Anyone on this forum profit long term, im talking 5+ years, for real?
I just want to know if it is even possible, or If im wasting my time...
I just want to know if it is even possible, or If im wasting my time...
-
-
I do.
Expect to work 30+ hours a week, and have a mastery of algebra and statistics.Comment -
Not difficult to make a profit, as long as you:
1) Have a huge range of bookies, so you're essentially always looking at a best price 101% market. Deposit/withdrawal fees don't help here.
2) Never bet more than 2% of your bankroll.
At 101% you only need to find the tiniest of edges, and betting small means even the most ridiculous run of bad luck can't do much damage.
Problem for a lot of people is they bet at one bookie, thus have to beat 102-105% juice to start with. They then bet far too large, and chase when they lose, so a 5 match downswing then wipes em out. Regardless of picking skill, 5 match swings happen all the time, even 14/15 aren't that uncommon.Comment -
Agree with all of that. In addition, I would say generally bet the same amount on every game, since if your handicapping methodology is sound you will win a sufficient percentage to show a profit. Don't bet dogs that are significantly overmatched just because the odds seem inflated. Don't bet overpriced favorites.
And yes, I regularly show a profit every year in all sports I bet (NFL, AFL, CFL, NCAAFB, NBA, NCAABB, NHL, MLB, WNBA).Comment -
Yes.
That is why
1) Books throw players out and why
2) Books have limitsComment -
I cannot agree with this. Rather than rehash an old debate,
Please see:
Specifically posts by TLD
and Ganchrows articles:
Comment -
I cannot agree with this. Rather than rehash an old debate,
Please see:
Specifically posts by TLD
and Ganchrows articles:
http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicappe...n-part-ii.html
I couldn't pull up the first two links, but I read Ganchrow's tome. And I don't disagree with him. I'm not a statistical expert, but I think his point was that you should adjust the size of your play based on the size of your bankroll, which makes sense. My point was that you generally shouldn't adjust the size of your play based on your handicapping - e.g., that team A is a stronger play over team B than team C is over team D. Different strokes for different folks, but at least that's what I've found works for me.Comment -
HeeHAW, thanks for the tips. I have basically broken every rule you have stated, more than once I should say. betting 1-2% for me is tough because its soo boring. But I know that too profit there is no other way, thanks.Comment -
First off, a human being(s) (linesmaker, public, bookie, a friend you're betting against) has to continuously be making mistakes.
The mistake being made by this human being(s) is to incorrectly assess the true and actual probability of an event occurring (or not occurring).
You then must be consistently closer to the "truth" (true and actual probability) then the human(s) making the errors.
Good luck.Comment -
I'm not sure why those links don't work, I think it's something to do with the migration to the think tank.
Nevertheless they address your exact points here, and they can be found on page 4 of the think tank, in the thread started by Arnold entitled "Betting Units" and on page 6 in the thread by Austintx entitled "Flat Betting: What is your stand"Comment -
Is it possible to beat a book like pinny?Comment -
It is easier to beat a book like Pinny, because their juice is lower than most other books. The reason that most people lose there is because Pinny's lines are generally sharper, so assuming you have other outs, you'll bet more of your winners at the other shops, and more of your losers there.Comment -
This is so bad unless you hate money. You think every single game you bet has the exact same chance of winning?I think his point was that you should adjust the size of your play based on the size of your bankroll, which makes sense. My point was that you generally shouldn't adjust the size of your play based on your handicapping - e.g., that team A is a stronger play over team B than team C is over team D. Different strokes for different folks, but at least that's what I've found works for me.Comment -
IM saying, is it possible to beat pinny if you only bet at pinnyComment -
At the moment, I cant trust any other booksComment -
Yes. Durito made the following statement in one of his posts:
"My thoughts are that if you can in fact find a game with an advantage over the books line, then you can also quantify that advantage vs. other plays. In that case, yes you should vary your wage size based on your edge."
Maybe so for you, and maybe so for Dorito, but not for me. In each sport I've bet, I've identified specific criteria that make a side a play. If the side fits those criteria, I play it, confident that I'm going to win often enough to ensure a profit. My "system" (and I hate that word) is not precise enough to rank certain plays above others - at least with enough accuracy to confidently state that I'm going to win a certain type of bet, say, 58% of the time and another type 53%. Obviously, if I was able to do that I would bet more on the 58% plays.Comment -
I posited this question to someone else today:
Say you have a NBA team you think should be -5 and the consensus line is -3.5, just as you are about to bet your Flat amount you see another book of yours has -3. You now have a better play -- do you still bet the same?Comment -
Yes, it's possible to win long-term betting only at Pinny. Their lines are far from infallible.
However, anyone with the ability to develop a model to consistently beat Pinny's lines will also realize that the reward far outweighs the risk when it comes to having a larger selection of lines to choose from.Comment -
I should add that MrX is completely correct, it certainly is possible to win at pinnacle.
However, it's kind of like playing in the majors. You need to sharpen your teeth first at some easier to beat books.
Or try playing some much smaller markets at pinnacle. Forget NFL, etc. Go play Chilean Soccer.Comment -
Yes. Again, I'm basing this only on my experience, which is 20+ years. When I handicap, the primary factor which determines whether or not I will bet a side is the matchup. Either one side has a decided advantage, or neither does. If one side does, I will only bet that side, and then determine how many points I am willing to lay or must take (if I like the dog). If neither side does, I could bet either team if I think the line is significantly off.
Referring to the above example, the "-5" that I'm willing to lay on the favorite is an upper boundary SET BY ME above which I will not bet. It has been my experience that if a side is a play for me, the fact that the actual line may be off by 0,1, 1.5 points has very little bearing on whether I will win or lose - as long as it is within range. In other words, I'll hit just as many games where the actual line is right on my number as where it is off, albeit in my favor.Comment -
This is such bizarre thinking it boggles the mind. Getting a good number is THE ONLY thing that matters when deciding whether or not to bet on the game.In other words, I'll hit just as many games where the actual line is right on my number as where it is off, albeit in my favor.Comment -
wow this is complicated
this best sums it up in this article
I am what is known in Las Vegas as a ‘grinder’. I have over 2,000 plays a year on all sports. I play, simply put, 1.1% of my bankroll on each play to win 1 percent; - that is, 1.1 'units' to win 1 unit. Thus, if I win 55% of my plays, I will win 110 units after vigorish (1,100 wins minus 900 losses minus 90 vigorish. (110 units @ 1% = 110% profit per year - before compounding.) I appreciate that return on investment. That 110% return on investment is possible because at a 1.1% bet 2,000 times, I am able to invest 2,200% of my original bankroll; - the same money 20 times in a year. The return is actually better with the compounding effect.
veiw 2; if one makes 3000 bets[investments] per year @ an average 300$ per bet and makes 5-20% RETURN ON TOTAL on that money =a living
this takes such extremes dicsipline its very very CLOSE to impossibleComment -
I would tend to avoid anything found at a JR Miller site, which progambler is.Comment -
not the mathmatics part thats the underlined question here asked by the posterComment -
I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing you're a kid. So let me give you a couple of pieces of advice, not that you deserve it or you'll take it.
First, if you think that THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS GETTING A GOOD NUMBER, then either you are destined for a life of poverty or you better get to the nearest GA meeting as soon as you can. To rephrase a point someone (I think Ganchrow) made, you could get maybe 5,000 to 1 odds on something like Bob Barr winning the presidency. Pretty good odds, and maybe you'll win the bet slightly more than 1 every 5,000 times. But chances are you'd go broke long before you ever cashed.
Second, YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. No gambler can ever be successful if he or she thinks they know everything. It's a constant learning process, and if you think that there is ONLY ONE THING THAT MATTERS in being a successful gambler, well, refer to my first paragraph.Comment -
This is absolutely correct.
This is ridiculous.It has been my experience that if a side is a play for me, the fact that the actual line may be off by 0,1, 1.5 points has very little bearing on whether I will win or lose - as long as it is within range. In other words, I'll hit just as many games where the actual line is right on my number as where it is off, albeit in my favor.Comment -
How accurate of records do you keep?Comment -
I keep track of my YTD profit and loss in each sport.
My point is, I - and I'm speaking only for myself - am not a good enough handicapper, and/or do not have enough inside knowledge to know in most cases why a point spread is different than the one I've established. I only know that I am betting a side that I'm confident has a very good chance of winning, and the odds I'm taking or laying are reasonable.
Let's use the example you cited earlier. I've established 5 as the upper boundary I will lay on an NBA game. I'm not saying the line should necessarily be 5, I'm only saying that's what I'm willing to lay. Now, let's say the line opens at 3 1/2. That may well be the correct line, all things being equal. Or maybe there's an injury I don't know about. Or maybe a key player found out he's getting audited by IRS. Or maybe the there's a Tim Donaghy situation. And then if the line goes to 3, there's more of a question about the variables relating to the game. So yes, I am getting a better line, but that often is a two-edged sword.
I am comfortable with "grinding" as Accuscoresucks describes it above. But like I said, if you are sharp enough to win by varying the size of your bets, and you're successful at it, great for you.Comment
