Proof that without greed you can make steady income sports betting!!

[rydaphotoguy]

Alright I am trying to prove my brother in law that with the right discipline you can make steady income at betting. So I am going to start with $2000 in each sport and bet 5% each play and double. So here it starts

Bankroll $2000

New England -14 $110 to win $100

[GoggsViggs]

Gl bro. Go pats!

[serc]

Good Luck, are you saying that your bet amount will always be 5% regardless of what your bankroll is?

[rydaphotoguy]

Yes that is what I am saying but I will be doubling until win and then restart at 5%.

[rydaphotoguy]

New England -14 $110 to win $100 L

Bankroll: $1890

[spongerat]

what does greed have to do with it? 5% bet size are hardly conservative

[rydaphotoguy]

Minnesota +9 $242 to win $220

[rydaphotoguy]

what does greed have to do with it? 5% bet size are hardly conservative

What does greed have to do with it?????? That's how Vegas makes it's money....frustraton and greed of a sports bettors mind. If you just follow simple system and stay disciplined you will make money in long run. Agree? If not then I guess it's good it's my money and I can risk it.

[spongerat]

Thats an interesting angle. I think Vegas makes its money through mathematical edge created by juice. But I agree that discipline is needed to make money in the long run and minimize risk of ruin. But a betting system is not enough to ensure this on its own.

[betme]

just hope u dont lose 3 straight.. cuz u wont have enough money left to double on your 4th bet. gl

[rydaphotoguy]

I disagree and that is arguement I am having with my brother in law. I think betting systems fail because the human mind wonders and never sticks to them and ends up getting frustrated. Even with all those double up systems like Morrison and the betting professor. That claim to go 76-2 or 75-3 in a season and everyone rips them up because when you lose you lose a lot. But if you do the math. One loss equals 8 wins. so the system would actually be good because your record would be equivilant to 76-16 or 75-24. And that is better than any better can produce. And you could make a very steady income. But once people lose a couple they get frustrated and try to win money back that day or get greedy and try making more than system allows. Just my thoughts and I guess I will see how it goes.

[JuicedUp]

GL with the experiment photo guy.

[newguy]

I disagree and that is arguement I am having with my brother in law. I think betting systems fail because the human mind wonders and never sticks to them and ends up getting frustrated. Even with all those double up systems like Morrison and the betting professor. That claim to go 76-2 or 75-3 in a season and everyone rips them up because when you lose you lose a lot. But if you do the math. One loss equals 8 wins. so the system would actually be good because your record would be equivilant to 76-16 or 75-24. And that is better than any better can produce. And you could make a very steady income. But once people lose a couple they get frustrated and try to win money back that day or get greedy and try making more than system allows. Just my thoughts and I guess I will see how it goes.

I have done this before - I am sure most gamblers out there have as well. The hard part comes when you are trying to pick the game for your 3rd bet when you know you are going to be risking $440 on a game that to you is no stronger than the game you lost $100 on two days ago. The only way it ever worked for me, and we absolutely cleaned up one year, was we paid a buddy to "cap" the games for us. This guy would put Lang to shame - he was atrocious. So we would pay him for his picks - but tell him each hoops pick had to be 4 hours apart, so we wouldn't get more than 2 games on a week night - and like 4 on the weekends.

Anyway - this worked big time because he didn't realize he was chasing, he was always just picking games, and we faded away. We cleaned up that CBB season, if we weren't up at least 50 units I would be suprised - I think we only lost 2 series, and didn't lose any in march madness. So my advice to you would be to try and pick the games in 3-game increments, i.e. pick your top Sat play, top Sun play, top Mon play where you can get lines, so that way, come Monday night, you aren't trying to pick a side while you are on tilt.

I know it doesn't seem like the last game will affect you as much - but it does - pyscologically it really messes with you.

Good luck to you though either way!!!

[southpaw74]

Very interested to see how this pans out! Good luck

[boneheaded1]

I actually kind of like this idea. I think I'll try it next year. I agree with picking the games beforehand.

[Phillth]

martingale will bankrupt you.

[spongerat]

lol just reread the OP, missed the part where he said double because i was skimming. Yeah doubling is a bad idea and has nothing to do with discipline. Its discipline that makes you not chase a loss like that.

also the other reason your "math" is faulty is because you don't take into account bankroll. Your calculations would be almost right if they had an infinite bankroll whereas with yours, 3 losses and your bankrolls done and you can't continue, regardless of if you would have gone 75-16 or whatever

[HiTMaNN]

martingale will bankrupt you.

It will any chasing system will in the long run kill your bank roll, You are better going to a roulette table and betting black.

[rydaphotoguy]

lol just reread the OP, missed the part where he said double because i was skimming. Yeah doubling is a bad idea and has nothing to do with discipline. Its discipline that makes you not chase a loss like that.

also the other reason your "math" is faulty is because you don't take into account bankroll. Your calculations would be almost right if they had an infinite bankroll whereas with yours, 3 losses and your bankrolls done and you can't continue, regardless of if you would have gone 75-16 or whatever

Three losses would put be at $1100-$1200 and then I would be forced to take it as a loss and start again. So I still have money and if I go back to 5% of that and do it again then I would have to lose about 12 games in a row to lose money completeley and every win makes plays go back up. And to lose 12 games in a row would be as hard as hitting 12 team parlay. Just doesn't happen. So if I follow system and only lose 2 or 3 all year then I would go 76-16 or whatever it would be. I disagree again... I think it would take high amounts of discipline to stick to a system like this and not let it psych you out. It will lose a couple times no question about that but will it kill bankroll....no. Will it win a lot more than lose? Yes. We will see though. I don't see how it could fail. But I have been wrong before. Time will tell I guess

[fuggles]

Best of luck to you. I like the Minny pick. Should be a low scoring close one if webb can avoid turnovers.

[rydaphotoguy]

It will any chasing system will in the long run kill your bank roll, You are better going to a roulette table and betting black.

Obviously I couldn't disagree more and think there is no defense that supports your statement. Maybe if I lose 6 in a row.... Is that what u are thinking?

[mebaran]

This is the 1000th thread like this, rydaphotoguy. Google "wizard of odds" and go to his website.

There has NEVER been a betting system or chase system that has defied the laws of probability. All of them are equally pointless.

How bettors win comes down to beating market prices and betting proper amounts based on kelly criterion.

For the record, 5% of your bankroll on a single bet is really high.

[rydaphotoguy]

Best of luck to you. I like the Minny pick. Should be a low scoring close one if webb can avoid turnovers.

Thanks man good luck to you too.

[TheCommish]

Good luck... you are going to need it.

[rydaphotoguy]

This is the 1000th thread like this, rydaphotoguy. Google "wizard of odds" and go to his website.

There has NEVER been a betting system or chase system that has defied the laws of probability. All of them are equally pointless.

How bettors win comes down to beating market prices and betting proper amounts based on kelly criterion.

For the record, 5% of your bankroll on a single bet is really high.

Please go to all the 1000 threads and show me one where they followed it to a T. I know you can show me several that they got scared by c bets or started following Morrison system starting with B bets. All have been psyched out and manipulated the system. And 5% is a lot if trying to cap games and shooting for 55% but with simple math 5% A bet 10% B bet and 20% C bet and only needing to hit 33% or better on all plays seems pretty safe to me. But again it's my money. So I am risking it. We will see how it plays out.

[rydaphotoguy]

I just googled the record for sportsbetting professor last year and with simple math here it is.

Number one bet: bet $11 to win $10 (at -110 odds)
Number 2 bet: bet $23.10 to win $21 (which covers the $11 number one bet loss in addition to the $10 projected profit)
Number 3 bet: bet $48.51 to win $44.10 (which covers the $11 number one bet loss, the $23.10 number 2 bet loss in addition to the $10 projected profit)
Every loss is equal to just over 8 wins at 8.2 wins.
The following are the real weighted outcomes:
In NCAA and NFL football: 60-8 + 52 Net Units
In NBA: 26-8 + 18 Net Units

But I guarantee anyone following would have quit after suffering loss. It is only 33% you need to hit to win....I don't understand I guess how on earth a system like this will not work.

[rydaphotoguy]

I have done this before - I am sure most gamblers out there have as well. The hard part comes when you are trying to pick the game for your 3rd bet when you know you are going to be risking $440 on a game that to you is no stronger than the game you lost $100 on two days ago. The only way it ever worked for me, and we absolutely cleaned up one year, was we paid a buddy to "cap" the games for us. This guy would put Lang to shame - he was atrocious. So we would pay him for his picks - but tell him each hoops pick had to be 4 hours apart, so we wouldn't get more than 2 games on a week night - and like 4 on the weekends.

Anyway - this worked big time because he didn't realize he was chasing, he was always just picking games, and we faded away. We cleaned up that CBB season, if we weren't up at least 50 units I would be suprised - I think we only lost 2 series, and didn't lose any in march madness. So my advice to you would be to try and pick the games in 3-game increments, i.e. pick your top Sat play, top Sun play, top Mon play where you can get lines, so that way, come Monday night, you aren't trying to pick a side while you are on tilt.

I know it doesn't seem like the last game will affect you as much - but it does - pyscologically it really messes with you.

Good luck to you though either way!!!

I like the idea of picking all at once too and just not straying away no matter what happens. Nice to hear from someone who had success with this.

[playr101]

GL

-playr101

[cant call it]

Minnesota +9 $242 to win $220

where did you find this line at?
5 dimes has vikes+9 @ -148

[eberetta1]

Your brother in law is right on this one. I would call doubling up after each bet, well, greedy. Sticking to 5% every bet would be the not greedy way to go. So after losing first bet 5% of $1890 would be a $95 bet. I did this same strategy on a roulette wheel and ran into trouble after losing 7 spins in a row. I just did not have the nuts to risk the loss on an 8th and 9th spin.

[mlb]

I'm confused with most of the arguments in this thread. many sane people would argue that doubling up would be the greedy approach?

[ClimbSomeRocks]

You're using a betting progression called the Martingale. It is the fasted progression to go bankrupt. Look it up, or better yet, go into the SBR casino and lose something as meaningless as points. Play blackjack or Single 0 roulette and double up after each loss. You'll soon realize that losing 10 straight is not a very uncommon feat. However when you're doubling up after each loss you'll lose substantially more than if you were flat betting.

On a side note, thanks for giving the books all that money so they're able to pay off winners like me.

[rydaphotoguy]

where did you find this line at?
5 dimes has vikes+9 @ -148

I got it on thegreek.com early this morning but line is now +7 (-115)

[rydaphotoguy]

Your brother in law is right on this one. I would call doubling up after each bet, well, greedy. Sticking to 5% every bet would be the not greedy way to go. So after losing first bet 5% of $1890 would be a $95 bet. I did this same strategy on a roulette wheel and ran into trouble after losing 7 spins in a row. I just did not have the nuts to risk the loss on an 8th and 9th spin.

I'm confused with most of the arguments in this thread. many sane people would argue that doubling up would be the greedy approach?

You're using a betting progression called the Martingale. It is the fasted progression to go bankrupt. Look it up, or better yet, go into the SBR casino and lose something as meaningless as points. Play blackjack or Single 0 roulette and double up after each loss. You'll soon realize that losing 10 straight is not a very uncommon feat. However when you're doubling up after each loss you'll lose substantially more than if you were flat betting. On a side note, thanks for giving the books all that money so they're able to pay off winners like me.

Thank you for your opinions but I respectfully disagree. Good Luck on your plays.

[F42294]

You are spouting off about going 75-8 or some other outrageous record. If you could go 75-8 then you wouldn't need a system. Just take every game for say 10% of your bankroll. Not doing the exact math, but at minimum that would put you up 60+ units at $200 a play would be $12,000 profit (but if you were doing 10% of bankroll each bet would be progressively higher so the profit would be exponentially higher). Why would you need any kind of system if you can win at that kind rate? Prove a 75-8 record on this board and you could have the most profitable picks service ever and then they'd make a movie about you starring Al Pacino , Matthew McConaughey and Rene Russo.

I think you'd be better off taking the $6,000 ($2000 each sport, assuming NFL, NBA, NCAABB) buy your girl some nice jewlery, take a vacation to an island nation and get 5-7 days of no holes barred tail.