Sports Investements

[The Investor]

i still think some of you are missing what im doing. case in point, lets say an NBA team has played 6 straight 0vers. I will automatically bet the Under in this instance on the next game and be prepared to go 6 deep minimum. Do you think the books will keep letting this team beat their number on the Over, for 12 straight. Possible but highly unlikely. They will keep adjusting as the public keeps piling on the Over.

Each play im making is not a random play. We are not flipping coins here.

Good discussion but im going to stay out of it and just post the trades and update the account, as each one closes.

[mathdotcom]

Re: Red_Sux,

Even with a 1 in a million shot of dying, I would not play that game for $1. You consistently make the assumption that the first few times you play Russian Roulette, you can't die, but then suddenly after that it becomes more likely that you'll hit the bullet in the chamber. Let's say you decide that playing RR is a good bet, and you do it 100 times. Why stop then? The chance of you getting shot the 101st time is the same as you getting shot the first time - and you figured it was a good decision then, so why not now?

You hit the nail on the head when you say you'd be willing to play that game as a 90 year old. What you've implicitly said is that as the cost of a loss(death) decreases, the more you'd like to play. The implication for The Investor is that if the cost of the big loss were only $3,000 instead of $10,000 then the system becomes more attractive.

To The Investor:
As more people bet the over, and the books raise their number, then your chance of winning does become a coin flip. The number will keep increasing until the public believes it's no longer a good bet (ie. less than or equal to 50%). Even if the books raise their number higher than expected, the game can still be high especially high scoring.

There's no point in following your progress here, because it can take months before you lose it all. The question is, when you do lose it all, will you have won enough before then to make up for it?

[Red_Sux]

i still think some of you are missing what im doing. case in point, lets say an NBA team has played 6 straight 0vers. I will automatically bet the Under in this instance on the next game and be prepared to go 6 deep minimum. Do you think the books will keep letting this team beat their number on the Over, for 12 straight. Possible but highly unlikely. They will keep adjusting as the public keeps piling on the Over.

Each play im making is not a random play. We are not flipping coins here.

Good discussion but im going to stay out of it and just post the trades and update the account, as each one closes.

colorado went on a 14 games winning streak. imagine if you start betting against them after they win 5 games in a row.

rockets went on a 22 games winning streak.

espn doesn't care about o/u, but i am sure there are streaks there.

[Red_Sux]

Re: Red_Sux,

Even with a 1 in a million shot of dying, I would not play that game for $1. You consistently make the assumption that the first few times you play Russian Roulette, you can't die, but then suddenly after that it becomes more likely that you'll hit the bullet in the chamber. Let's say you decide that playing RR is a good bet, and you do it 100 times. Why stop then? The chance of you getting shot the 101st time is the same as you getting shot the first time - and you figured it was a good decision then, so why not now?

You hit the nail on the head when you say you'd be willing to play that game as a 90 year old. What you've implicitly said is that as the cost of a loss(death) decreases, the more you'd like to play. The implication for The Investor is that if the cost of the big loss were only $3,000 instead of $10,000 then the system becomes more attractive.

if i am old, i'd bored out of my mind. i'd probably buy a speedball and play it for fun.

[The Investor]

Red Sux, you are way off base with your example. I only bet on or against, home stands and road trips. Never team winning streaks on the moneyline. I will bet against a team that is on an (ATS) streak, big difference there.

I dont think you fully understand what im doing here but it will all work itself out, as we progress.

Initial Investment: $10,000

Current Investment: $10,100 (+1.%)

Closed Trades: 2-0 (+$100)

Open Trades:

Trade 1. Betting on the raptors to win one game in their current 4 game home stand. currently down (-$36.25) on the trade. This trade will end after the 4 games, if a win is not achieved before then. This is not an endless martingale on the raptors to win a game. They have 3 more shots at a win.

Trades for tuesday march 25

Trade 4. rangers (-1.60) $40 to win $25
fading the flyers 4 game trip.

Trade 5. Pacers +7.5 (-1.10) $55 to win $50
fading the hornets road trip (ATS). they wont beat the number 5 times in a row on this trip.

Trade 6. Utah -13.5 (-1.10) $55 to win $50
fading charolettes road trip (ATS).

Trade 7. Utah/Char Over 205.5 (-1.10) $55 to win $50
fading charolettes string of 5 straight Unders, prepared to go 6 deep into this, if need be.

no additional trades for tuesday. will check in later.

[treece]

I just took Utah/Char Under 207.5. Had to go with the under at this number.

[The Investor]

maybe it hits 206 or 207 and we both win.

take a look at (Trade 5). it will continue tomorrow night as we will be on the Cav's.

will post later.

[Louisvillekid1]

GL sir,

Ill check bad in a few weeks . . .

[treece]

maybe it hits 206 or 207 and we both win.

take a look at (Trade 5). it will continue tomorrow night as we will be on the Cav's.

will post later.

that would be nice if we both won.

[The Investor]

thanks mate. no worries.

went ahead and played this tonight at the greek, just wanted to document it.

Trade 5. Clev -2 (-1.20) $126 to win $105
this is a continuation of trade 5, in which we are fading the hornets road trip. they are in a back to back in this one against clev at home. i like my chances. half point loser last night. no worries.

back with updates and complete trading log for wednesday, later.

[The Investor]

Initial Investment: $10,000

Current Investment Value: $10,200 (+2%)

Closed Trades: 4-0 (+$200)

Open trades:

Trade 1. Playing on toronto to win one game of a 4 game home stand, to win $25. will resume wednesday night with a moneyline play against detroit. hopefully they will be the dog in this game and we can keep the risk level low. line not posted yet.

Trade 5. Playing against the hornets on their road trip (ATS) to get one loss. trying to win $50. trade resumes tomorrow night, with the wager posted above.
Clev -2 (-1.20) $126 to win $105

Trade 4. Fading the Flyers road trip. currently down $40 in trade. will resume on the 28th. trying to win $25.

New trades for wednesday march 26

Trade 8. Tor/det Over the posted total. to win $50. no line available yet. fading toronto's string of 5 straight Unders.

Trade 9. Minn Wild (-2.00) $50 to win $25.
play on the Wild to get one win, on their upcoming homestand.

that is all for wednesday. ill update again tomorrow, when the det/tor line is posted.

[The Investor]

here is a complete update for wednesday march 26

3/23 Initial Investment: $10,000
3/26 Current Investment: $10,200 (+2%)

Closed Trades: 4-0 (+$200)

Open trades: Trade 1, Trade 3, Trade 5

Investments for March 26

Trade 1) Toronto (ML)(+1.00) $61.25 to win $61.25

Trade 5) Clev -2 (-1.20) $126 to win $105

Trade 8) Tor/Det Over 184 (-1.10) $55 to win $50

Trade 9) Minn Wild (-2.00) $50 to win $25

that is all for wednesday. the trades are outlined in prior posts, if you want to refer to them. Looks as though i have about ($297.25) at risk tonight or roughly (2.5%) of Balance. I believe you will find those numbers, more than adequate, when weighing the risk factors.

Good Day Gentlemen.

[hoopster42]

"the investor", it has a nice ring to it

[Red_Sux]

"the investor", it has a nice ring to it

sounds better than "gambler"

[The Investor]

not much experience in the trading world, eh?

[rake922]

Cle -2 is solid

[Red_Sux]

not much experience in the trading world, eh?

trading is legalized gambling.

[durito]

not much experience in the trading world, eh?

While I appreciate someone approaching this like an investment, your strategy is not in fact an investment.

If your research suggest you should buy a stock at $45 and a stock falls to $45, would you still buy it if the best price you could get was $55?

That's what you are doing by betting teams regardless of price.

Line value is HUGE in basketball, to the tune of 1pt changing your % chance of winning by nearly 4%. Something that's a profitable play at -5, may very well not be at -6.

Short term trends aren't very significant, and whatever significance there is is likely incorporated into the line by the market.

While, I have found plenty of profitable angles betting against or for certain teams on certain types of win/lose streaks, you need to do the research to find those angles and not blindly bet things.

For example, NBA teams that have gone OVER 3 straight games, go OVER 49.7% of the time in their next game. Teams that have gone OVER 4 straight games, go OVER 49.9% of the time in their next game. Teams that have gone OVER 5 straight games, go OVER 49.5% of the time in their next game.

As you can see there is no evidence whats over of it being profitable to blindly bet against teams on OVER streaks (you'll find similar #'s on UNDERS, and Wins and Loses ATS).

All you are doing is the ever popular on the internet right now martingale esque chase system. While the short term chances of showing profitability with this system are high, the long run chances of bankruptcy approach 100%. That treasury bond is starting to look quite nice.

What you are doing is chasing, not investing.

[The Investor]

we agree on that one. not alot of difference, for me the stakes are higher there, the pressure much greater.

this is a passive diversion but one that will be profitable.

i still think there is a definite pattern to the betting world, one in which most havent figured out.

i think what im going to do here has a lot in common with success in the trading world. go in with enough money that you can make small amounts and not get noticed.


once i prove what im doing (to myself), is profitable. im going to increase the investment. no since in not capitalizing, on some major returns.

[The Investor]

durito, appreciate the comments but beg to differ on some points.

i plan on hanging out here for a while, guess we will get to see.

i think its all in the selection of the wagers, i think people keep forgetting that.

if i played against (EVERY) road trip or on (EVERY) home stand, your points would be more valid.

[durito]

That's fine an all, but you CANNOT pick your plays without knowing the line.

If I have a great angle that applies to a game tomorrow but the line is -6 and I feel that including the pts the angle adds, the line should be -5.5, I am making a negative expectation play (assuming my analysis is correct). If the line is -4, then I have a solid play.

You cannot discount line value and payout odds under any circumstance. Adding in the element of chasing and you'd be better off playing craps.

[The Investor]

durito, if i had of wrote my plays in this fashion initially.

Initial Investment: $10,000
Current Investment Value: ($10,068.75) (+0.69%) after only 3 days.

Record: 4-3 (+$68.75) (57.14%)

with todays plays being.

8. toronto (ML) (+1.00) $61.25 to win $61.25

9. Clev -2 (-1.20) $126 to win $105

10. Tor/Det Over 184 (-1.10) $55 to win $50

11. Minn Wild (-2.00) $50 to win $25

if that was all i had said and done here, you would rate me as off to a great start, using good money manangement skills and by the time im finished, you would be calling me a success.

if i had never mentioned any of the other terms and only wrote in this fashion.

[mathdotcom]

Investor,

durito makes very strong points. You seem to admit that in the short run you're highly likely to make a profit, but in the long run, you're almost certainly going to go broke. You always defend your argument based on confidence/faith in yourself. "I plan on hanging in there", etc.

Look, ignore the strength of your picks. Even if you can pick winners 60% of the time, your betting system is still going to bust you soon enough. We're trying to do you a favour here, buddy.

Let's imagine you can pick winners 60% of the time, which betting strategy do you think is best: just betting on each game, or using martingale? In the long run, you'll win just betting on each game, yet you still lose in the long run w/ martingale. So why do it? It's irrelevant how you're choosing your picks - and completely nuts to ignore the lines. Don't you look at the price tag when you go to the supermarket?

[DukeJohn]

durito, if i had of wrote my plays in this fashion initially.

Initial Investment: $10,000
Current Investment Value: ($10,068.75) (+0.69%) after only 3 days.

Record: 4-3 (+$68.75) (57.14%)

with todays plays being.

8. toronto (ML) (+1.00) $61.25 to win $61.25

9. Clev -2 (-1.20) $126 to win $105

10. Tor/Det Over 184 (-1.10) $55 to win $50

11. Minn Wild (-2.00) $50 to win $25

if that was all i had said and done here, you would rate me as off to a great start, using good money manangement skills and by the time im finished, you would be calling me a success.

if i had never mentioned any of the other terms and only wrote in this fashion.

You are correct. Durito is correct. Of course mathdotcom is correct.

There is no getting around mathdotcom's statements. The near certainty is you will fail with your current system, strategy, whatever you call it.

Durito is correct in his assessment, however, you may get around it with proper money management. You of course will loose more in the long run, but it is still doable.

You are correct that if you never used the words chasing or martingale, no one would have probably said anything. You could have waited until, if you did manage to make a good return, come forward with your system.

I believe you are close to achieving your goal. You believe you have discovered something. That is good. However, your current chasing system is too much. You are risking way too much. Furthermore, martingale's will not work. I don't care if you have 1 million in a BR. Your current system could wipe that all out. By all means though, continue. Every investment has it's risks. I will say again, I believe you are close to coming up with a solution, however you need to rethink the entire situation and that is something only a few ever come to understand. IMHO.

I wish you the best.

[durito]

I wouldn't make any assessment about anything after just 7 bets whether the result was 4-3, 7-0, or 0-7.

Get back to me after a few thousand bets.

[Red_Sux]

I wouldn't make any assessment about anything after just 7 bets whether the result was 4-3, 7-0, or 0-7.

Get back to me after a few thousands bets.

at this rate, check back after 2 years.

[DukeJohn]

at this rate, check back after 2 years.

[The Investor]

I am not interested in racking the amount of plays up, to show a large volume. When the situation arises, ill play what is necessary.

Initial Investment: $10,000 (mar 23)
Current Investment: $10,250 (+2.5%) closed trades only
Closed Trades: 6-0 (+$250)
3 trades remain open (Trade 4, Trade 5 and Trade 8)

all 3 will resume on friday march 28.

Unsure if anything new will open on thursday mar 27. back later if they do.

as for the next few days, im going to put something special together just for the baseball season. I think ive learned not to go into great detail about it and just let the plays speak for themselves.

Ill start a separate thread in the MLB room on sunday, just for this.

[mathdotcom]

There's a reason we want to see high volume. Suppose you don't know the odds of winning a coin toss are 50%. If you flip a coin 10 times, you probably won't get a 50/50 split. Do it 1000 times, you'll get a lot closer. Like someone said before... whether a strategy goes 7-0, 3-4, or 0-7 to start off with doesn't mean anything.

[mathdotcom]

Nevertheless, I still like your more scientific approach to betting. I just disagree w/ the science.

[The Investor]

fair enough. ive got a mathematical approach to betting sides in basketball, both college and pro. i might start a thread in one of those rooms.

new trades for thursday

Trade 10) Isles/Pitt Over 5.5 (-1.10) $55 to win $50
fading the isles 5 straight Unders

Trade 11) SJ (-1.50) $37.50 to win $25
fading the stars 4 game road trip

that is all.

[The Investor]

5 day update

Initial Investment: $10,000
Current Investment Value: $10,275 (closed trades only)(+2.75%)
Closed Trades: 7-0 (+$275)

Currently 4 open trades: (4,5,8,10)

trades for friday march 28.

Trade 4) NJ (-1.25) $81.25 to win $65

Trade 5) Boston -6.5 (-1.10) $254 to win $231

Trade 8) Tor/Knicks Over 195 (-1.10) $116 to win $105

that will be all for this evening. no new trades today. several reasons (time factor, risk factor).

i will keep updating this thread and decide, whether to keep posting it. Im getting ready for the MLB season and running a Math Model to finish off the nba season and the playoffs.

Good Day Gentlemen.

[mathdotcom]

May I ask why you're working on a sports investment strategy rather than one on equities?

[The Investor]

just looking to expand more in this market. i thought it could be profitable but from reading alot of posts here, im beginning to wonder. can you not make money here? are you guys not making money?

i dont think this was a popular subject (martingale), even though i think, when its combined with handicapping and not used in a mechanical format, it could be profitable. im considering, dropping this thread (when the open trades are complete) and finish this on my own.

i would like to contribute in the nba room and mlb room here. im working on projects for both at the moment, and coincidentally both involve mathematics.

if this were a forum to trade equities, we could talk about trading them.

[junkman773]

Bol