[MikeTizzy]

i agree 100%, there's a ton more stats to show for "overall" performance. And these straight forward records and units is not enough.
Even though, everyone seems to only care about that. I just dont feel like writing all the knowledge out there, mr. sharp cookie!
more importantly, is your RoI (return of investments) on wagers, and how efficient you hit ur "locks" and how u grade ur probability (own odds) of hitting. A lot of investment principals, whether is trading commodities, poker, binary options, sports. Through financial stats and how its gain its utmost important. Investors pay top dollars for this stuff!!
I do know this very well, and thanks for acknowledging talent and success. I really dont feel like on an internet gaming forum, to put out my years of hard work, for what?! if you catch my drift.

[hutennis]

Look, it is not really that complicated. And you dont have to give out any secrets of yours.

All you need to do to make a fair presentation of your record is to include IP and units weightings.

Otherwise it can be interpreted as misleading.

I have no interest in baseball, but for this discussion i looked at MLB spreads. About 100 games or so.
It is not a lot, but I think it is representative enough.
Avg IP for those spreads was 59/41, meaning that my dog can bet spread favorites and be 59% winner by definition.
It would be an expected result. No luck or skills needed.
If it runs a little hot betting large enough or gets a little lucky while "timing" units amounts (winning larger bets and losing smaller ones) it would have numbers comparable those you posted fairly easy.

My only point is that just by looking at your numbers it is impossible to say that you are not doing the same thing.
In fact, Occam's razor commends me to assume exactly that, since it is much simpler explanation of your success
than assuming that you are one of a very, very few who are able to beat one of the toughest markets out there.

Again, logic, common sense and critical thinking.

[Sawyer]

Hutennis is very jealous, lol.

[nelly0]

Even if he's willing to pay like he said? That's the "something in return" here isn't it?

Nobody is going to help you that you'd want help from without something in return. If you have nothing to offer (e.g. excellent programming skills to help them automate their models) then you're probably not going to get much help. An alternative is to put in your work on your own and when you come to a very specific problem that you can post details about, solicit opinions then. There are no mentors in sports betting; why educate the competition?

[nelly0]

Reading through the thread this doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Coming from a poker background where coaching/mentoring relationships like this for pay are common why is this any different for sports betting?

[hutennis]

Reading through the thread this doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Coming from a poker background where coaching/mentoring relationships like this for pay are common why is this any different for sports betting?

What doesn't seem to make much sense is that coming from a poker background, where you supposed to be able to solve much harder problems (probability analysis, relative range calculations, "tells" interpretations just to name a few) on a fly, you are unable to answer such a simple question on your own.

Would you like give it another try and think a bit more or you give up?

[MDRTYson]

Chase systems are a guaranteed ticket to bankruptcy. Learn how to program. If you're not willing to do that, then you should expect to lose long term.

Is this generally accepted within the community in this day & age? That you must know how to program or run some other form of automated data analysis to win long-term?

This is an honest question. Curious to hear others weigh in.

This is my first year of baseball betting and I'm up approximately 18.5 units on the year. This is with zero computer-aided analysis (I obviously use the Internet to find data but have no spreadsheets/programs or equations to aid me in making my picks).

I play 1-5 games a day and have been doing well so far but realize its very early in the year and that I have A LOT to learn. Just curious if most agree there must be an exact system and computer analysis to win long term.

[byronbb]

Reading through the thread this doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Coming from a poker background where coaching/mentoring relationships like this for pay are common why is this any different for sports betting?

Ya and what happened to poker? The average player got WAAAYYY better. Edges in sports betting are small. Giving it away makes it more so. Guys who spend hundreds of hours doing models don't just give it away for obvious reasons.

[hutennis]

Is this generally accepted within the community in this day & age? That you must know how to program or run some other form of automated data analysis to win long-term?

In order to win long term you need an edge over those who set the odds at any given point.

Method for setting odds is automated data (all kinds of data) analysis.

If automated data analysis is your method also, then your method has to have an edge over
the method used for setting the odds.

You simply must do something better.
Either you gotta have better data, or new information must come to you first, or you must be a better programmer, or you must know some sort of statistical analysis that those who set the odds are unaware of.
I don't know. Something's gotta give.

You can take this logic from here. Anywhere you want.

Oh, btw, what do you think is the simplest explanation for your 18.5 units?

[MDRTYson]

In order to win long term you need an edge over those who set the odds at any given point.

Method for setting odds is automated data (all kinds of data) analysis.

If automated data analysis is your method also, then your method has to have an edge over
the method used for setting the odds.

You simply must do something better.
Either you gotta have better data, or new information must come to you first, or you must be a better programmer, or you must know some sort of statistical analysis that those who set the odds are unaware of.
I don't know. Something's gotta give.

You can take this logic from here. Anywhere you want.

Oh, btw, what do you think is the simplest explanation for your 18.5 units?

I am not following your position on my question. Obviously, anyone would agree that if I'm using an automated system and you're using an automated system, you have a vig and I don't, then my automated system better have a consistent edge if I'm expected to win. But that wasn't the question.

My feeling on why I'm ahead thus far: Very well could be dumb luck frankly. I'm disciplined and consistent on which few games I bet and I'm betting them on only a few criteria.

[hutennis]

I am not following your position on my question. Obviously, anyone would agree that if I'm using an automated system and you're using an automated system, you have a vig and I don't, then my automated system better have a consistent edge if I'm expected to win. But that wasn't the question.

Your question was

Is this generally accepted within the community ... that you must know how to program or run some other form of automated data analysis to win long-term?

Assuming such a consensus exists, based on a arguments I've presented and you've agreed with, would you consider this consensus
valid and reasonable?

My feeling on why I'm ahead thus far: Very well could be dumb luck frankly. I'm disciplined and consistent on which few games I bet and I'm betting them on only a few criteria.

Here you actually gave two explanations

First - dumb luck - is the simplest and does not require any additional assumptions.
Second - you are disciplined, consistent and betting with only few criteria - needs additional explanation.
We need a proof that discipline, consistency and small numbers of signals triggering the bet can actually produce mathematical edge. Simple fact of winning can not be considered as proof, obviously.

Without such a proof the simplest explanation stands.

[MDRTYson]

I asked a fairly simple question. I'll rephrase it though and break it up:

"To the best of your knowledge, do the large majority of successful bettors now use some type of computer-aided analysis when deciding what bets they place?"

AND/OR

"Are there still guys around that can be expected to win by analyzing their own data without computer aid?"

My statement wasn't that "hey, I'm up 18 units, you don't need computers guys!"

I wasn't making an argument, nor was I questioning why I've been successful so far. Why you asked a question to steer it that way, I'm not sure. Seems you like to argue.

[hutennis]

I asked a fairly simple question. I'll rephrase it though and break it up:

"To the best of your knowledge, do the large majority of successful bettors now use some type of computer-aided analysis when deciding what bets they place?"

AND/OR

"Are there still guys around that can be expected to win by analyzing their own data without computer aid?"

My statement wasn't that "hey, I'm up 18 units, you don't need computers guys!"

By rephrasing you made it a bit different but that's ok.

To this one

To the best of your knowledge, do the large majority of successful bettors now use some type of computer-aided analysis when deciding what bets they place?

Only 2, maybe 3% of people involved in sports are winners.

Some of them are just lucky, some are winning using other then handicapping methods (manipulation, inside information, line shopping, arbitrage, trading etc.) and some are genuinely successful handicappers who are using computer-aided analysis.
Are they the large majority of successful bettors? I can't say for sure, obv., but I doubt it. I think the second group is by far the largest.

The good question would be:

"What chances random person has to become genuinely successful handicapper who is using computer-aided analysis?"

I think Bob Voulgaris said it very well.

When asked:

"So you think basketball is still beatable for 8-9% ROI?"

His answer was:

"I think basketball is still beatable by me for 8-9% ROI per year. There is a big difference between beatable by someone who has probably spent upwards of 3m on research and development and 10 years experience vs "beatable".

I think substitution of 8-9% with pretty much any positive number would not make much difference in answer.

To this

"Are there still guys around that can be expected to win by analyzing their own data without computer aid?"

No way!

I wasn't making an argument, nor was I questioning why I've been successful so far. Why you asked a question to steer it that way, I'm not sure. Seems you like to argue.

I was not asking question to stir anything. I was simply curious about your opinion on the reason for your success so far. That's it.
You ask questions, I ask questions. What's wrong with that?

[EXhoosier10]

"To the best of your knowledge, do the large majority of successful bettors now use some type of computer-aided analysis when deciding what bets they place?"

If you're talking successful recreational sports bettors, I would say no, the majority don't use a model/have any programming
If you're talking about successful professional sports bettors, I would answer yes, the majority do have a model/use programming.

All else equal, a bettor with programming skills and a model is likely, over the long run, to outproduce someone without said things as their methodology will be more consistent. The non-computer savvy bettor will be more prone to chasing and mood swings that affect unit sizes on his bets. Maybe he's on a "hot streak" and raises his stakes even though his perceived edge is the same.

On top of that, though, and what i think is much more important, is that I am able to pull in all of the data I need to look at on a daily basis in less than a few minutes. For the average bettor without computer skillz, his same analysis, searching for each individual pitcher, each team stat, etc, could take upwards of an hour. Assuming you value your time, the time spent learning/writing code is likely going to be less than the amount you would otherwise spend over 180 days capping each game individually.

[matthew919]

To this
"Are there still guys around that can be expected to win by analyzing their own data without computer aid?"
No way!

I believe there are a select few that can do this- there are certain kinds of data which are far more easily processed by the human brain than by a machine learning algorithm. For instance, RAS claims that he's not really a stats guy. He's old school- just learns the small conference teams better than any linesmaker can possibly know, by outworking them. But that's a relatively small market, with much more beatable lines. It won't help you much for a sport like MLB, in my opinion.

I certainly would never attempt that sort of approach- for one, it requires far too much time and effort, and I'd prefer to get rich by spending a half hour a day at most on my analysis. Plus, qualitative thinking is just not my strong suit.