How much money do I need to go Pro (thoughts)

[Peep]

By way of preamble, I will say I have on occasion made a living betting. As many will attest, it was an easier game a few years back. But even then, lots of hurtles, most of them created by myself.

I am writing a few thoughts from my experiences, hopefully others will add to this, and we will have a worthwhile thread.

1. I would like to open by talking about the approach of "be/do/have" as opposed to what most people do, which is "have/do/be". An easy example of this is how most people decide to approach skiing. What they do is first buy a set of skis ("have") then try it ("do") and then HOPE they will be able to ski ("do"). It seems obvious that it would be better to ski first with borrowed or rented equipment and give it a go ("be") then ski ("do") and THEN, IF you like it and feel successful, buy your equipment ("have").

How does this relate to being a professional sportsbetter? I would say that worrying about the total bankroll FIRST is the same as buying skis before you even know if you CAN or WANT TO ski.

2. So let's find out if you WANT and CAN be a professional sports better.

3. To do this you will, IMO, need a few things.
a) A $500 betting only bankroll and
b) a day job to pay the bills while you are trying out for your (hopefully) new career.
c) A willingness to move from sports gambling to sports investing. In other words, to ONLY bet the plays your system calls for.

4. Now you are set to try your luck and skill, with your $500.

5. Next, deposit your $500 in as many books as you want. Make Try your system out with 100 $5 bets (or if you have "two star plays" some $10 plays).

6. Keep a rocord of your 100 bets. Book used, date, sport, reason bet, profit/loss.

7. If you are up money after the 100 bets, you MAY have something, both in the way of a system and self control. If you are down money, time to re-tool and take another kick at the cat.

[MrX]

100 bets is going to tell you next to nothing.

By simply tracking bets real-time, it would take a long time to determine to any reasonable degree of certainty that you have an edge.

Proper (out of sample) back-testing will tell you much more and do so much faster.

[donjuan]

100 bets is going to tell you next to nothing.

Yep, far too small of a sample size, especially if you are betting a lot of underdogs on the ML.

[reno cool]

I think your approach is reasonable although I'm guessing many here would disagree.

I believe great handicapping is at least in part a creative process. Actually placing the bets and learning from experience, gives you more ability to understand and use the significant ideas at the proper times.

Of course 100 bets never proved anything and investing is not a term I care for.

Gambling with an edge or winning gambling is good enough.

[durito]

I believe the point peep makes is that you frequently see people say "i could be a pro, if I could only get a big enough bankroll", when that is really not the issue.

If you can't be disciplined with $500 and 100 bets, you certainly can't with $50,000 and 2000 bets a year. The getting the bankroll part is really not that difficult.

[reno cool]

If you believe your last sentence Durito why gamble?

[VegasDave]

The getting the bankroll part is really not that difficult.

Then please enlighten me!!

[MrX]

If you believe your last sentence Durito why gamble?

I think he meant that if you're a winning sports better, the bankroll will become large quickly.

[durito]

If you believe your last sentence Durito why gamble?

Perhaps you aren't understanding what I am saying.


You can build a very small bankroll into a medium sized one by chasing bonuses, line shopping at square books (sia), scalping, and perhaps playing small stakes poker (ask someone else about that). This is perhaps more difficult today in the USA than it was 3 years ago, but hey it's a big world you can alway smove. If you want to handicap chose a small sport no one is betting, forget entirely about the major professional sports.

While you are building your roll, learn as much as you can about gambling math, statistics, markets, and maybe a little programing. Learn how to design and test models, and then implement them. If you are making +EV bets, the bankroll will grow quickly. This second step is of course much more difficult, but if you can't get there in the first place, you are never going to succeed once you are there. This fits Peeps ""be/do/have" as opposed to what most people do, which is "have/do/be"" idea.

[Peep]

Thank you very much for the feedback guys. Interesting......

[Peep]

Proper (out of sample) back-testing will tell you much more and do so much faster.

I guess with emphasis on the word "proper" so that "back testing" does not simple lead to "back fitting".

When I used to play horses I had access to 80K lines of data. Even with that, when I would find positive plays AND test them on "pristine" samples, it did not always work out that good going forward. Life deals you a set or cards, then changes.

I think my point with the $500/100 bets is more in line with what durito is saying, which is "if you can't do this, you ain't going to do it with more". Your own lack or ability and/or discipline will wipe you out with a $100,000.00 bankroll. Might as well find out what (if anything) you have on the cheap.

Of course 100 plays doesn't mean much, but you will learn alot about yourself and what you are about.

[onlinepokerpro31]

Hi all, this is my first post and I'm going to post some stats of my sportsbetting career.



As you can tell from my nickname, I am not a professional bettor. I am a marginal winner and my ROI is just not impressing enough for me to go pro (4.25%), I believe an investment in index fund actually beats me in this period (Aug 2007 till now).

So let me say something I learn in almost 1 year of betting:
1. Lineshopping is the key. You need to have an account at different bookies.
2. Flat betting cannot go wrong, kelly betting should only be used when you can accurately quantify your edge in a bet.
3. Don't buy picks, but you may follow people who give out pick in forums. However, it's like picking a stock worth investing in the market, you need to choose them wisely, some are very good, some not so good, some are horrible.
4. You need a bankroll, I have had losing months where I lost 10k (-23.6 units) and good months that I won more than 10k (+59.27 units).
5. Bonuses are good for small bettors, large bettor will do better by betting on a rogue line. You should scalp to take advantage of bonuses but this might lock up some fund in a bad book, so you need a relatively large liquid asset (i.e. cash) just for this purpose.
6. There is no magic number in terms of % that you need to achieve in sportsbetting, it all depends on the line you are betting at. If you can win 30% of the +300 bets, you will make a killing. (ref. smartcapper.com/tool_moneyline_converter.html)
7. Read Sharp Sports Betting (forum at [URL]www.sharpsportsbetting.com/) and Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting (author blog at weighingtheodds.blogspot.com Two good books in my opinion, worth every cent.

[durito]

I believe a shoe box beat most index funds rather handily in the last year.

[Rufus]

100 bets is going to tell you next to nothing.

By simply tracking bets real-time, it would take a long time to determine to any reasonable degree of certainty that you have an edge.

Proper (out of sample) back-testing will tell you much more and do so much faster.

Agreed. The problem is distinguishing between back-testing and data mining. It's hard to make yourself totally ignore years of data for "research" and only use it for out-of-sample testing. There's also the issue of testing multiple systems until eventually finding one that works. Testing multiple models/variables actually should alter your p-values (although it's hard to find a good way to actually do that)

[donjuan]

As you can tell from my nickname, I am not a professional bettor. I am a marginal winner and my ROI is just not impressing enough for me to go pro (4.25%), I believe an investment in index fund actually beats me in this period (Aug 2007 till now).

I don't think you are properly using ROI with regards to sports betting. You have bet $400,000 but I'm guessing your sports betting bankroll is not $400,000 or anywhere near that given the size of your wagers. It is much more appropriate, when comparing your returns to an index fund or other type of investment, to calculate your annual/quarterly/monthly ROI as your annual/quarterly/monthly return compared to your starting bankroll for that time period as it is that bankroll that you would have had the chance to invest in an index fund, not the sum of your wagers.

Let's say your starting sports betting bankroll was $50,000 as of last August. 17,000/50,000 would give you an annual ROI of 34%, which is much better than your expected return from an index fund. If it was $100,000, that's still a 17% ROI.

[onlinepokerpro31]

donjuan, it would be great if your calculation is correct regarding ROI, I might not use the word properly, cos I don't really know the definition of ROI I just guessed that it's profit/total invested, maybe "total invested" means my bankroll, in which case it was around 30k when I first started last year. 34% looks awesome in terms of ROI, I might need to go pro immediately lol.

[Sinister Cat]

donjuan, it would be great if your calculation is correct regarding ROI, I might not use the word properly, cos I don't really know the definition of ROI I just guessed that it's profit/total invested, maybe "total invested" means my bankroll, in which case it was around 30k when I first started last year. 34% looks awesome in terms of ROI, I might need to go pro immediately lol.

You actually did use "ROI" correctly with respect to your sports betting (at least in the way that the term is commonly used).. but donjuan is right, the correct comparison with an index fund's annual return is bankroll growth over the year, not ROI.

[durito]

donjuan, it would be great if your calculation is correct regarding ROI, I might not use the word properly, cos I don't really know the definition of ROI I just guessed that it's profit/total invested, maybe "total invested" means my bankroll, in which case it was around 30k when I first started last year. 34% looks awesome in terms of ROI, I might need to go pro immediately lol.

It's rather simple. What would you have if you instead put the $30,000 in a CD that paid 4% annually? $31,200.

Or in an S&P index fund you'd have about $25,000 left.

[punchmaster]

Of course 100 plays doesn't mean much, but you will learn alot about yourself and what you are about.

I tend to agree with this. That was about the amount of "pretend" bets I did Sept- Dec. of 04 to tell me I need to get in the game 1/05 for good.