The reason beating the stock market is possible but beating the bookies is not

[muffins]

You are bending my words a bit there, so let me explain myself.

a) There are books that don't limit selectively per-bettor, but they do have very low universal limits on soft markets anyway. Betting exchanges can be categorized here as well, as they typically have very low liquidity on soft markets.

This implies that only low limit "soft" markets can be beat, which is not correct. There is reason why Pinnacle, SBO and the like react to money from certain players on major markets. The Australian TAB would be a good example of your argument falling down, will take very large bets from pros and anyone can walk into a store and place large, anonymous, cash bets.

[HUY]

A) So you're saying that "recreational" books have higher limits on softer markets than those which "don't limit selectively per-bettor?"

B) Valid in whose eyes?

A) This is irrelevant. The relevant part is that the limits are too low to make any real money.

B) In the eyes of the bookmaker.

[HUY]

This implies that only low limit "soft" markets can be beat, which is not correct. There is reason why Pinnacle, SBO and the like react to money from certain players on major markets. The Australian TAB would be a good example of your argument falling down, will take very large bets from pros and anyone can walk into a store and place large, anonymous, cash bets.

What is the juice that TAB uses? Also, the fact that anonymous cash bets are accepted does not mean that all such bets are accepted. Bets over a limit typically have to be OK'ed by a trader (even over the phone).

But please do say more about TAB, I'm not very familiar with the Australian market.

[big0mar]

You are suggesting that funding companies is equivalent to moving money from one group of investors to another. It isn't, as when you buy stock you buy part of the company as well. Buying stock is not simply a bet that the stock will go up at some point in the future.

Yes, you buy part of the company. And how exactly is the company making money?

[mathdotcom]

HUY

I beat bookmakers

How is this possible???

[HedgeHog]

OP needs to define "beating" the stockmarkets and bookies. Obviously it doesn't mean I've done so well as to put any of them out of business. Does it simply mean being up lifetime with them--if so yes they can all be "beaten". In regard to "beating" the stock market, is it enough to just be up lifetime to "beat" the market--surely not. A better measurement tool is if you can perform better than a relevant index. For example, about 60% of my investments involve large cap stocks/funds, so I measure my performance against the S&P 500 index. The good thing is that even if you can't" beat" them, you can join them (buy a fund or ETF that replicates the S&P 500 or any other index you care to match).


"Beating" your book is more difficult but certainly far from impossible. Every Book has a weakness, whether it be slow moving lines, weak prop lines, generous parlay/teaser odds/situations, etc... Don't assume that your inabilty to profit in this arena translates into everyone else failing as well. Simply not true.

[Riceboi]

I've tried both and stockmarket is way harder for me personally.

[HUY]

HUY

I beat bookmakers

How is this possible???

How much money have you made off sports betting?

[durito]

How much money have you made off sports betting?

How much would you believe?

[HUY]

Yes, you buy part of the company. And how exactly is the company making money?

I don't know, depends on the company. What's your point?

[HUY]

How much would you believe?

I think $30k per year is extremely difficult but if you're really-really good you can probably make it.

[durito]

I think $30k per year is extremely difficult but if you're really-really good you can probably make it.

If you are really good at sports betting 30k is a mediocre month.

[HUY]

If you are really good at sports betting 30k is a mediocre month.

"Mediocre" implies that the expected profit per month would be over 30k for such a player. But wouldn't that also mean that losing months would be very unlikely? That would seem to contradict what most (self-proclaimed) pro players say, that losing months are common.

[Kolotoure]

HUY you don't seem to have a very solid understanding of math and/or variance

[statnerds]

An argument that is frequently made is that the stock market is analogous to the sports betting market, and, since the stock market can be beaten, the bookmakers can be beaten.

It was mentioned before, but allow me to chime in on it again. after this little gem based on a false premise, i merely scanned the rest of your argument. The stock market can be beat, but it is more a production of probability (or randomness, whichever feels more comfortable) than anything else. meaning, bring me an example of someone that beat and continues to beat the market. someone had to be buffet. it could have been any of the other hundreds of thousands of people doing the same thing. if we would took the entire history of the stock market and all of possible choices millions of investors could have made, some would fail miserably, others partially, some break even, some make a few bucks and very, very, very few would have "beaten the market", but statistically, it would have to happen.

[durito]

"Mediocre" implies that the expected profit per month would be over 30k for such a player. But wouldn't that also mean that losing months would be very unlikely? That would seem to contradict what most (self-proclaimed) pro players say, that losing months are common.

If you make 1,000 wagers a month (flat betting) with edges of 2-3% you will have losing months over 20% of the time.

[chris2b]

Beat the bookie mean nothing.
You can't beat the bookie because you don't place bet against the bookie.


Beat other gamblers +EV is much appropriate...
...SORRY HUY but in this case, it change everything.

and in this case, i say YES IT'S POSSIBLE !!

[HUY]

If you make 1,000 wagers a month (flat betting) with edges of 2-3% you will have losing months over 20% of the time.

Are you telling me that it's possible to find 1000 bets of 2-3% edge each month? Wow.

[mathdotcom]

Are you telling me that it's possible to find 1000 bets of 2-3% edge each month? Wow.

You're a fukkin idiot

His point is EVEN if you can find 1000 a month you will have 20% losing months

If you make fewer than 1000 then you will have even more losing months

Just get the fukk out of here, you are in way over your fukkin head

[Sawyer]

Sports betting is a much better investment then stock market. With internet, you can find any info in few seconds. However,there's too many "unknowns" in world of stock betting. You're just a small fish in ocean. As long as you dont have any connections with speculators, your cahnce to make money in stock betting is too small.

You can make a much better ROI in sports betting.

[HUY]

Sports betting is a much better investment then stock market. With internet, you can find any info in few seconds. However,there's too many "unknowns" in world of stock betting. You're just a small fish in ocean. As long as you dont have any connections with speculators, your cahnce to make money in stock betting is too small.

You can make a much better ROI in sports betting.

In the end of the day it's not the ROI that matters though, is the money won.

[durito]

Are you telling me that it's possible to find 1000 bets of 2-3% edge each month? Wow.

Yes it's very easy, and I wouldn't even consider myself very good at sports betting.

[DoctorPhil]

No sh1t Sherlock.

I don't see fukkin NasDAQ taking 10% of your fukkin juice on a mathematical 50/50 flip.

-110 Team A
-110 Team B

all u need 2 fukkken see here fellas.

[jerry]

No sh1t Sherlock.

I don't see fukkin NasDAQ taking 10% of your fukkin juice on a mathematical 50/50 flip.

-110 Team A
-110 Team B

all u need 2 fukkken see here fellas.

-110/-110 is always a 50/50 flip?

[MonkeyF0cker]

No sh1t Sherlock.

I don't see fukkin NasDAQ taking 10% of your fukkin juice on a mathematical 50/50 flip.

-110 Team A
-110 Team B

all u need 2 fukkken see here fellas.

Nasdaq isn't taking a large commission (they do have transaction fees if you were unaware), but someone is. Doesn't matter if you're trading through a broker, for a prop, or purchased your own seat. You're paying to trade.

[yak merchant]

No sh1t Sherlock.

I don't see fukkin NasDAQ taking 10% of your fukkin juice on a mathematical 50/50 flip.

-110 Team A
-110 Team B

all u need 2 fukkken see here fellas.

Maybe not but I also won't see someone on the Houston Texans writing a 100 page report to explain to me that my bet isn't going to return as much as expected due to the fact that Gary Kubiak spent $1.22 million dollars renovating his office.

[Sawyer]

In the end of the day it's not the ROI that matters though, is the money won.

That's true. Total units won matters more then ROI. And you can make more money in sports betting. You got a 50k bankroll. You can double or triple your bankroll in a year. However, even %40-%50 increase is beyond dreams for a stock exchange trader/broker..

[HUY]

That's true. Total units won matters more then ROI. And you can make more money in sports betting. You got a 50k bankroll. You can double or triple your bankroll in a year. However, even %40-%50 increase is beyond dreams for a stock exchange trader/broker..

How come the stock market investors don't flock to sports betting then? Are they dumb?

[HedgeHog]

How come the stock market investors don't flock to sports betting then? Are they dumb?

It's like asking why a janitor making 20k per year doesn't become a brain surgeon for a 6 or 7 figure income. The skill set might not be present for a stock investor to switch to sports investing or he may simply not want to expend the energy to learn how to be a +EV bettor. This does not mean, however, that I think it's easier to make money betting than stock investing. 10 years ago I would have agreed with this premise, but today's environment has made it exceedingly difficult for US bettors to crank out huge profits.

[wrongturn]

It's like asking why a janitor making 20k per year doesn't become a brain surgeon for a 6 or 7 figure income. The skill set might not be present for a stock investor to switch to sports investing or he may simply not want to expend the energy to learn how to be a +EV bettor. This does not mean, however, that I think it's easier to make money betting than stock investing. 10 years ago I would have agreed with this premise, but today's environment has made it exceedingly difficult for US bettors to crank out huge profits.

The analogy to brain surgeon is excellent. For anyone to become a brain surgeon, the possibility is indeed very slim. Although it is wrong to say impossible in absolute sense, people often say it in general sense, which is not that far off. Another interesting point of this analogy is that if more people be able to become brain surgeon, then the salary they demand will be less, same to players who can beat bookies.

[hutennis]

It used to be a fairly simple game. And the name of the game was not to beat the market,
but to mirror market’s performance. That was all you had to do to be a quite a happy camper.
And it was surprisingly easy.
Good businesses were making money, profits were fairly distributed among shareholders,
and stock prices were pretty much guaranteed to go up long term. Watch dogs were making sure
system does not get abused. +EV was essentially built in.
The best strategy was also the simplest. Dollar cost average into a well diversified portfolio, like S&P 500 for eg., for three/four decades with very rare age reallocations, watch your cost (the cut fee takers would make) while doing so, and that’s it. Compound interest would do the rest. It was as close to a huge free lunch as it could ever get.
Fee takers did just fine too, tyvm. Wide spread ignorance enabled them to charge arm and a leg for useless “advise” and even more in commissions.
Those who were ambitious enough to aim for higher than market returns needed to become traders. Trading is a totally different ballgame. No built in +EV there, that’s for sure.
But even being a negative expectation (50/50 minus cost) game, trading, just as a poker, can still be beat with skills. There are a lot of opinions on what those skills are and a lot of people want to believe that they’ve got what it takes, but most of the opinions are dead wrong giving the fact that at least 95 out of 100 stock market traders are long term losers. For those who really knew what they were doing, trading securities was a good place to be in. For a long time there was no reason to even look anywhere else.

But that was then and this is now. And now looks pretty ugly for market participants.
Fee takers are out of control. Markets are corrupted to the bone. +EV model is destroyed. So are long term investors. Beatable, for good traders, 50/50 minus cost game is nowhere to be found.
If you are not trading for fee takers you do not stand a chance.
And that what brings us to a sport betting.
Sure, no one can be a “sport investor”. There is no built in +EV in sports (unless you are a fee taker, of course). It is practically entirely 50/50 minus cost environment.
But, just as stocks trading or poker, this negative expectation game can be beat with skills.
There are a lot of opinions on what those skills are and a lot of people want to believe that they’ve got what it takes, but most of the opinions are dead wrong, giving the fact that at least 98 out of 100 sport bettors are long term losers. For those, though, who really knew what they were doing when trading securities was a good place to be in, SB world is a new good place to be in.
Personally, I do like it here. Forums kinda suck. Not much tolerance for unpopular speech.
But that’s OK. Money is good. That’s what’s important.

Anyway, it’s sure as shit is not that clear who is a 20k/y janitor and who is a 1 mil/y brain surgeon around here.
Also. I’m dying to know what set of skills does sport bettor have that someone who made money trading futures or leveraged ETFs doesn’t?
Please explain, where this 50 to 1 difference in income potential comes from?

[Pancho sanza]

""+EV model is destroyed. So are long term investors.""

bullshit

[hutennis]

""+EV model is destroyed. So are long term investors.""

bullshit

Do you know it is a bullshit? Or you just want it to be a bullshit?

[mathdotcom]

Ban this clown already

[HedgeHog]

Do you know it is a bullshit? Or you just want it to be a bullshit?

If the stock market is -EV for long term investors, then where should people invest their retirement money? Surely not bonds and CDS at pathetic yields.