Is there anyone here who net profits 50k+ a year betting sports?

firedawg · 10-09-09, 06:10 PM

no

poker_dummy101 · 10-09-09, 06:13 PM

im guessing 4 people

Intuitive_Edge · 10-09-09, 06:15 PM

im sure they'd come right out on the internet to tell you

pavyracer · 10-09-09, 06:17 PM

JJ but is in rebates.

SlickFazzer · 10-09-09, 06:19 PM

25% back on cash losses. Where the Players play.

firedawg · 10-09-09, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by pavyracer

JJ but is in rebates.

jjgold · 10-09-09, 06:24 PM

Fishhead, Nicky

toastedbread01 · 10-09-09, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by jjgold

Fishhead, Nicky

Goldi"locks"... You are pretty sharp, eh? I need some lessons.

durito · 10-09-09, 10:19 PM

quite a few

TheLock · 10-09-09, 10:21 PM

I think he was referrring to posters on SBR.

I'm skeptical that "quite a few" posters on SBR are net profitting 50K a year.

TheLock · 10-09-09, 10:22 PM

What is your definition of "quite a few".

TPowell · 10-09-09, 10:22 PM

Is anybody here ever better than a 55% capper??

rm18 · 10-09-09, 10:36 PM

[quote=TPowell;2359968]Is anybody here ever better than a 55% capper?

nobody should hit 55% or you need to bet more games. I probably hit over 55% in BTP most of the time but I am not betting 4 games a week.

durito · 10-09-09, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by TPowell

Is anybody here ever better than a 55% capper??

if you can hit 55% at -110 you should be making WAY more than 50k a year.

durito · 10-09-09, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by TheLock

I think he was referrring to posters on SBR.

I'm skeptical that "quite a few" posters on SBR are net profitting 50K a year.

there are surely at least 30

CarpeDime · 10-09-09, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by durito

if you can hit 55% at -110 you should be making WAY more than 50k a year.

I hit 54% this year on MLB totals picking and betting almost every game. I don't have a big bankroll though. Am I leaving $$ on the table?

rm18 · 10-09-09, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by CarpeDime

I hit 54% this year on MLB totals picking and betting almost every game. I don't have a big bankroll though. Am I leaving $$ on the table?

You should be able to easily double your money every season at that rate but if you have a small roll to start not going to be 50k.

Dark Horse · 10-09-09, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by rm18

nobody should hit 55% or you need to bet more games.

Bull sh*t. Bet the games where you have a clear edge. If you want to see your edge evaporate, by all means focus on lowering your winning percentage.

Instead of finding more games with lower winning expectations, find more games with higher winning expectations by improving your methods.

On a sidenote, winning percentage in the NFL and NBA for most people is their ATS record. In my opinion it should exceed 55% (because you only need one bad year to get to the lower threshold...). Once you add MLB and NHL the winning percentage tends to lower because ML picks include more dogs. You don't even need to hit 50% to make money in those sports.

bettilimbroke999 · 10-09-09, 11:16 PM

I won 50 cents last year

Justin7 · 10-09-09, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Bull sh*t. Bet the games where you have a clear edge. If you want to see your edge evaporate, by all means focus on lowering your winning percentage.

Instead of finding more games with lower winning expectations, find more games with higher winning expectations by improving your methods.

On a sidenote, winning percentage in the NFL and NBA for most people is their ATS record. In my opinion it should exceed 55% (because you only need one bad year to get to the lower threshold...). Once you add MLB and NHL the winning percentage tends to lower because ML picks include more dogs. You don't even need to hit 50% to make money in those sports.

I actually agree with rm's statement that no one should hit 55%.

I make far more money via volume on low edge plays (via win rate<55%) than on godzilla plays where the edge is greater.

Dark Horse · 10-09-09, 11:27 PM

I only take that approach when I bet dog moneylines, so in that sense I would agree.

rm18 · 10-09-09, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Bull sh*t. Bet the games where you have a clear edge. If you want to see your edge evaporate, by all means focus on lowering your winning percentage.

Instead of finding more games with lower winning expectations, find more games with higher winning expectations by improving your methods.

On a sidenote, winning percentage in the NFL and NBA for most people is their ATS record. In my opinion it should exceed 55% (because you only need one bad year to get to the lower threshold...). Once you add MLB and NHL the winning percentage tends to lower because ML picks include more dogs. You don't even need to hit 50% to make money in those sports.

Sure you should bet your strong play bigger, but you should bet anything you feel has an edge. Just like any distribution there are going to be way more plays with small edge than medium or large ones. If you pass on good bets you are costing yourself money.

Justin7 · 10-09-09, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

I only take that approach when I bet dog moneylines, so in that sense I would agree.

I'll clarify.

In bets where my perceived edge is 10% or less (including -EV where I screw up), I make 75% of my profits.

In bets where perceived edge is more than 10%, while the ROR is fantastic, it is less than 25% of my annual net.

TPowell · 10-09-09, 11:53 PM

I've hit 59 and 61% respectively in college hoops the past 2 years and 75% towards the end of NCAA football last year (when I started keeping track). Of course I give some back in baseball and other things but I just wondered

bruceBRUCEbruce · 10-10-09, 12:09 AM

I hit 61% one year and made close to 75k.

Dark Horse · 10-10-09, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

I'll clarify.

In bets where my perceived edge is 10% or less (including -EV where I screw up), I make 75% of my profits.

In bets where perceived edge is more than 10%, while the ROR is fantastic, it is less than 25% of my annual net.

There's also the matter of lifestyle. It can be lot of work to bet 2000 games per year. Would life be better with only 500 games? And if 300 of those are moneylines in MLB and NHL, could I identify 200 ATS bets with at least a 60% winning expectation? That would give me a 120-80 outcome right off the bat. What would the bet size have to be to live comfortably off that?

It's a personal choice of balancing different elements. I pass on 54% expectations, unless they're moneyline dogs. Then again, I'm quite sure that you could make more money off my methods.

Another reason that I don't subscribe to the 'theory' (bet more games because 55% is too high) is that it can easily give the wrong impression. For math guys, like yourself, there is no gap between theory and reality. But many people overestimate their winning percentage. For them the broad statement that 55% (I've also seen 54%) is too high can be one of the most dangerous ideas ever unleashed. What if they're off by 2%?

Parligod · 10-10-09, 12:19 AM

100k+ in poker, I'll be thrilled to profit any in sports but I'm still happily learning the ropes here.

lakerboy · 10-10-09, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

There's also the matter of lifestyle. It can be lot of work to bet 2000 games per year. Would life be better with only 500 games? And if 300 of those are moneylines in MLB and NHL, could I identify 200 bets with at least a 60% winning expectation? That would give me a 120-80 outcome right off the bat. What would the bet size have to be to live comfortably off that?

It's a personal choice of balancing different elements. I pass on 54% expectations, unless they're moneyline dogs. Then again, I'm quite sure that you could make more money off my methods.

Excellent Post

pimike · 10-10-09, 12:30 AM

I'm at 68% for the year

JBC77 · 10-10-09, 05:34 AM

Might be 1% of the whole population who can, on a regular basis, garner a $50K annual income betting the sports. The rest just lose. Not sure I would want the stress of trying to make a living gambling. You'd go bald in a year.

jackpot269 · 10-10-09, 06:01 AM

No to the ? About the 50k. Gambling is not a bussinss for me its more like a hobby I basicly only bet foots with a few bets on other sports im usally some were between -1500 to + 1500 at the end of foots most people I know have some sort of hobby like fishing, hunting ext. and spend way more than $1500 a year and some years i win the last 2 years being exceptions last year up some where between $4000 to $5000 and the year before down around $6000 thats really more than I want to invest in my hobby I was glad to get some of my money back last year!

MonkeyF0cker · 10-10-09, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

There's also the matter of lifestyle. It can be lot of work to bet 2000 games per year. Would life be better with only 500 games? And if 300 of those are moneylines in MLB and NHL, could I identify 200 ATS bets with at least a 60% winning expectation? That would give me a 120-80 outcome right off the bat. What would the bet size have to be to live comfortably off that?

It's a personal choice of balancing different elements. I pass on 54% expectations, unless they're moneyline dogs. Then again, I'm quite sure that you could make more money off my methods.

Another reason that I don't subscribe to the 'theory' (bet more games because 55% is too high) is that it can easily give the wrong impression. For math guys, like yourself, there is no gap between theory and reality. But many people overestimate their winning percentage. For them the broad statement that 55% (I've also seen 54%) is too high can be one of the most dangerous ideas ever unleashed. What if they're off by 2%?

Uhh. Aren't you handicapping every game anyway? How else would you find your highest edges? Why would it be any extra work? And what do you mean by "off by 2%"? If your inputs are garbage and your results are garbage, you certainly aren't gonna be "off" by 2% every game. That's what backtesting and paper trading are for...

donjuan · 10-10-09, 08:40 AM

Well what a surprise; more verbal diarrhea from Dark Horse.

ABEHONEST · 10-10-09, 08:53 AM

Here ,meaning on this planet I guess ?
Yes is the answer to your question,and they are all bookies !