What has been "proven" in sports betting

[Professor1215]

I know when questions are asked on this forum, very broad, generalized responses are given. We have been witness to, "How do you earn a long-term profit", "What statistics are predictive", etc.

That being said, I have a question in which I am looking for nothing more than basic answer to. And that question is: What can you say has been "proven" to work in terms of making money in sports betting.

Serious opinions only, I know things like, if you hit greater than 52.4% on -110 you profit, or if you use the mart. system you will certainly lose all of your bankroll.

Looking for more theoretical stuff here.

Thanks!

[inrenokid]

One or two basics have proof: 1) the percentage play profits,of 52% has to be as spread out as possible, that % on a maximum of wagers ; also that even money bets are the hardest to profit at and salting with long shots is needed. 2). That betting according to the real odds advantage over the payed out odds as a % of a bank makes the largest profit and cannot ever become a bank of zero.

[a4u2fear]

If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

this is the case for most things in life, but if everyone of your friends and joe public likes a bet, you better daaaaaable check it

[chunk]

There is no substitute for hours and hours of hard work and experience. Very few have the fortitude to do what it takes to win even if they have the ability and the time.

You need balls of steel in this racket. Self doubt will creep in during the inevitable streak of negative variance and you must be able to fight through this while maintaining your confidence.

Never accept the status quo. Always seek knowledge and try to improve.

[AussiePunter123]

IMO to become a good sports bettor, you need to be able to learn how to lose.

As the saying goes, you want to watch a champion boxer at his best?..... watch him when he is getting beat.

Once you learn to accept a loss, then it frees your mind to accept risk.

Secondly, while you need to accept risk, you also need to minimise it.

You see so many nuffies on here insist on betting every day. Bookies love this. These people are just going off hunches, 'hot' tips and in the long run, they will lose their money.

Develop discipline, do your research, record and analyse every bet. NEVER CHASE.

BOL. Sex to all.

[747planes]

I know when questions are asked on this forum, very broad, generalized responses are given. We have been witness to, "How do you earn a long-term profit", "What statistics are predictive", etc.

That being said, I have a question in which I am looking for nothing more than basic answer to. And that question is: What can you say has been "proven" to work in terms of making money in sports betting.

Serious opinions only, I know things like, if you hit greater than 52.4% on -110 you profit, or if you use the mart. system you will certainly lose all of your bankroll.

Looking for more theoretical stuff here.

Thanks!

Money management is key. Also playing value odds and avoiding popular favorites (usually heavily juiced) are key. I highly recommend reading the BR Money management This money management is one of the best, be it betting with a flat bankroll or betting to grow your bankroll. Most people get wiped out because they deposit small amounts and don't have the patience to follow money management. These small deposits can amount to a decent bankroll in a matter of a month or two! Save those deposits, then use it as one decent bankroll with that money management. Of course if you suck at picking and play value less games, eventually you will lose it all even with the best bankroll. So do your home work, lock up your emotions and play it steady and slow. If you don't have time or control over emotions when it comes to picking games, use a reliable service like bettingresource. Working magic for almost 3 years now for me!

[A4K]

Even +EV bets can have long losing streaks!

Recently read an article on money management and in the article they interviewed a former sportsbook manager who claimed 20% - 30% of handicappers can consistently beat the number, but maybe 1%-2% have the fortitude to stick to proper money management through winning streaks and losing streaks.

In summary.....

You have to have discipline when it comes to your bankroll and faith in yourself to survive the inevitable losing streaks. Do not get too high on the win streaks or too low on the losing streaks. Grind it out. Only way to make $$$ long term.

[basket33]

a link to that article please?

[HeeeHAWWWW]

That's a basic element of Kelly staking: it provides the maximal level of bankroll growth, but stake beyond that and it drops. Bet double the Kelly stake and your expected bankroll growth (aka +EG) is zero. More than that and it's negative.

This is one of the key reasons why so many people lose at betting, even with solid +EV bets: they stake far too much and turn it into -EG (ie a longterm money loser).

[A4K]

a link to that article please?

May have misstated what was said in the article. I was trying to go from my memory, but here is a link to the article...

https://www.drbobsports.com/essays.cfm?p=5

From the article...

Talk to any career bookie, and you will find a shocking truth: many (maybe even as high as 20% or 30%) sports bettors actually win over 50% of their games in the long run. However, their concepts of money management are so poor that almost all of them over bet wildly, driving their long term expectation to zero, and they all end up completely broke. The following anecdote, which could be any one of a million different bettors, illustrates the dangers of over betting:


"This guy Archie came into my book on the first week of September and bet about $1k on ten different NFL games. He ended up going 9-1, and turned his $10k into $18k. (n.b. we are ignoring vig for the sake of simple calculations) I knew he would be back though, and sure enough he was there the following week, betting $2k on nine different NFL games and totals. He got hot again, and went 7-2, and his $10k had now grown to $28k in just two weeks. I wasn't worried though, because the story is always the same with these guys. In week three, he came in with 7 more 'locks' and put $4k on each game, only to go 1-6, losing three of the games in the last minute. Frustrated with his bad luck, he put all of his remaining $8k on the Monday Night Under, which busted when the Broncos scored a meaningless touchdown in the final minute. Three weeks after he started, Archie was broke."


Archie is a prototypical gambler with absolutely no investment discipline. He started out with $10k, went 17-10 (63%) and ended up broke. Rampant over betting is a great way to empty your pockets while winning two thirds of your games. If Archie had just flat bet $500 per game the whole way through, he would've turned his $10k into $13.5k in three weeks. If he had bet 5% of his bankroll on each sequential game, he would have run his $10k up to $18.7k, and then slid in week 3 to finish at $13.7k, netting a $3.7k profit, albeit with some big swings. Does this story sound familiar? It should - it describes about 90% of the gamblers you'll find at any given time in a Las Vegas sportsbook. Dr. Bob's customers are different, though, which is why books are so scared of them. They bet on winners, and they bet with disciplined financial intelligence designed to extract a profit in the long run.

[inrenokid]

Although the above is partly true, do not believe that these simple ideas of moral management will lead to success. These flat betting small % wagerers think they are safe but their risk of ruin is still very large. The key is, if you are a gambler with an edge then you cannot afford to knock yourself out of action( a winning bet you miss because of lack of funds is a loss) the above fictional player is fiction because if he could really win being broken would not be for long. A Mr. Jack Binion stated that a successfull gambler has two traits ,1. He has an edge(knowns the true odds). 2. He can bounce back ( all the greatest in sports betting have been broke).

[inrenokid]

Look in the life of the gambler Alan Woods, he made over 800,000,000 dollars wagering on horse racesr

[A4K]

Although the above is partly true, do not believe that these simple ideas of moral management will lead to success. These flat betting small % wagerers think they are safe but their risk of ruin is still very large. The key is, if you are a gambler with an edge then you cannot afford to knock yourself out of action( a winning bet you miss because of lack of funds is a loss) the above fictional player is fiction because if he could really win being broken would not be for long. A Mr. Jack Binion stated that a successfull gambler has two traits ,1. He has an edge(knowns the true odds). 2. He can bounce back ( all the greatest in sports betting have been broke).

A gambler with a TRUE edge will NEVER knock himself out of the game if he utilizes proper Kelly criterion. With that said, you have to evaluate your own goals. If you only have $1,000 and you can replenish that bankroll in a short period of time after a loss, then Kelly is not for you. If you are a true sports investor who has a $250,000 bankroll and is trying to live off his edge, than Kelly is a must.

[inrenokid]

Also, look up one Blarney Curley and how he operates, with Haralabos Voulgaris who started by betting much more then 5% and now is living in a mansion in the LA hills.

[inrenokid]

Remember Kelly is communcations theory not gambling he uses a gambling wire as a means to explain his idea. It is the great Ed Thorp who used it to make many a 100 million even nearly beating the wheel(roulette).+±

[inrenokid]

Few if any big time gamblers have bankrolls,

[inrenokid]

Bankrolling is a middleclass moral and from the indusrial empires of the.past so as to allow gambling because it is fordidden by Ford and Rockefeller etc.

[A4K]

Bankrolling is a middleclass moral and from the indusrial empires of the.past so as to allow gambling because it is fordidden by Ford and Rockefeller etc.

So which method do you subscribe to?

[suicidekings]

All windows of opportunity in finding mis-priced lines will ultimately close as the market catches up to them. Systems and trends regress, touts start flooding the market with concepts like RLM and fading the "public", and books will make adjustments to their lines if they start to get beaten too badly in any one spot.

It's super easy to get lazy and stick with what has worked for you in the past, but one of the most important things to understand is that even the most profitable angles will have limited lifespans so you need to constantly question your methods to ensure that you're playing a +EV game and not just doing things like you always have. Above all, if you do a lot of your own work and feel that you've come up with something +EV, keep it to yourself.

[A4K]

All windows of opportunity in finding mis-priced lines will ultimately close as the market catches up to them. Systems and trends regress, touts start flooding the market with concepts like RLM and fading the "public", and books will make adjustments to their lines if they start to get beaten too badly in any one spot.

It's super easy to get lazy and stick with what has worked for you in the past, but one of the most important things to understand is that even the most profitable angles will have limited lifespans so you need to constantly question your methods to ensure that you're playing a +EV game and not just doing things like you always have. Above all, if you do a lot of your own work and feel that you've come up with something +EV, keep it to yourself.

Nailed it. Great post.

[terpkeg]

Any chance to make profit long term will take countless hours of energy which would likely be more beneficially spent elsewhere.

[statnerds]

Any chance to make profit long term will take countless hours of energy which would likely be more beneficially spent elsewhere.

completely disagree with this.

other stuff related to this thread

love me some Eddie Thorp

Kelly is flawed because you can never truly calculate your Edge for any single, independent event. fukk fractional kelly. if the system was so perfect you wouldn't need to bastardize it.

+EV or not, long term, the book has an infinite BR and you do not.

[inrenokid]

Any chance to make profit long term will take countless hours of energy which would likely be more beneficially spent elsewhere.

The use of a computer,programing and syndicates.

[inrenokid]

So which method do you subscribe to?

Well the Archie story is a moralize bookmaker's ,attempt at his own interests. Read someone of the name David Sklansky in the book " getting the best of it" , there is no kind of mangement that can make a loser a winner, Archie quit was only lucky or as I am claiming fictional. Nothing safe will change those facts,which ,by the by is the title of the thread. Dont limit the mind.

[A4K]

Well the Archie story is a moralize bookmaker's ,attempt at his own interests. Read someone of the name David Sklansky in the book " getting the best of it" , there is no kind of mangement that can make a loser a winner, Archie quit was only lucky or as I am claiming fictional. Nothing safe will change those facts,which ,by the by is the title of the thread. Dont limit the mind.

I never claimed any type of management system can turn a loser into a winner. I do however believe that poor money management can turn a winning capper into a broke capper.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Kelly is flawed because you can never truly calculate your Edge for any single, independent event.

This has been a common response to Kelly for decades, with the assumption being that the flaw is merely overcome with sufficient accuracy. In other words: that your average estimate error is not resulting in over-staking to the degree you are net -EG

Surprisingly however, it isn't actually true at all. See the previous thread, in particular the updated bankroll simulator posted here: http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicappe...l#post13727329

[inrenokid]

I never claimed any type of management system can turn a loser into a winner. I do however believe that poor money management can turn a winning capper into a broke capper.

why would a sports book want you to successed? No, "money management" is a broke losser's rationalizing. You only need to afford it these accounting systems are for makilng short term gains as in roulette. You are saying you dont know enough and thus hedge a finite amount of money because if that fails you can quit with dignity; which is about what happens.

[inrenokid]

These Kelly fears on error are what kelly is; read the paper he wrote not the applications, the error by way of a disrupted line.of communications is what it is all about. He uses horse races.because you could at that time known the outcome of a race.before a local offtrack parlor and be 100% sure thus bet all thy money.

[statnerds]

These Kelly fears on error are what kelly is; read the paper he wrote not the applications, the error by way of a disrupted line.of communications is what it is all about. He uses horse races.because you could at that time known the outcome of a race.before a local offtrack parlor and be 100% sure thus bet all thy money.

at least have the decency to mention claude shannon during these smarter than thou rants.

[statnerds]

This has been a common response to Kelly for decades, with the assumption being that the flaw is merely overcome with sufficient accuracy. In other words: that your average estimate error is not resulting in over-staking to the degree you are net -EG

Surprisingly however, it isn't actually true at all. See the previous thread, in particular the updated bankroll simulator posted here: http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicappe...l#post13727329

i appreciate the link and the info.

we know well over 95% of bettors are going to lose, at least kelly helps them do it more slowly i suppose. and if they work hard and reach a level of sophistication to employ kelly i hope they realize hours of capping are pointless (EMT debate for another day?) and all that matters is getting the highest volume (# of bets not size) on the best numbers you can get (CLV debate as well?).

but i do enjoy exploring theoretical side of sports betting. again, the basic flaw with kelly is the majority of bettors are going to be -EV long term, not the other way around. the simulation, yes understand it provides for errors in edge estimation, still has a low range on the input side that is +. it doesn't reflect reality. i would rather see it run with an edge from -2% to +3% (which i might do later). in that scenario, ie the one closest to real life, i agree kelly would help them go broke slower, but is that our goal?

[HeeeHAWWWW]

i appreciate the link and the info.

we know well over 95% of bettors are going to lose, at least kelly helps them do it more slowly i suppose.

It'll help losing players that are +EV but -EG though, by definition (ie those making good bets but drastically over-staking). That seems to be rather a lot of people.

The simulation: you can select a negative to plus error range, and definitely should do so imo.

[inrenokid]

Yes and what are the proven fact for ev? We have over staking which leads to knowing the true odds very accu.is one, also very zgood math, how about rational thinking but no lack of inspiration( hunches), which would be at the end of measurement.

[inrenokid]

at least have the decency to mention claude shannon during these smarter than thou rants.

All the uses and complaints of Kelly have all ready been debated by Nobel prize winners etc. We make no contrabution to that.

[combination lock]

I know when questions are asked on this forum, very broad, generalized responses are given. We have been witness to, "How do you earn a long-term profit", "What statistics are predictive", etc. That being said, I have a question in which I am looking for nothing more than basic answer to. And that question is: What can you say has been "proven" to work in terms of making money in sports betting. Serious opinions only, I know things like, if you hit greater than 52.4% on -110 you profit, or if you use the mart. system you will certainly lose all of your bankroll.Looking for more theoretical stuff here.Thanks!

Only bet in vegas. Every offshore book is a pyramid scheme... they will all collapse at some point...one by one

[statnerds]

All the uses and complaints of Kelly have all ready been debated by Nobel prize winners etc. We make no contrabution to that.

i have no idea what this even means, as you apparently have no idea who claude was.