Can you be a winning gambler if you're able to consistently beat the closing lines?

[thomorino]

Starting with 1,000. Betting 1% a play. At a 4% return, you would have ~ $1492 after 1,000 plays. Easy to get 1,000 plays across major American sports, I managed more than that in baseball alone.

At 2,000, you will be at $2,225.

At 10,000 plays, this will grow to ~$54,555. If you are betting everything, this may take you a couple of years.

The 4% adds up quickly. It continues to add exponentially.

Small bankrolls when played well become big bankrolls. Small bankrolls when played stupidly become zero, and you need to replenish. The mentality of needing to run a small bankroll into a large one with huge bets is an unprofitable and toxic idea.

Its also not easy for most players to find 1,000 plays a year where they have an edge, that isn't realistic at all for most people.

[d2bets]

I am, my point here is that to have real success long-term you can't just understand sports and beat the market, you have to be able to accurately know what your edge is and vary your bet size accordinly.

Once you're successful, your bet size is whatever the book will allow.

Am edge is an edge. I'll bet a 3% edge. I'll bet a 10% edge. Both for whatever my book will allow (never enough).

[thomorino]

Once you're successful, your bet size is whatever the book will allow.

Am edge is an edge. I'll bet a 3% edge. I'll bet a 10% edge. Both for whatever my book will allow (never enough).

As long as you have multiple outs between offshore and legal you can get plenty down the overwhelming majority of the time.

If you edge is not that big 1-2%, obviously you also wouldn't bet what the book allows.

[d2bets]

As long as you have multiple outs between offshore and legal you can get plenty down the overwhelming majority of the time.

If you edge is not that big 1-2%, obviously you also wouldn't bet what the book allows.

Get down at what number? I only want the very best number.

Of course there are many factors related to available outs, etc.

[TommieGunshot]

Its also not easy for most players to find 1,000 plays a year where they have an edge, that isn't realistic at all for most people.

A couple options that are available:

-stop being like most people
-find a way to do something that is not easy

[mjsuax13]

I'm not saying anyone should bet huge, what I'm saying is that the only realistic way to grow a small bankroll into a larger is by betting around 5 units per play when you think your edge is biggest.

The problem with your post is that there are not 10,000 plays a year where a player can expect to beat the market. The strategy talked about in this thread works rarely in the unique situation where you can beat an NBA line by a full point, that happens about once or twice a week, and you aren't going to do anywhere near 10,000 plays using this specific strategy.

You can bet bigger when your edge is bigger without betting huge and being reckless. To be a successful bettor you have not just know if you have an edge, you have to have an idea of how big your edge is.

You bet random shit all day/everyday at 1-5 units and even more on futures. What’s your edge? Oh yeah, you are down over -550+ units also. Tell us about your edge again. Get back to the kiddie table.

[EGrecu]

Celtics line moved from 5 to 8.5. Holy hell

[EGrecu]

Starting with 1,000. Betting 1% a play. At a 4% return, you would have ~ $1492 after 1,000 plays. Easy to get 1,000 plays across major American sports, I managed more than that in baseball alone.

At 2,000, you will be at $2,225.

At 10,000 plays, this will grow to ~$54,555. If you are betting everything, this may take you a couple of years.

The 4% adds up quickly. It continues to add exponentially.

Small bankrolls when played well become big bankrolls. Small bankrolls when played stupidly become zero, and you need to replenish. The mentality of needing to run a small bankroll into a large one with huge bets is an unprofitable and toxic idea.

There is not 10,000 profitable plays a year. There's maybe 800 to 900 a year

I find just a few games a day (between nba and college) where the line is clearly off


Realistically speaking, you need a huge bankroll to make a lot of money gambling

[thomorino]

You bet random shit all day/everyday at 1-5 units and even more on futures. What’s your edge? Oh yeah, you are down over -550+ units also. Tell us about your edge again. Get back to the kiddie table.

Wrong, my records are strong across the board. Oh look, it's is another loser who follows me around all day.

[d2bets]

Celtics line moved from 5 to 8.5. Holy hell

And Atlanta -9.5 to 12.5
New Orleans -7.5 to 9.5
Denver -6.5 to 9.5
Orlando +3.5 to pk
Minnesota -3.5 to 7

And no, I am not saying these will all win, but I'd sure love to be on Bos -5, Atl -9.5, N.O. -7.5, Den -6.5, Orl +3.5, Minny -3.5. For the limit.

[Waterstpub87]

There is not 10,000 profitable plays a year. There's maybe 800 to 900 a year

I find just a few games a day (between nba and college) where the line is clearly off


Realistically speaking, you need a huge bankroll to make a lot of money gambling

Read what I wrote. Did I say 10,000 in a year.

There are way more than 800 a year. You aren't really thinking about it.

Across baseball, there are maybe 300 bets a day across props, 1st fives and full games. If you say that ~5% are profitable, so 162 * 300 * .05 is 2430.

Figure similar numbers, lower in game numbers for NBA, NHL, and NFl.

Maybe 14 weeks total if combined the bowls and the championship week, ~60 games a week. Double it for the totals, so 120 * 14 * .05 another 84.

Then throw in college basketball, I'm not going calculate that cause the numbers too high.

This is major sports. Add in Golf, Tennis, Boxing, MMA, and foreign sports as well.

It adds up. Only 5% of available plays being profitable is also a huge underestimate. Most of the spread in NBA have moved from opening to now by more than a point. If you were on the right side you would be profitable on all of them.

The point is not the actual numbers. The point is that having a small edge matters, and being conservative in how much you play leads to growth. Firing away on "plays you feel confident on" is terrible advice, that leads to you needing to reload, and never growing your bankroll. You won't ever stop firing away.

[dante1]

And Atlanta -9.5 to 12.5
New Orleans -7.5 to 9.5
Denver -6.5 to 9.5
Orlando +3.5 to pk
Minnesota -3.5 to 7

And no, I am not saying these will all win, but I'd sure love to be on Bos -5, Atl -9.5, N.O. -7.5, Den -6.5, Orl +3.5, Minny -3.5. For the limit.

seems to me like these line changes are pretty accurate. so you don't middle but attempt to get the better line. is that right? how do you do that? you have a model that will give you the opening line, and if so how do you know if that line will change. forgive me I haven't read most of the thread.

[thomorino]

And Atlanta -9.5 to 12.5
New Orleans -7.5 to 9.5
Denver -6.5 to 9.5
Orlando +3.5 to pk
Minnesota -3.5 to 7

And no, I am not saying these will all win, but I'd sure love to be on Bos -5, Atl -9.5, N.O. -7.5, Den -6.5, Orl +3.5, Minny -3.5. For the limit.

These are almost all line moves because of players being out or in that wasn't expected, you'd need insider knowledge to get ahead of these line moves

[d2bets]

seems to me like these line changes are pretty accurate. so you don't middle but attempt to get the better line. is that right? how do you do that? you have a model that will give you the opening line, and if so how do you know if that line will change. forgive me I haven't read most of the thread.

Generally I wouldn't middle, right, although I'm not strictly against doing that. So if Bos moves from 5 to 8.5 but someone wants to give me +9.5, then yeah, sure.

As for line change, I'm not saying it's easy and you can always do it of course, but if you are watching closely, sometimes you can read the market and get ahead of the move at some books.

[dante1]

Generally I wouldn't middle, right, although I'm not strictly against doing that. So if Bos moves from 5 to 8.5 but someone wants to give me +9.5, then yeah, sure.

As for line change, I'm not saying it's easy and you can always do it of course, but if you are watching closely, sometimes you can read the market and get ahead of the move at some books.

okay my friend. thanks

[lonegambler23]

some of y'all just don't understand basic math at all

betting a -105 line means you have to win 51.2% of your bets to break even. betting at -110, you gotta hit 52.4% to break even

it's math 101

Let's say you're betting Rams -4. Avg ML for that should be about -195 (if getting -105 juice) based on past 3 years worth of data. If you make the bet at -110 odds, your ML should be around -210.

Which is better? Paying $195 for something, or paying $210 for it?

So now we look at one of the sharpest books out there and see what they're charging for it on the ML. Pinny will sell it to you for $200

You'll make money all day long buying something for cheaper than Pinny is selling it for

You either get this, or you don't

Make money, or keep on losing

nope. just win baby!!

[JIBBBY]

Just win baby is right!


ABW - Always Be Winning.

[jjgold]

Gamblers love
To think they can win

Keeps them going until house in foreclosure

[Gaze73]

Read what I wrote. Did I say 10,000 in a year.

There are way more than 800 a year. You aren't really thinking about it.

Across baseball, there are maybe 300 bets a day across props, 1st fives and full games. If you say that ~5% are profitable, so 162 * 300 * .05 is 2430.

Figure similar numbers, lower in game numbers for NBA, NHL, and NFl.

Maybe 14 weeks total if combined the bowls and the championship week, ~60 games a week. Double it for the totals, so 120 * 14 * .05 another 84.

Then throw in college basketball, I'm not going calculate that cause the numbers too high.

This is major sports. Add in Golf, Tennis, Boxing, MMA, and foreign sports as well.

It adds up. Only 5% of available plays being profitable is also a huge underestimate. Most of the spread in NBA have moved from opening to now by more than a point. If you were on the right side you would be profitable on all of them.

The point is not the actual numbers. The point is that having a small edge matters, and being conservative in how much you play leads to growth. Firing away on "plays you feel confident on" is terrible advice, that leads to you needing to reload, and never growing your bankroll. You won't ever stop firing away.

Seriously, are you suggesting that people bet 10 different sports to get their volume up? 99% of people can't beat 1 sport long term, let alone 10. There's this basketball guy, he says basketball is his life, spends 8 hours a day watching games and finding his bets. He's had 16 profitable months in a row. Then, since february 2021, he's breaking even up to this day. Now imagine a normal person with a full time job and basketball being just one of the 10 sports they bet on. They have no chance.

[Waterstpub87]

Seriously, are you suggesting that people bet 10 different sports to get their volume up? 99% of people can't beat 1 sport long term, let alone 10. There's this basketball guy, he says basketball is his life, spends 8 hours a day watching games and finding his bets. He's had 16 profitable months in a row. Then, since february 2021, he's breaking even up to this day. Now imagine a normal person with a full time job and basketball being just one of the 10 sports they bet on. They have no chance.

No. I did not suggest that. It was suggested that there were only 800 profitable plays a year. This is not true.

[Regul8er]

Why arent more people talking about having multiple outs? Over the years, Ive learned this is as important as anything. It didnt happen with the final outcome, but all of my books had Long Beach St +1.5, except one of mine had +2.5. Long Beach coverer easily, but the difference in a full point, is worth 20 cents.

[CanuckG]

Nobody on this forum is winning long term that's for sure

[dante1]

Nobody on this forum is winning long term that's for sure

very very difficult isn't it. when you read a comment claiming the opposite you can be sure of a few possibilities. it is a neophyte player believing he found an easy way to make money, a partially seasoned gambler who believes he found a strategy that works. and that may possibly be true. but talk to me after years and years of success. or a gambler who is full of crap.

many years ago I had a publication that exposed the records of maybe hundreds of touts. when you are dealing with a large number of touts you will find a few on the top with a winning record for a season. you know what is interesting almost always those same real stats you are watching and those same touts with a winning record in year one are no where to be found in year two. the point is yes almost everybody will have a winning season or even a year. the trick is do it forever.

can't be done.

[d2bets]

And Atlanta -9.5 to 12.5
New Orleans -7.5 to 9.5
Denver -6.5 to 9.5
Orlando +3.5 to pk
Minnesota -3.5 to 7

And no, I am not saying these will all win, but I'd sure love to be on Bos -5, Atl -9.5, N.O. -7.5, Den -6.5, Orl +3.5, Minny -3.5. For the limit.

5-0 on last night's steam.

[d2bets]

Nobody on this forum is winning long term that's for sure

Come on, I think you know better than that. It's pretty easy to tell who is and isn't winning long-term.

[dante1]

5-0 on last night's steam.

I saw that, gotta give you credit.

[dante1]

I think each team covered both numbers. also did every chalk cover? not sure but it was close to I think. maybe all chalk and one small dog.