Does anyone profit long term?

[donjuan]

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.

Read my post. I said, "when deciding whether or not to place a bet." Reading comprehension FTW.

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.

Again, reading comprehension. Try it.

[BuddyBear]

There is a ton of good advice here (as well as some very poor/misguided adviced).

To summarize some of those key points:

1) You'll need to get the best number. It's practically impossible to win long-term if you are taking +6.5 when you could have gotten +7 or +7.5 earlier in the week. Getting the best number is in my opinion the most important part of sports betting

2) You'll need, at a minimum, a comprehensive understanding of statistics.

3) You'll need multiple outs and preferably outs where you can find opinionated numbers. This has become increasingly difficult as many books offer clone lines of the major books or simply move their numbers within minutes if not seconds according to a handful of books. However, there are some notable exceptions out there that should be explored.

4) It's a good idea to take an interest in other sports besides NFL. NFL is extraordinarily popular among bettors, but there is a reason books allow you to get down big money on NFL games. Generally speaking, NFL lines are considered the sharpest out there and very difficult to beat. Instead, low profile sports like Arena, WNBA, CFL, various soccer leagues, etc... offer some unique betting opportunities.

5) Expect to work very hard and for a very long period of time. This includes setting your own lines, monitoring line movement, injury reports, weather reports, etc.... It's very difficult to roll out of bed, look at the betting board for 10-15 minutes and find winners and then come home at night and have a beer and watch the the winners roll in.


The one piece of advice I would give is to avoid getting to emotional/involved with these games. You have to expect to lose so be prepared to lose and lose quite often. The temptation is to chase or make bigger than normal wagers without sufficient justification after a tough loss you just watched. It's easy to get angry when you lose b/c almost always you can say that you should have won the bet "only if..." For example, when you bet an OVER and it goes UNDER, it's easy to say "if they only made their shots or freethrows..." Well obviously. So do your best to avoid extreme or sustained emotional involvement with the games.

Good luck....

[Brady2Moss]

Guys i asked a simple question and it has turned into a heated argument. Could someone like ganchrow please answer this question and set everyone straight. I will take what you have to say all the way to the bank.

[BuddyBear]

Guys i asked a simple question and it has turned into a heated argument. Could someone like ganchrow please answer this question and set everyone straight. I will take what you have to say all the way to the bank.

You don't need Ganch to answer this question. It should be self-evident that the answer is yes you can profit long term.

[Brady2Moss]

I want ganch to answer this question because I know he will give an educated and sophisticated answer that will put an end to this thread...

[Brady2Moss]

I think money management should be number 1 on your list BB

[donjuan]

Brady2Moss,

You probably shouldn't be telling another poster what the order of his list should be if you are asking the question that was asked in the title of the thread.

[durito]

I want ganch to answer this question because I know he will give an educated and sophisticated answer that will put an end to this thread...

What exactly do you want him to say.

I'm quite sure Ganchrow does this to make money, as such the answer would be yes.

[LT Profits]

The answer is YES Brady, although there is even disagreement among winners in regards to money management.

I am primarily an underdog player, so I do not use Kelly because it always says to risk more on favorites than on underdogs given an identical edge. I feel using Kelly would have actually reduced my profits over the years. I bet 2.5% of BR on 99% of my plays, and between 3% and 4% on the rare best bets.

[coldhardfacts]

Guys i asked a simple question and it has turned into a heated argument. Could someone like ganchrow please answer this question and set everyone straight. I will take what you have to say all the way to the bank.

If you only wanted an answer from on individual, you should have said so at the beginning. I for one am sorry I wasted so much time trying to answer your inane question in the first place.

A mistake I won't make again. Have a nice life. And the answer in YOUR case is obviously NO!!!!!

[coldhardfacts]

Read my post. I said, "when deciding whether or not to place a bet." Reading comprehension FTW.



Again, reading comprehension. Try it.

And just for the record, moron, if YOU could read you'd understand that I won't place ANY bet unless I feel that the odds/points are in my favor.

[donjuan]

This

In other words, I'll hit just as many games where the actual line is right on my number as where it is off

is not congruent with this

And just for the record, moron, if YOU could read you'd understand that I won't place ANY bet unless I feel that the odds/points are in my favor.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

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.

Maybe you need to redefine what's your purpose of betting? By boring do you mean lacking the buzz of the big win? To my mind if that's there, you're betting too much. Win or loss, it should be such a small % of your bankroll it makes little difference.

Alternatively, another viewpoint: if you accept that runs of losing 9 out of 10 can happen just out of sheer bad luck, then logically you must accept that betting $100 from a $1000 bankroll will always end with you being wiped out at some point. Regardless of how well you study theories and research form/odds, luck will get you in the end. The whole thing is rendered pointless, an utter waste of time.

By the way, there's a certain buzz from making countless 1%/2% bets, and watching your money grow/grow/grow. It's different from the direct singular buzz of a big bet, by ultimately just as satisfying.

[BuddyBear]

I made a post in here I swear about 10 minutes ago and it's gone....

Why was it deleted? Is Ganch trying to be modest by not wanting anyone to know he went to an Ivy league school?

[Ganchrow]

I want ganch to answer this question because I know he will give an educated and sophisticated answer that will put an end to this thread...

While I do appreciate the vote of confidence, there's really nothing of substance I can add to what donjuan, durito, LT, BuddyBear, et. al. have already said.

Yes, it's entirely possible to make good money over the long-term betting on sports, it just takes very hard work and intense dedication.

[BuddyBear]

I think money management should be number 1 on your list BB

It's definitely important but I wouldn't say it's the most important. In fact, you can have great money management skills but if you can't pick winners or properly assess you edge what good is money management? All it means is that you will slowly lose your money as oppsed to losing it more quickly.

There are some cliches in sports gambling that need to be ignored. Having good "money management skills" is one of them. Others include, "you have to bet the dogs to win." Or "limit the number of games you play."

There is a nice thread on another gaming forum from a well known poster named Vanzack that challenges this assumption. He talks about being aggressive and taking risks to win and ignoring much of the conventional wisdom about money managment.

[durito]

Buddy Bear is completely correct.

Betting without an edge, your optimal stake is 0. From that perspective money management certainly takes a back seat to being able to identify +EV bets.

Now if you are just doing this for fun, you can certainly use a money management strategy that will lose you as little as possible, knowing that over time you will lose. Or better yet you could just bet no more than you can afford to lose on each particular game/season/year/whatever.

[coldhardfacts]

This



is not congruent with this

OK, Einstein, try to pay attention. The first point you reference, which refers to line changes, was made in reference to Durito's assertion that I should bet different amounts based on line movement in my favor.

The second point relates to my overall betting strategy. If a point spread or money line is not favorable, I DO NOT BET.

Mind boggling indeed.

[donjuan]

The first point you reference, which refers to line changes, was made in reference to Durito's assertion that I should bet different amounts based on line movement in my favor.

He wasn't talking about line movement, but rather line shopping. Seems like my posts aren't the only ones you have trouble comprehending. Anyway, it is a good question. Put a slightly different way, in a basketball game where you believe the fair line to be 5 would you bet the same amount at -3.5 as you would if you were able to find a line that was -3?

[Data]

I think it should be noted that considering a large number of sports bettors there likely to be a number of "loosing" e.g. 50% bettors who are long term winners due to their luck. Those bettors must consider themselves winning bettors which is actually untrue yet they could not care less as "it works for them".

[donjuan]

Data,

It's one reason why some people seem to think they are so great at handicapping football. Small sample sizes allow them to think they are +EV when in reality they aren't.

[BuddyBear]

Most guys are recreational bettors so they could care less what numbers they lay or take.

[coldhardfacts]

I think it should be noted that considering a large number of sports bettors there likely to be a number of "loosing" e.g. 50% bettors who are long term winners due to their luck. Those bettors must consider themselves winning bettors which is actually untrue yet they could not care less as "it works for them".

No one wins due to luck in the long run. Anyone who has been gambling for any length of time understands that.

[coldhardfacts]

He wasn't talking about line movement, but rather line shopping. Seems like my posts aren't the only ones you have trouble comprehending. Anyway, it is a good question. Put a slightly different way, in a basketball game where you believe the fair line to be 5 would you bet the same amount at -3.5 as you would if you were able to find a line that was -3?

I think there is some confusion on your part as to the difference between line shopping and bet size variance. If you read the thread, Durito was questioning why I wouldn't bet more if I could get -3 instead of 3 1/2. You seem to be asking the same question, which makes your original point even more puzzling. Is English your primary language?

OK, for the last time....if let's say I'm going to bet $300 on a team and I will lay up to 5. I will bet $300 whether the line is 5, 4 1/2, 4, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, if I'm able to lay 3 instead of 3 1/2 I will. Who wouldn't???

[BuddyBear]

OK, for the last time....if let's say I'm going to bet $300 on a team and I will lay up to 5. I will bet $300 whether the line is 5, 4 1/2, 4, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, if I'm able to lay 3 instead of 3 1/2 I will. Who wouldn't???

hmmm....I think maybe the argument is too dense or something.

You need to understand laying -3 is different from laying -3.5 as laying -3.5 is different from -4 and -4.5. With every half point you lay, the probability of winning that bet decreases. Therefore, how much you are willing to risk should in turn correspond with the decreased probability. You should lay more at -3 than at -3.5 and -4 since your probability is lower of wininng.

This goes to point #2 and #3 I made in that list.

[MrX]

hmmm....I think maybe the argument is too dense or something.

You need to understand laying -3 is different from laying -3.5 as laying -3.5 is different from -4 and -4.5. With every half point you lay, the probability of winning that bet decreases. Therefore, how much you are willing to risk should in turn correspond with the decreased probability. You should lay more at -3 than at -3.5 and -4 since your probability is lower of wininng.

This goes to point #2 and #3 I made in that list.

I think he's saying that in his experience the market is limited in how far off it will be on a point-spread and, therefore, the presence of a -3 in this scenario is more likely indicative of information that he does not have than a faultier line.

[coldhardfacts]

I think he's saying that in his experience the market is limited in how far off it will be on a point-spread and, therefore, the presence of a -3 in this scenario is more likely indicative of information that he does not have than a faultier line.

YES!! THANK YOU!!! Someone who finally understands.

By the logic BB espouses, one would automatically bet the most on the biggest dogs, and the least on the biggest favorites.

[coldhardfacts]

hmmm....I think maybe the argument is too dense or something.

You need to understand laying -3 is different from laying -3.5 as laying -3.5 is different from -4 and -4.5. With every half point you lay, the probability of winning that bet decreases. Therefore, how much you are willing to risk should in turn correspond with the decreased probability. You should lay more at -3 than at -3.5 and -4 since your probability is lower of wininng.

This goes to point #2 and #3 I made in that list.

And, just to follow-up, you seem to be saying that when the line moves in your favor, you win a greater percentage of bets than when it moves against you. This may be true for you, but it has certainly NOT been my experience.

[Ganchrow]

By the logic BB espouses, one would automatically bet the most on the biggest dogs, and the least on the biggest favorites.

I honestly don't see how this follows.

And, just to follow-up, you seem to be saying that when the line moves in your favor, you win a greater percentage of bets than when it moves against you. This may be true for you, but it has certainly NOT been my experience.

While this might not always appear true anecdotally, I think that most advantage bettors who keep careful records of line movements over large samples of their bets would tend to agree that it is true in general.

Another way of saying this is that closing lines are on average more accurate than opening and intermediate lines irrespective of perceived edge on the latter. This is completely consistent with general principles of market efficiency and Bayesian inference.

[coldhardfacts]

I honestly don't see how this follows.

While this might not always appear true anecdotally, I think that most advantage bettors who keep careful records of line movements over large samples of their bets would tend to agree that it is true in general.

Another way of saying this is that closing lines are on average more accurate than opening and intermediate lines irrespective of perceived edge on the latter. This is completely consistent with general principles of market efficiency and Bayesian inference.

Huh? If the closing lines on average are more accurate than opening and intermediate lines, then if anything I should REDUCE my bets if the line moves in my favor, since the other side is obviously the "smart" side. Again, NOT THE CASE in my experience.

[pimike]

The only one who profits long term is the BOOKS.

Think otherwise your only fooling yourself. Trends break!

[coldhardfacts]

And, to BB's original argument, that one has a better chance of winning by laying 3 than 3 1/2:

In any particular game, of course this is true. But do 3 point favorites cover on the whole more than 3 1/2 point favorites? And, more to the point, in games I bet do 3 point favorites cover more than 3 1/2 point favorites? I am pretty confident in saying NO, and if they do, the percentage is statistically meaningless.

And that is the real issue.

[Brady2Moss]

The only one who profits long term is the BOOKS.

Think otherwise your only fooling yourself. Trends break!

What are you trying to say? That nobody in the world can profit long term against the books?

And by long term i mean 10+ years

[Ganchrow]

Huh? If the closing lines on average are more accurate than opening and intermediate lines, then if anything I should REDUCE my bets if the line moves in my favor, since the other side is obviously the "smart" side. Again, NOT THE CASE in my experience.

I'm afraid I don't see your logic here.

If the line moves in your favor (say you bet it at -3 and it moves to -3½), then all else being equal the line at which you already bet (the -3 in this case) was the "smart" bet. This says nothing about the current line, but only about the line before the movement.

If, however, you're arguing that if a line moves in your favor prior to your having bet it (which would I suppose technically be moving against you), you should bet less at the new spread, then I'd have to agree with your assertion.

In any particular game, of course this is true. But do 3 point favorites cover on the whole more than 3 1/2 point favorites?

The pertinent question is really whether 3½-point favorites cover a 3-point spread more frequently than 3-point favorites.

Since 1985 in the NFL 3-point faves have covered a 3-point spread about 49.48% of the time (774 data points), while 3½-point favorites have covered a 3-point spread about 50.96% of the time (416 data points).

Is this difference statistically significant? No. There's insufficient NFL game data to make such a determination. Nevertheless, the trend is clear. Generally speaking, higher spread favorites cover a given spread more frequently than lower spread favorites or underdogs. This trend is evident across leagues and sports and while data anomalies certainly do exist the bulk of the evidence points in the same direction.

Even more relevant, however, is the situation where a single bet is available at two different books at two different spreads (we'll assume identical payout odds to keep it simple). Clearly the favorite is more likely to cover at the book with the lower absolute spread and similarly the dog is more likely to cover at the book with the higher absolute spread. That this is true follows directly from first principles of probability. The notion that in so straightforward a case the difference in edge across these two bets can't be readily calculated is clearly preposterous. As such, if given a choice between the two wagers, it would naturally follow that advantage bettors would in general choose to risk more on the wager with the more favorable spread (i.e., the bet with the demonstrably higher edge) than on the wager with the less favorable spread.

[dogman]

There are ways to win you just have to find them. Correlated parlays, teasers, line shopping. Moneymanagement is key and when I have had questions I go to the master, Ganchrow.
Read all the sports forums and try to learn from the smart posters,you usually can tell who there are by what they post. Never stop learning.