Is There Really Any Point to NBA Betting? Or Betting at all?

[arie1985]

I wouldn't call myself a gambling addict - though I won’t pretend I’m immune to the behavior. I’ve been around this forum for years, mostly betting on NBA totals. I’ve never liked spreads, sides, or moneylines. Totals always felt like the purest angle to me.

But here’s the truth: I’ve reached a point where I’m seriously questioning if this can ever be more than just a side hassle. I know some treat betting like a side hustle or even a job, but is it really any different from roulette?

You see a total at 215, it jumps live to 235, you take the under - final score? 270.
Next time, you think you're being smart: "buy low, sell high," right? You take the under at 265 - still loses.
Or the line goes to 220, you grab the over - it ends at 214. It’s like chasing shadows.

And then the classic gambler’s fallacy: two games go under, so the third has to go over, right? Just like watching roulette hit black five times, betting black again - and it lands on red.

After years of doing this, seriously - does it make sense to keep betting? On NBA? On anything?

Would appreciate genuine, no-BS input from people who’ve been around. Let’s keep it real.

[Getch13]

Arie, To put it in its simplest form it's ENTERTAINMENT. When it no longer becomes fun get out. I've been around this for over 50 years. In the old days it was pen and paper breaking down one match-up would take me countless hours, to most people this would be boring which it is at times.

No way do you get rich quick, long slow grind. And you'll question your judgement like you are doing now, over and over the longer you stay in the game.

Wishing you all the best of luck
Getch

[str]

Arie, To put it in its simplest form it's ENTERTAINMENT. When it no longer becomes fun get out. I've been around this for over 50 years. In the old days it was pen and paper breaking down one match-up would take me countless hours, to most people this would be boring which it is at times.

No way do you get rich quick, long slow grind. And you'll question your judgement like you are doing now, over and over the longer you stay in the game.

Wishing you all the best of luck
Getch

The above quote is about as good a post as one might find. Great job with that Gretch !

The point of betting is IMO, like solving a puzzle. If you enjoy the game, play it. But this stuff about making money that most people equate to the same thing has having a job and an income is nonsense.

This should be fun. This should be what you enjoy on a Sunday afternoon or a weekday.
The game of betting is great. But the place people take it to is stupid.

If you enjoy it, treat it like any form of entertainment. Like going to the movies. But you don't go to 5 movies or double up or more and watch 8 movies.
It's not betting that is the problem. It is where people take it that IS the problem.

So, you can control it. It's all a out the outlook. But when it controls you, it is no longer enjoyable. It becomes an addiction .

Own it Arie.

And if you find it owning you, step back and do not allow that. You are smarter than that.

Good ,luck sir.

[Headsterx]

Also, I would reduce the frequency of betting and avoid relying on those gambling fallacies like it’s going win b/c it hasn’t come up yet. But honestly, I do like betting on streaks or trends you catch. When something is hot, it’s hot and I’m betting it. But it took me awhile to grasp the understanding that it doesn’t happen every day nor every week. And there is where money and time management comes into play.

As Getch has stated you should approach it as entertainment. But also we’re here to win money so I would generally ease up on my wager amount. It’s definitely smaller than years ago and though not making the big wins, I’m also not making the big losses. It generally is more entertaining and fun this way when betting at a lower amount and less frequencies.

[Getch13]

Gambling fallacies are misconceptions about how random events like coin flips or roulette spins work. The most common fallacy is the belief that past events influence future independent events, leading people to believe that a "hot hand" or a "cold hand" exists when none does.
The Gambler's Fallacy:

• This fallacy is also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances.

• The most well-known gambling fallacy is the belief that past events, like a coin landing on heads multiple times in a row, make the next event less likely to occur, even though each flip is independent.
• For example, someone might believe that after several heads in a row, tails is "due" to occur.

Other Gambling Fallacies:

• Hot Hand Fallacy:
  .
  This fallacy is the belief that a winning streak will continue.

• Belief in Luck:
  .
  This is the belief that luck is dispositional, meaning that certain things (people, times, numbers, etc.) are consistently favored or disfavored by luck.

• Perceiving Patterns Where None Exist:
  .
  People might mistakenly see patterns in random events, leading them to believe they can influence the outcome of games of chance.

• Belief that Random Events are Predictable:
  .
  Humans tend to dislike randomness and try to rationalize it, leading them to believe they can predict random events.

[Getch13]

By Ion Saliu, ★ Founder of Gambling Science

https://saliu.com/gamblers-fallacy.html

[johnnyvegas13]

I had done well on nba playoffs up until this year

[arie1985]

Good points guys, thank you.

[raiders72001]

Gambling fallacies are misconceptions about how random events like coin flips or roulette spins work. The most common fallacy is the belief that past events influence future independent events, leading people to believe that a "hot hand" or a "cold hand" exists when none does.
The Gambler's Fallacy:

• This fallacy is also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances.

• The most well-known gambling fallacy is the belief that past events, like a coin landing on heads multiple times in a row, make the next event less likely to occur, even though each flip is independent.
• For example, someone might believe that after several heads in a row, tails is "due" to occur.

Other Gambling Fallacies:

• Hot Hand Fallacy:
  .
  This fallacy is the belief that a winning streak will continue.

• Belief in Luck:
  .
  This is the belief that luck is dispositional, meaning that certain things (people, times, numbers, etc.) are consistently favored or disfavored by luck.

• Perceiving Patterns Where None Exist:
  .
  People might mistakenly see patterns in random events, leading them to believe they can influence the outcome of games of chance.

• Belief that Random Events are Predictable:
  .
  Humans tend to dislike randomness and try to rationalize it, leading them to believe they can predict random events.

Agree with a lot of this except the hot hand fallacy. People just don't know how to properly quantify their studies because they don't use the proper subsets. Some players are affected mentally by streaks, some aren't. If you take them as a whole, then you aren't getting proper results. The last time I made a bet on this was when Josh Hamilton was screwed up in the head. He was in a slump and I thought it would continue. Someone argued with me on a hot hand fallacy and we bet on it. I forget exact amounts but I bet he would hit at least 10 points lower than his season average in the next 10 games. That's an extreme and it went way under but sports are an emotional game.

[Eddy Munny]

Gambling fallacies are misconceptions about how random events like coin flips or roulette spins work. The most common fallacy is the belief that past events influence future independent events, leading people to believe that a "hot hand" or a "cold hand" exists when none does.
The Gambler's Fallacy:

• This fallacy is also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances.

• The most well-known gambling fallacy is the belief that past events, like a coin landing on heads multiple times in a row, make the next event less likely to occur, even though each flip is independent.
• For example, someone might believe that after several heads in a row, tails is "due" to occur.

Other Gambling Fallacies:

• Hot Hand Fallacy:
  .
  This fallacy is the belief that a winning streak will continue.

• Belief in Luck:
  .
  This is the belief that luck is dispositional, meaning that certain things (people, times, numbers, etc.) are consistently favored or disfavored by luck.

• Perceiving Patterns Where None Exist:
  .
  People might mistakenly see patterns in random events, leading them to believe they can influence the outcome of games of chance.

• Belief that Random Events are Predictable:
  .
  Humans tend to dislike randomness and try to rationalize it, leading them to believe they can predict random events.

Past events absolutely can and do affect future events in sports... It doesn't guarantee a specific outcome, but the human element present means there exists a more nuanced set of factors unlike the flip of a coin or a spin of the roulette wheel.

[pavyracer]

NBA is rigged so the true art of gambling it is to be on the same site of the fix before you place your bet.

[TommieGunshot]

I find the combination of pay and working conditions to be far better than other job I could be doing.

[stevenash]

NBA is 'rigged' so the true art of gambling it is to be on the same site of the fix before you place your bet.

I prefer 'controlled', but your point is also clear.

The books have been telling us for 100 years that all they want is an equal amount of money on both sides of the action; this way, the books are guaranteed a ten percent profit, to which I call 'bullshit' on.
If the book could pay off a key referee and a player, then why settle on a crappy ten percent percent when they can clear 50 percent?

The history books are littered with NCAA college basketball betting scandals.
Boston College and NYU come to mind; there are a dozen other examples
In the 1940s, there wasn't a worldwide web.
The only forms of information came from rotary telephones, newsprint, and transistor radios.
The television had just been invented, and they were just crude black and white sets that cost around a thousand dollars.
Only the filthy rich could afford them.

The point being that somebody had to blow the whistle, there wasn't much recorded evidence to prove any subterfuge.

Last year, I did some research about the original owners of the NFL. The list is a who's who of unsavory characters.

Grandpa Mara, the original owner of the NY Giants, used to book bets at Aqueduct Race Track in New York City, which is common knowledge. My grandfather used to tell my father that he used to see Mara at the track frequently.
One of the original owners of the Arizona Cardinals, originally out of Chicago, was Al Capone's attorney.
There are other examples, this shit still goes on.

Jimmy Haslam, owner of the Browns, owns Pilot Corporation.
Pilot's business offices were raided by the FBI about 20 years ago on suspicion of tax fraud.
Twenty-five years ago, Eddie DeBartolo, the then-owner of the 49ers, pleaded guilty to paying off Louisiana's Governor to help him secure a Louisiana casino license.

That's not really a good look for the NFL.

[Getch13]

[ChuckyTheGoat]

I find the combination of pay and working conditions to be far better than other job I could be doing.

Tommie:
1) How much bank you make on Sports?
2) What is your top sport to bet?
3) I agree w/ one aspect of your comment. Being your own boss trumps a lot of the value of holding a good-paying job (where you work for someone else).

[TommieGunshot]

Tommie:
1) How much bank you make on Sports?
2) What is your top sport to bet?
3) I agree w/ one aspect of your comment. Being your own boss trumps a lot of the value of holding a good-paying job (where you work for someone else).

1) about double what I could make in the workforce. Plus some more on slots and table games. I'll let you decide if that is because sports betting is so profitable or because of how much corporations exploit their labor.

2) things are always changing. First year fulltime it was football because of how bad opening lines were on Sunday mornings. Then it was basketball just because of how many games there are. Right now it is baseball for obvious reasons. Past 12 months it was hockey because of some problems sportsbooks had with their samegameparlays. Can only speculate about the future.

[ProSportsEdge]

Arie, To put it in its simplest form it's ENTERTAINMENT. When it no longer becomes fun get out. I've been around this for over 50 years. In the old days it was pen and paper breaking down one match-up would take me countless hours, to most people this would be boring which it is at times.

No way do you get rich quick, long slow grind. And you'll question your judgement like you are doing now, over and over the longer you stay in the game.

Wishing you all the best of luck
Getch

Really appreciate you sharing that, Getch. It’s easy to get caught up chasing results, but you’re right—if it’s not fun anymore, it’s time to take a step back.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

I wouldn't call myself a gambling addict - though I won’t pretend I’m immune to the behavior. I’ve been around this forum for years, mostly betting on NBA totals. I’ve never liked spreads, sides, or moneylines. Totals always felt like the purest angle to me.

But here’s the truth: I’ve reached a point where I’m seriously questioning if this can ever be more than just a side hassle. I know some treat betting like a side hustle or even a job, but is it really any different from roulette?

You see a total at 215, it jumps live to 235, you take the under - final score? 270.
Next time, you think you're being smart: "buy low, sell high," right? You take the under at 265 - still loses.
Or the line goes to 220, you grab the over - it ends at 214. It’s like chasing shadows.

And then the classic gambler’s fallacy: two games go under, so the third has to go over, right? Just like watching roulette hit black five times, betting black again - and it lands on red.

After years of doing this, seriously - does it make sense to keep betting? On NBA? On anything?

Would appreciate genuine, no-BS input from people who’ve been around. Let’s keep it real.

This is a great post. Thx to the OP, this has turned into a great thread. Some great replies in here.

Start with where Sports-Gambling falls in your personal Financial Statements. I think there are really two categories but I'll add a 3rd:
1) Sports-Gambling = Entertainment Expense.
...This category is very common. And there's nothing wrong with it.
...Some guys like to go to the movies with their girl. Between the ticket and refreshments, that might be $50 (per week). The $50 might be similar to the average weekly losses your average gambler takes.
...You enjoy watching the games. You have to be in action on Sunday & Monday.
...But the preparation is limited. How are you generating plays? Not much science.

2) Sports-Gambling = Net Income.
...Not many guys fall into this category. Strict requirements to qualify.
...A sports-gambling expert is putting in the hard yards. They're studying the game. They do the preparation.
...They're carving out an edge and submitting +EV plays. There's volatility in results, but they win over time. They turn a profit almost every calendar year.

3) Sports-Gambling = Break-even venture.
...Guy is some mix of #1 and #2. Doe

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Doesn't have the discipline to consistently fall into Category #2. Close

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Close to break-even over time.

[mjsuax13]

It’s a tough game. I’ve been up over $100k and down over $100k. No question I am down long term.

[str]

Well, I am a number 2. But if you are looking for it to be lots of fun , well good luck with that.
It is a mental grind and my way takes a lot of the
“ fun” or pure gamble out of It. it is never for action or a game on TV. Never !
Because it is a grind in sports, I do the NFL, College Football a little but no baseball or baskets anymore.
I do not have the drive to do this year round like I did. Love the NFL so it’s mainly that.
The racetrack I just don’t have time everyday or the desire to be active other than the triple crown, Breeders Cup, and major races. Just too busy.

My horse Thread keeps me interested in those. Occasionally, I’ll follow a situation that is discussed in my thread but that’s usually it .
The good part of the lack of drive is that forcing any play on anything is non existent. If I don’t love it, I don’t play by it which leads to a bit higher of a win percentage with many less plays.
For every bet made since 1980 , I’m up in most categories but The NBA I am down. Haven’t Played it In probably 20 years at this point so that will stand. Up modestly in others but way ahead in the NFL , and the horses. The horses is a little unfair because of my decades working in it. Way ahead but being as it was my career, if I wasn’t it would be humiliating.
While it is rewarding to typically show profit from year to year and certainly decade to decade, I won’t say it is fun other than the fact that the number is up most years. I mean no matter how long you’ve been doing it, not much beats the winning. Very rewarding that being able to do that most years takes place. But again, it never really stops. It’s a lifetime of achievement not a seasonal thing for me.
Hope that makes sense .
Good luck everyone!

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Your post is very good, str. Props on the success. Thx for posting.

For any bet, a good starting point is the tax that we have to overcome:
1) For sports, it's mostly a game of 11-to-10. So, $210 gross is paid out for every $220 risked. Assuming a balanced side of bets, we're down $10 for every $220 bet. -4.5%.

2) For horses, this is the house take. Varies by track and type of bet. If it's 18% on average, that's a huge hurdle to overcome. It's so big of a hurdle, that most sports-bettors are scared off. Too big of a tax for most to even think about profiting.

3) For poker, it's the rake. In tournaments, how much is pulled off from the buy-ins? That's normally 10 to 20%. For cash-games, it's a rake for each hand. If ten players buy in for $100 each, that's $1000 on the table. If rake extracts $60 per hour, you have to figure out how to overcome that.

[dollarbill]

Wolves lose tonight grab the Money Line....Now

[dollarbill]

Lay 10,000 to win 100 or put up 100 to win 3000 what's wrong with this picture?

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Wolves lose tonight grab the Money Line....Now

Sporting results are sometimes so counter-intuitive. You just never know.

[stevenash]

Lay 10,000 to win 100 or put up 100 to win 3000 what's wrong with this picture?

-10000/+3000.
That juice is so ridiculously insane.
It's like being held up without a gun.

[stevenash]

If you had over 270 points in Wednesday's Pacers game and the Wolves tonight laying -40 points in a two-team adjusted line parlay, you can retire right now as a billionaire, sipping exotic cocktails with a little umbrella on your beachfront villa in Tahiti.

It bears repeating, the best line I heard all month came from Jason McIntyre, who said, "You don't have to bet the NBA on a nightly basis, betting on the NBA is a suicide mission."

[arie1985]

1) about double what I could make in the workforce.

The risks/odds/rigging invovled is not worth it, I'd settle for 50% less with a solid job.

[ProCappersTv]

NBA is the easist sport. If you can't beat NBA you can't win brother. Procappers.TV. Baseball because of the volume is easy too

[str]

NBA is the easist sport. If you can't beat NBA you can't win brother. Procappers.TV. Baseball because of the volume is easy too

Oh to be young and cocky.
Watch your six sir, as life is lining you up as we speak.
Hang on, it’s a wild ride with many a lesson to be learned … or not.

[TommieGunshot]

-10000/+3000.
That juice is so ridiculously insane.
It's like being held up without a gun.

If someone bets a favorite at -10000 for $100, then decides they don't want to take the risk, they can buy out of it by betting the other side at +3000 and only lose $2.21, or 2.19%.

If someone bets a team at -110, then decides they don't want to take that risk, they can buy out of it by betting the other side at -110 and lose $9.09, or 4.55%.

[stevenash]

If someone bets a favorite at -10000 for $100, then decides they don't want to take the risk, they can buy out of it by betting the other side at +3000 and only lose $2.21, or 2.19%.

If someone bets a team at -110, then decides they don't want to take that risk, they can buy out of it by betting the other side at -110 and lose $9.09, or 4.55%.

Solid post.

[arie1985]

If someone bets a favorite at -10000 for $100, then decides they don't want to take the risk, they can buy out of it by betting the other side at +3000 and only lose $2.21, or 2.19%.

If someone bets a team at -110, then decides they don't want to take that risk, they can buy out of it by betting the other side at -110 and lose $9.09, or 4.55%.

You seem to analyze the chances from probabality / stats perspective, that could or might work if you know how to play with the numbers and make sense out of them.

For most people gambling is about thinking who's going to win, over/under and such and send the bet, based on a hunch, feeling, watching it, streak etc.

Like I mentioned, if you turn this into your "job" and you like it - go for it ... this is not something I'd enjoy doing, no way I'd get into it. I think the average Joe should not even consider this either, it's not so simple to make money from the numbers, you might need algorithms and softwares to crunch numbers and even then - go figure ... nah, not for me.

I'd repeat - the average Joe doesn't bet in this way. The average Joe shouldn't be betting for "net income".

[arie1985]

2) Sports-Gambling = Net Income.
...Not many guys fall into this category. Strict requirements to qualify.
...A sports-gambling expert is putting in the hard yards. They're studying the game. They do the preparation.
...They're carving out an edge and submitting +EV plays. There's volatility in results, but they win over time. They turn a profit almost every calendar year.

I don't know who are "these" people turning a profit amost every calendar year, a friend of mine owns 20% of Roobet and I know how much he has in his bank, he definitely makes money every year, more than most people can even dream of.

So no, the whole structure of gambling is not built for the gambler to profit. I am not saying it's impossible to be in profits, but the risk involved and the potential reward that could be given - makes me think you'd either be the house - or just avoid it.

I'm talking about over 25 years of gambling experience, I've seen it all.

I used to bet myself with William Hill there would be a goal scored, I'd watch it on online and see a goal scored, I'd be able to bet it and the bet was accepted, I made quite a bunch from it. Today's live betting is not the same, the markets are so much more efficient.

I am not saying avoid gambling if you like it ... if it brings you joy to life or make your life less boring then who am I to preach you otherwise?! I am just saying the odds are properly, very well stacked against you. Now you make your choice however you like it.