[gojetsgomoxies]

hi, hoping people can help....

i am long-time CFB and NBA handicapper/lurker. i do think CFB is highly beatable with handicapping but it's alot of work and alot of the inefficiency is in lesser games which means lesser betting limits (i always think of this in terms of going full-time and getting some financial backing. that would be the ultimate interest)

anyway, i was wondering if people consider NFL highly beatable with alot of handicapping work?

i was thinking that a) games aren't that high scoring so score differentials are reasonably tight to lines, b) teams don't change that much year to year, c) so much money bet on it that it's apt to be efficient.

curious as to people's thoughts.. thx in advance ..... p.s. i'd see consistent 54%+ win rate as beatable

[petermoon]

NFL isn't beatable because of the -110 price on spreads and totals.

-110 is so strong, that if you start with a $100,000 bankroll, make 200 bets, and lose half of them, you're busted.

You need to hit 55% to break even, which no one does consistently, because the lines are computer-generated and take everything into account.

The only way the NFL can be beaten mathematically is by taking the underdog on the money line and hitting at a high percentage.

[Thomas]

Sorry Peter that's wrong, if you had a 100k and made 200 bets at -110 and risking 550 every game you would be down 5000 dollars. Break even at -110 is not 55% either it's 52.381%.

Hitting 55% over a large number of games could make you make you a fairly successful gambler, ie:
In the above example with 100,000 dollars to risk on 200 bets and winning 55% of them here's what you end up with.
200x55%=110 wins and 90 losses
Losses90x550=49,500
Wins 110x500=55,000+
Profit 6000 dollars
So a guy doing this for a living and making 2000 dollar bets would make in one season at 55%
losses 90x2200=198,000
Wins 110x2000=220,000
Profit 22K (31k at 5% vig)

NFL is very beatable if you do your homework and many people hit 55% +. With reduced vig available almost everywhere offshore now you can make a nice chunk of change

[petermoon]

Nobody with a $100,000 bankroll bets $550 a game. That would be a 0.5% unit, which is retarded and not the optimal betting size

Here are the optimal betting units, based on expected win percentage:

53% 1.3% $1,300
54% 3.4% $3,400
55% 5.5% $5,500
56% 7.6% $7,600
57% 9.7% $9,700

Flat betting, or betting the same dollar amount on every game, doesn't work. Maximizing profits requires betting a percentage of your bankroll, not a fixed dollar amount. You minimize profits when you flat bet, and the sportsbook grinds you out. How do you think they stay in business?

If you bet a healthy 7% unit and go 100-100 (100 wins and 100 losses), you lose 80% of your bankroll, and for all intents and purposes are broke, because you're down so much that you can never get it back. You're basically finished as a professional sports bettor unless you're dating a wealthy GILF who will give you another $100,000 for making her squirt.

[Thomas]

I'm not going to get in an argument with you over the Kelly criterion or similar methods of money management because that ship has sailed and has been discussed to death over the last 25 years on the internet. I also never tell anyone which is the "right way" but I will leave a link to look at that explains the differences between you're method and flat betting. I also don't expect you to agree with it because I can see by your large letters and use of dumb pics there's no changing you're mind and I have no interest in going that route with you. I will not be continuing this conversation with you because you believe your right and like I said no reason to argue but I'd like those interested in exploring both possibilities to have something to look at to compare. This link is not an endorsement of any kind just a well written piece on the subject

http://www.professionalgambler.com/Winperct.html

Thanks for your time and goodbye Peter

[DiggityDaggityDo]

Nobody with a $100,000 bankroll bets $550 a game. That would be a 0.5% unit, which is retarded and not the optimal betting size

Here are the optimal betting units, based on expected win percentage:

53% 1.3% $1,300
54% 3.4% $3,400
55% 5.5% $5,500
56% 7.6% $7,600
57% 9.7% $9,700

Flat betting, or betting the same dollar amount on every game, doesn't work. Maximizing profits requires betting a percentage of your bankroll, not a fixed dollar amount. You minimize profits when you flat bet, and the sportsbook grinds you out. How do you think they stay in business?

If you bet a healthy 7% unit and go 100-100 (100 wins and 100 losses), you lose 80% of your bankroll, and for all intents and purposes are broke, because you're down so much that you can never get it back. You're basically finished as a professional sports bettor unless you're dating a wealthy GILF who will give you another $100,000 for making her squirt.

Nice

[homerbush]

Petermoon, its impossible to take your second post serious with your first post saying at -110 you have to hit 55% of your bets to break even. Nice math dude.

[Powerz]

I have had great success betting the NFL by fading and following the line movements through out the year. If you break down the season into 4 quarters - Sept is fade month Oct/Nov is follow month and Dec is a homework month.

Also doing your home work in preseason and hooking your wagon to a hot team out of the gate can do wonders as well. It seems to take the book makers a while to adjust lines and for the public to catch on ..... The Eagles and Saints are good examples from last year. Getting these undervalued teams early can help build your roll.


GL with this up coming season

[Grits n' Gravy]

My answer to your question of “is nfl highly beatable with a lot of handicapping work?”....Yes. Provided you really do put in the work. The info and tools are out there to get solid advanced analytics to use for your own line and total models.

Anyone can get lucky over the short term but those who work and are always looking to learn more put themselves in a nice situation to turn a profit. The rest comes to down to money management.