True fact ?

[Jack Nash]

I read 3% of sports bettors make a profit in the long run, is this true?

[stevenash]

I've read varying figures.
I think three percent is about right, maybe a tad lower.

[DrunkHorseplayer]

Not a chance in hell, definitely less than one in a thousand.

[DonnieBrasco23]

Not a chance in hell, definitely less than one in a thousand.

[Foxx]

I've always heard 2%, but always thought that was likely high.

"Long run" is kind of a vague term. If you exclude bonus money, my uneducated guess would be out of players with 1000+ lifetime bets, easily less than 1% are in profit.

[Lineman]

bonus money changes the ball game. Does that figure includes that?

[DonnieBrasco23]

What amazes me is how a good % of gamblers are still trying to find +EV, after failing for multiple decades.

[str]

One thing you have to consider is losing bettors make the most noise. They are easy to see. The winners stay quiet. That was definitely the case at the racetrack for my 30 or so years there. And yes, there were winners there. The same small crowd just about every year. 2-3% long term sounds right too me from my experience.

Other sports year to year, I would just be guessing at the same 2-3% number probably. And they CAN lose on a given year, probably minimally, but way ahead overall.

Maybe a smaller percentage these days with so many new players and online parlay stuff and such. That will level off at some point I assume but who knows.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

I've always heard 2%, but always thought that was likely high.

"Long run" is kind of a vague term. If you exclude bonus money, my uneducated guess would be out of players with 1000+ lifetime bets, easily less than 1% are in profit.

I agree with Foxx. 3% is way too hi. 1% is a more accurate figure.

And what about the breakdown inside that 1%?
...It's POSSIBLE that someone hits a big score 1x. They win a contest or the lottery or a Superfecta. If they're smart, that's it, hold onto the $$.
...Can someone be knowledgeable and trade Dollars? It's possible. They don't stack off. They don't lose too much. They can clear a very small margin (maybe on niche sports).
...A true professional? Someone who pays their bills via gaming? Much smaller chunk of the pie.

[texhooper]

It’s probably less than 1% even. Everybody has a fukking FanDuel app these days. You may not realize this if you’re not in a legal state, and I know you guys are older than dirt (not me of course) so it can be easy to overlook all the little 20 30 yr old jerkoffs betting constantly on everything. And I guarantee you none of these little mfs are winning shit. Talk to them, they have no clue. And also, 1% is a lot more people than you realize. Say within the city of New York you got 8 million some odd people, so hypothetically let’s say a million New Yorkers are actively engaging in sportsbetting, just as an example. That implies there would be 10,000 long term winning sports bettors walking the streets of New York every day in my hypothetical scenario. There’s just an absolute zero percent chance that that’s happening. I’d accept .1% (or 1,000 out of a million) but it’s probably closer to .01% (100).

[texhooper]

Also guys if you just learn to move decimals like I have, you can win long term in sportsbetting guaranteed. You can be part of that 3% (30,000 out of a million) of Americans that function in society as professional sports bettors

[texhooper]

What amazes me is how a good % of gamblers are still trying to find +EV, after failing for multiple decades.

I’d like to know what your daily approach is.

I have pieced together throughout the last several months that you turned $100 into $100,000 by basically going all in 7 or 8 times or however many times it was. Maybe it was an open parlay, but basically same concept. Regardless, you built a nice roll and I think I’ve seen that you live off gambling now? So what is your approach, i.e. how many games a day, unit size, average juice, is the unit “risk” or “to win” etc etc. Whatever your process is basically. And also feel free to correct anything I’ve said that’s wrong. And hopefully I have the right guy here I’m pretty sure it was you

[Optional]

I think it is higher than that.

If less than 2% can profit, why do bookmakers need such tight player management?

Surely over the long run they would be better to keep all of us playing more than trying to stop anyone who looks sharp if that was true...

[ChuckyTheGoat]

I think it is higher than that.

If less than 2% can profit, why do bookmakers need such tight player management?

Surely over the long run they would be better to keep all of us playing more than trying to stop anyone who looks sharp if that was true...

Opti, IMHO the # of players that the oddsmaker is worried about = a very small #.

[Optional]

Opti, IMHO the # of players that the oddsmaker is worried about = a very small #.

We must every successful bettor here if only 1% are collared by books



I think when it comes to sportsbetting a fairly decent percentage of people, maybe as high as 20%, do have the capacity to do better than break even over time. But most of those do not use BR management or discipline well enough to actually do it.

It's the potential the books look at when limiting though I think.

Without any player management I would bet dollars to donuts a lot more than 1% of players would be profitable.

[texhooper]

i think when it comes to sportsbetting a fairly decent percentage of people, maybe as high as 20%, do have the capacity to do better than break even over time. But most of those do not use br management or discipline well enough to actually do it.

ding

ding

ding

ding

ding

[ChuckyTheGoat]

We must every successful bettor here if only 1% are collared by books
Hey, Opti. A few things:

1) If we poll the BETTORS on what % are sharp? Well, that's 98%. Everyone is sharp as a tack.

2) If we poll the ODDSMAKERS on what % are sharp? I'll stick with 1%. It's a low figure on LONG-TERM winners.

As to HOW that could be? I'd argue that the SANE bettor has fun with it. It's very much like an entertainment budget. If you bet 40 weeks per year, at $50 per week, that's a budget of $2000 per year.

If you talk to bookmakers, MOST players are really small players. Like $10 to $20 per play. Mostly on TV games, so that they have something to root for.


I think when it comes to sportsbetting a fairly decent percentage of people, maybe as high as 20%, do have the capacity to do better than break even over time. But most of those do not use BR management or discipline well enough to actually do it.

It's the potential the books look at when limiting though I think.

Without any player management I would bet dollars to donuts a lot more than 1% of players would be profitable.

[QUOTE=Optional;31325362]We must every successful bettor here if only 1% are collared by books
Hey, Opti. A few things:

1) If we poll the BETTORS on what % are sharp? Well, that's 98%. Everyone is sharp as a tack.

2) If we poll the ODDSMAKERS on what % are sharp? I'll stick with 1%. It's a low figure on LONG-TERM winners.

As to HOW that could be? I'd argue that the SANE bettor has fun with it. It's very much like an entertainment budget. If you bet 40 weeks per year, at $50 per week, that's a budget of $2000 per year.

If you talk to bookmakers, MOST players are really small players. Like $10 to $20 per play. Mostly on TV games, so that they have something to root for.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Ask an oddsmaker how many Acct #s are on their radar. It's not a big %. They fear very little, b/c they have the advantage of 11-to-10.

[DonnieBrasco23]

I’d like to know what your daily approach is.

I have pieced together throughout the last several months that you turned $100 into $100,000 by basically going all in 7 or 8 times or however many times it was. Maybe it was an open parlay, but basically same concept. Regardless, you built a nice roll and I think I’ve seen that you live off gambling now? So what is your approach, i.e. how many games a day, unit size, average juice, is the unit “risk” or “to win” etc etc. Whatever your process is basically. And also feel free to correct anything I’ve said that’s wrong. And hopefully I have the right guy here I’m pretty sure it was you

Right now my daily approach is waiting for football season, NCAAF is my best market. Yeah this year I turned $100 into around $90K with a 10 team open parlay during March Madness. My MLB season has been very up and down. Had my roll all the way up to $120,000, and lost -40K in June.


I been living off my gambling winnings since last football season. Haven’t done an electrical job in almost a year. I’m a selective gambler usually one best bet a day on days I gamble. I bet all my games individually of course, and sometimes I have them tied into parlays.


These bets below are graded on a one unit scale and the average price is around +105. I usually sell points on football spreads for an even money payout. At the moment I’m trying to figure out the best way to play Baccarat. After analyzing hundreds of shoes. This week it has been working.

[Eddy Munny]

Selling points in college football to eliminate one of the books' biggest edges (vig) seems doable. There's enough meat on the bone in that market that moving the line a point or so against yourself shouldn't really affect you in most cases.

[actiondan]

false lie

[JohnGalt2341]

[QUOTE=ChuckyTheGoat;31325378]

We must every successful bettor here if only 1% are collared by books
Hey, Opti. A few things:

1) If we poll the BETTORS on what % are sharp? Well, that's 98%. Everyone is sharp as a tack.

2) If we poll the ODDSMAKERS on what % are sharp? I'll stick with 1%. It's a low figure on LONG-TERM winners.

As to HOW that could be? I'd argue that the SANE bettor has fun with it. It's very much like an entertainment budget. If you bet 40 weeks per year, at $50 per week, that's a budget of $2000 per year.

If you talk to bookmakers, MOST players are really small players. Like $10 to $20 per play. Mostly on TV games, so that they have something to root for.

What % of people on SBR do you think would "say" they are Ahead long term? I'm talking about all types of gambling. I think a lot of people would say stuff like... "I'm behind... but if it wasn't for the slots(or perhaps tables or lottery etc etc...), I would be ahead." I'm also pretty sure that quite a few people would say they are definitely ahead.

I may start a poll.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Good one, John Galt.

If I had to take the Truth Serum on that one, it would be (lifetime):

+$ on Sports. But it's A LOT harder to win versus the modern-line.
+$ on Blackjack (but not a lot). It's A LOT harder to win at Blackjack now.
-$ on Poker (but not a lot). It's a game of Rake. It's mostly a game of enjoyment except for an Elite few.
-$ on variety of Betting games. Mostly punting off small $$ amounts on Horses, Slots, Craps, Roulette, Lottery etc. You name it, everyone (I'm sure) has punted a few Dollars.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Back to John's point. There's one underlying theme. SO MANY people think they're of above-average intelligence.

As if it's that easy to beat the game. Average = Sum/Count. Can't deny mathematics, there's no way that EVERYONE is > Average.

[JohnGalt2341]

Back to John's point. There's one underlying theme. SO MANY people think they're of above-average intelligence.

As if it's that easy to beat the game. Average = Sum/Count. Can't deny mathematics, there's no way that EVERYONE is > Average.

Funny you should mention that, because I started a Poll back in 2012 with this exact theme.

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-talk/1984468-poll-do-you-believe-you-smarter-than-average-person-sbr.html

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Funny you should mention that, because I started a Poll back in 2012 with this exact theme.

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...erson-sbr.html

Ha-ha. Exactly!

Did you account for the fact that SBR only accepts MENSA members and VALEDICTORIANS?

[texhooper]

Jerky nice honest response as I expected.

1% unit usually I take it? Something like that? Did you have like a withdrawal schedule you would stick to, or have you just played that by ear? Sorry for prying, not a lot around here are getting by solely with gambling money and I’m just interested in how you’ve handled it.

[DrunkHorseplayer]

I think it is higher than that.

If less than 2% can profit, why do bookmakers need such tight player management?

Surely over the long run they would be better to keep all of us playing more than trying to stop anyone who looks sharp if that was true...

Because that one player in 50 will bet way more than the average player. That aside, it always behooves the books to identify any winning player; no different than a grocery store keeping track of the small percentage of items that don't sell.

[DonnieBrasco23]

Jerky nice honest response as I expected.

1% unit usually I take it? Something like that? Did you have like a withdrawal schedule you would stick to, or have you just played that by ear? Sorry for prying, not a lot around here are getting by solely with gambling money and I’m just interested in how you’ve handled it.

When I won that big chunk, I was withdrawing up to 10K a week. 3-5% is what I normally use. I don’t mind at all with the questions. Now since I have that money in my possession, my goal every week is to withdraw 3K a week on winning weeks, any extra I would just rollover.

[texhooper]

When I won that big chunk, I was withdrawing up to 10K a week. 3-5% is what I normally use. I don’t mind at all with the questions. Now since I have that money in my possession, my goal every week is to withdraw 3K a week on winning weeks, any extra I would just rollover.

Good stuff man. It’s incredibly rare to get insight and testimony from those who actually make real money doing this. Keep it up man, recharge those batteries and get that bank cranked back up. You are a beacon of inspiration to us all!

[jamesrav]

One thing you have to consider is losing bettors make the most noise. They are easy to see. The winners stay quiet. That was definitely the case at the racetrack for my 30 or so years there. And yes, there were winners there. The same small crowd just about every year. 2-3% long term sounds right too me from my experience.

Considering the track take, I'm amazed anyone betting at the track itself (ie not CAW (computer assisted watering) done off track) via handicapping could be profitable. AYK the take out is 17-22% in most cases. Articles I've read indicate that a group affiliated with the Stronach Group are profitable only due to rebates of probably 10%. That means even they would be losers without the rebates. If they can break-even or be slightly negative before rebate, that 10% extra when betting hundreds of millions is how they make massive profits. Of course only available to them. And consider their advantage: they likely have all inside info on horses (even paying for it is of no concern), and that info is available to nobody else. Supposedly that's how Benter and Woods managed to do the same thing 30 years ago in Hong Kong, it was actually the rebates that made them profitable.

[str]

Considering the track take, I'm amazed anyone betting at the track itself (ie not CAW (computer assisted watering) done off track) via handicapping could be profitable. AYK the take out is 17-22% in most cases. Articles I've read indicate that a group affiliated with the Stronach Group are profitable only due to rebates of probably 10%. That means even they would be losers without the rebates. If they can break-even or be slightly negative before rebate, that 10% extra when betting hundreds of millions is how they make massive profits. Of course only available to them. And consider their advantage: they likely have all inside info on horses (even paying for it is of no concern), and that info is available to nobody else. Supposedly that's how Benter and Woods managed to do the same thing 30 years ago in Hong Kong, it was actually the rebates that made them profitable.

Of the 2 guys in particular I am thinking of, the work put in was a lot. Hours of handicapping, reviewing film, watching warmups, lots of notes, and watching payouts to properly construct tickets. They were very good, but what a tough job with absurd hours sometimes.
The inside information is weak at best, and they know it. You would be amazed at how consistently poor it can be. Horse trainers by and large are typically terrible bettors from my experience.
Ticket construction is rarely well thought out.
The inside info is the most overrated aspect In horse betting IMO. Honestly, it is not what you would think in terms of accuracy.

[DonnieBrasco23]

Good stuff man. It’s incredibly rare to get insight and testimony from those who actually make real money doing this. Keep it up man, recharge those batteries and get that bank cranked back up. You are a beacon of inspiration to us all!

Appreciate the positivity and recognition good luck this football season.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Of the 2 guys in particular I am thinking of, the work put in was a lot. Hours of handicapping, reviewing film, watching warmups, lots of notes, and watching payouts to properly construct tickets. They were very good, but what a tough job with absurd hours sometimes.
The inside information is weak at best, and they know it. You would be amazed at how consistently poor it can be. Horse trainers by and large are typically terrible bettors from my experience.
Ticket construction is rarely well thought out.
The inside info is the most overrated aspect In horse betting IMO. Honestly, it is not what you would think in terms of accuracy.

James and str, this is great stuff. Thank you!

I've read a good bit about Woods and Benter. My understanding is that they took their Projection to the nth degree. They would have a Race Analyst review the tape of each race at least 2x.

They set up their formula. They felt very confident that they were getting value against the tote.

I've actually been to the course in Hong Kong. The amount of $$ in the pool is huge. In Hong Kong betting is very much part of the daily routine. So, the Square % in the pool is very high.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Alan Woods link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Woods_(gambler)