55% rate ats long term?

No, I don't agree. According to the article there are 100,000,000 bettors in the USA alone, so let's say 200,000,000 world wide. By their claim that means 0.00005% hit 55% long term. While very small, the real % has got to be higher than that. For example, the chance of winning 550+/1000 picks by chance alone is 0.007% - a very small number indeed but several orders of magnitude above the claimed %age.

[illfuuptn]

No, I don't agree. According to the article there are 100,000,000 bettors in the USA alone, so let's say 200,000,000 world wide. By their claim that means 0.00005% hit 55% long term. While very small, the real % has got to be higher than that. For example, the chance of winning 550+/1000 picks by chance alone is 0.007% - a very small number indeed but several orders of magnitude above the claimed %age.

But we're talking about being a true 55% winner, not being a luckbox. But I disagree with the article as well fwiw.

[uva3021]

if you wager nothing but -110, of course you need to hit 53% +

most "experts" i would say at least attempt to diversify their wager strategy and not just concentrate on spreads and totals

[jgilmartin]

100m American sports bettors? NFW.

[kisado]

Completely disagree.

[affest]

I agree

[Sawyer]

%53 is no longer breakeven point. Betting Exchanges, A+ books like Pinnacle..If you hit above %51.2 (Point Spread Sports), you make money. Why still lay -110?

[Sawyer]

This is why I love moneyline sports. You can make a nice living even with a %45-50 win rate.

[wantitall4moi]

as per usual win percentage is total garbage, because most guys dont bet the same amount every time.

So if I bet between 500 and 5000 on games what good is a win percentage going to do me? I could hit 80% and lose moeny. I bet 8 games at 550 per and win 4000, I lose two bets at 5500 per and I am in the hole 7K. But that is the mentality of bettors, they thin just because it is a stronger play or has some sort of mythical edge they have a better chance of winning it than losing it. Which is a total fallacy.

So whenever I read anything from anyone in regards to their 'win percentage' I immediately disregard it. Win percentages were invented by touts to show the simpletons they were trying to sell picks to that they were hitting a high enough rate to make a profit versus -110. But they neglected to tell these same saps that these win percentages were totally meaningless because they would have you going 'all in' more than half the time.

And one final thing, betting into any point spread is a losing proposition if you try and bet the same amount every time. Because even over say 5000 bets, which with the NFL and NBA combined might take 7-10 years to see for most guys, who expect to hit that high a percentage. If you were to hit 55%, thats 2750-2250. That also negates your 10% push rate expectation. So a more 'realistic' record for 5000 bets would be 2500-2200-300, or somewhere there about for a guy who could truly pick 55%. So at even 5K a bet youre looking at either 363K (if you bet 5000 flat per side) or 400K (if you bet 5500 to win 5K). So over 7 to 10 years youre looking at a yearly average of between 36K and 57K per year. Not exactly what I would call getting richs. I scalped half that already in baseball just goofing around, and I didnt have to bet 12 million to do it.

See this is where math is actually relevant in sports.

But this is also the part where guys who advocate Kelly would come in and state when you have a 55% edge you bet X and over 5000 bets you would collect Y which would be millions, yeah I know. I just want to know why it never gets done. Because even if there were only 100 guys who could do it, I would suspect even one of them would proof it out. And we would hear about it.

But all that aside, betting into -110 lines one way isnt any real way to get rich. That is why they put spreads on the two most popular sports to bet.

[That Foreign Guy]

This is why I love moneyline sports. You can make a nice living even with a %45-50 win rate.

I love the lottery, you can make a nice living with an 0.01% win rate.

But yeah I agree with you, assuming all bets are -110 is funny to me.

[Justin7]

I think the intent of the article was discussing spread betting. Very, very few people are likely to hit 55% long-term. Against closing lines, under 100 people is accurate (against American football and basketball closers, on which Dr. Bob focuses).

[wantitall4moi]

I think the intent of the article was discussing spread betting. Very, very few people are likely to hit 55% long-term. Against closing lines, under 100 people is accurate (against American football and basketball closers, on which Dr. Bob focuses).

It also depends on what 'long term' is. It also has to do with what people think. if you had just a bunch of random people pick a thousand games who didnt know whit about football or the NBA, I would bet 5-10 of them would hit 55%, if you deducted pushes from the totals. But is 1000 game long term? Might be if it were just NFL full game sides or totals. Would take 2 years to get 1000 plays if you bet every game and both side and total.

The problem is all the 'smart people' myself included probably outsmart themselves by thinking you need to know something to win or at least beat the spread. I would contend that the less you know the easier it is. At least simply picking a side. Getting the best pay off or figuring the best amount to bet might be debatable. But to say that less than 100 people in the world could pick 55% winners is just dumb. But it still depends on the definition of long term and how long in time or in terms of game number would qualify.

All you probability guys should know that. What are the chances of an even coin landing on one side or the other 55% of the time over XXX amount of flips, the XXX being what one might define as 'long term'? Then figure that into 6 billion people (more people than that but that accounts for little kids) Or if youre more comfortable with people who might legitimately gamble use 2 billion. I cantell you it would end up more than 100.

[wiffle]

All you probability guys should know that. What are the chances of an even coin landing on one side or the other 55% of the time over XXX amount of flips, the XXX being what one might define as 'long term'? Then figure that into 6 billion people (more people than that but that accounts for little kids) Or if youre more comfortable with people who might legitimately gamble use 2 billion. I cantell you it would end up more than 100.

50/50 either they do or they don't

or

prob .5
trials 10k
successes 5.5k
Cumulative Probability: P(X > 5500) = 0

[wiffle]

Would take 2 years to get 1000 plays

lol

[CHUBNUT]

what would be the results if an alien landed in a room with those 100 players in and then made an assessment. Naturally it would get the wrong impression and you lot get the wrong impression because you dont know any sharps or what they're capable of. Victor chandler closed 1500 winning accounts last month and 1400 accounts suddenly opened within a week, sometimes the real world is more random than what people put into computer models.

[Rich Boy]

Also depends on the market you are playing.

I assume they are talking about major sports markets in this article, but if you play WNBA, CFL, Arena Football, etc. You can easily hit 55+ if you know what you're doing

[wantitall4moi]

Also depends on the market you are playing.

I assume they are talking about major sports markets in this article, but if you play WNBA, CFL, Arena Football, etc. You can easily hit 55+ if you know what you're doing

it really doesnt have anything to do with market, or opening line, or closing line or any of that. If you stop thinking like an 'educated' gambler you would see that the article is whoreshit (to coin JJGold)

There is a winner or a loser, and sometimes a tie. Sop regardless of the line one side is going to be right or wrong. a bunch of random people probably wouldnt care less. You could probably ask them to just pick one (so as not to confuse them with how the spread works in the first place) and get more than 100 people to hit 55%.

Where people start to get in trouble gambling is when they start looking at spreads, or percentages or can this team win by that much really? The less they know the better. How many office pols are won by women who dont know a thing about sports/ How many times have we heard about people winning a ton betting on the Sb even though they dont know jack about sports betting. Obviously that isnt 'long term', but to think that if you took a billion people and had them randomly pick sides of a contest, that 100 of them couldnt go 55% for an extended period is asinine. It, as I said, basically comes down to ones definition of 'long term'. Is that 10 years? Is it 5000 games? 10000? More? With an open ended and subjective qualifier like that they could have just as easily said ZERO could do it. But it probably stroked a few egos of guys who think they are good and silently thought they were one of the 100.

[byronbb]

Perhaps only 100 people can subjectively assess a line, ie handicap it the old way and not use a computer. The fact lines move and close well past their opener is most likely the work of more than this 100 person Illuminati however.

[Nookx]

Complete garbage. Like a writer from the wall street journal knows whats going on. Also Dr. Bob has incentive to tell him that less than 100 people can handicap the games with a win rate >55% because then more people will sign up for his service.

[Thunder Gulch]

I think it's more than 100, but I think it's under 1,000...considering there are millions of gamblers, that really is a fraction of a percentage point.

[Dark Horse]

Plenty of bettors can hit > 55% ATS. But those who can most likely will choose not to; suggesting that the article focuses on the wrong angle, and was written by someone who doesn't understand the nature of sports betting.

[covertwo]

How about just the question how many people out there make a living betting spots as their sole income? How many of those have an income above 100K?

[LT Profits]

why would you want to

Plenty of bettors can hit > 55% ATS. But those who can most likely will choose not to; suggesting that the article focuses on the wrong angle, and was written by someone who doesn't understand the nature of sports betting.

We have our winners. Better to hit 53.5-54.0% with volume than hit 55% is no volume

[illfuuptn]

it really doesnt have anything to do with market, or opening line, or closing line or any of that. If you stop thinking like an 'educated' gambler you would see that the article is whoreshit (to coin JJGold)

There is a winner or a loser, and sometimes a tie. Sop regardless of the line one side is going to be right or wrong. a bunch of random people probably wouldnt care less. You could probably ask them to just pick one (so as not to confuse them with how the spread works in the first place) and get more than 100 people to hit 55%.

Where people start to get in trouble gambling is when they start looking at spreads, or percentages or can this team win by that much really? The less they know the better. How many office pols are won by women who dont know a thing about sports/ How many times have we heard about people winning a ton betting on the Sb even though they dont know jack about sports betting. Obviously that isnt 'long term', but to think that if you took a billion people and had them randomly pick sides of a contest, that 100 of them couldnt go 55% for an extended period is asinine. It, as I said, basically comes down to ones definition of 'long term'. Is that 10 years? Is it 5000 games? 10000? More? With an open ended and subjective qualifier like that they could have just as easily said ZERO could do it. But it probably stroked a few egos of guys who think they are good and silently thought they were one of the 100.

It has everything to do with the market. You can hit 58% in CFL much easier than you could hit 58% in the NFL.

Perhaps only 100 people can subjectively assess a line, ie handicap it the old way and not use a computer. The fact lines move and close well past their opener is most likely the work of more than this 100 person Illuminati however.

Exactly. I'm so sick of people saying "you should only have 1 or maybe 2 plays a day." lol. If you look at line moves in, say, MLB then those moves suggest that someone has a +ev position on almost every single game. It's just lack of information that prevents any non-syndicate from having all of those games.

Plenty of bettors can hit > 55% ATS. But those who can most likely will choose not to; suggesting that the article focuses on the wrong angle, and was written by someone who doesn't understand the nature of sports betting.

Exactly. I could hit 60% in the NBA this year if I actually cared. Only problem is that I'd have like 10 plays all year. BTW that was just an example. I don't know shit about the NBA and I hate everything about it.

[pavyracer]

I can hit 65% in soccer any time. Today I hit 83% in just 6 games.

[GreyMatterStats]

I remember seeing this article when it first came out.

I find it hard to believe that only 100 people are successful at wagering on sports "over time"; and I am assuming that by "over time", the author means making an on going living at it.

I am not talking tens of thousands of people, but it's got to be higher than 100.

Focusing just on Nevada, there is something like 150 licensed Sportsbooks; Can it be possible that the average number of long term winners does not even equate to one per Nevada Sportsbook?

[RickySteve]

Against closing lines, under 100 people is accurate

I would take the under.

[RickySteve]

Focusing just on Nevada, there is something like 150 licensed Sportsbooks; Can it be possible that the average number of long term winners does not even equate to one per Nevada Sportsbook?

There are 15 Vegas sportsbooks today and in the near future you will count them on one hand.

[MonkeyF0cker]

The problem is all the 'smart people' myself included probably outsmart themselves by thinking you need to know something to win or at least beat the spread. I would contend that the less you know the easier it is.

LOL. You must do quite well then.

[evo34]

as per usual win percentage is total garbage, because most guys dont bet the same amount every time. So if I bet between 500 and 5000 on games what good is a win percentage going to do me? I could hit 80% and lose moeny. I bet 8 games at 550 per and win 4000, I lose two bets at 5500 per and I am in the hole 7K. But that is the mentality of bettors, they thin just because it is a stronger play or has some sort of mythical edge they have a better chance of winning it than losing it. Which is a total fallacy. So whenever I read anything from anyone in regards to their 'win percentage' I immediately disregard it. Win percentages were invented by touts to show the simpletons they were trying to sell picks to that they were hitting a high enough rate to make a profit versus -110. But they neglected to tell these same saps that these win percentages were totally meaningless because they would have you going 'all in' more than half the time. And one final thing, betting into any point spread is a losing proposition if you try and bet the same amount every time. Because even over say 5000 bets, which with the NFL and NBA combined might take 7-10 years to see for most guys, who expect to hit that high a percentage. If you were to hit 55%, thats 2750-2250. That also negates your 10% push rate expectation. So a more 'realistic' record for 5000 bets would be 2500-2200-300, or somewhere there about for a guy who could truly pick 55%. So at even 5K a bet youre looking at either 363K (if you bet 5000 flat per side) or 400K (if you bet 5500 to win 5K). So over 7 to 10 years youre looking at a yearly average of between 36K and 57K per year. Not exactly what I would call getting richs. I scalped half that already in baseball just goofing around, and I didnt have to bet 12 million to do it. See this is where math is actually relevant in sports. But this is also the part where guys who advocate Kelly would come in and state when you have a 55% edge you bet X and over 5000 bets you would collect Y which would be millions, yeah I know. I just want to know why it never gets done. Because even if there were only 100 guys who could do it, I would suspect even one of them would proof it out. And we would hear about it. But all that aside, betting into -110 lines one way isnt any real way to get rich. That is why they put spreads on the two most popular sports to bet.

Why are your 300 pushes taking 250 wins away and only 50 losses? Makes no sense. Also, there are more than 100 people capable of beating point spreads in major sports by >55%. And they don't pay -110. Jesus ******* christ.