Once you realized that you can live a happier gambling life
So... take precautionary measures
So... take precautionary measures
-
-
Wait, this had to be mentioned?Comment -
yes , posters crying over books taking countermeasures against themComment -
Wait, isn't that the whole game?
Why do people complain about it? It means you're doing something right.
With more sharp fish in the waters these days and books becoming ever more liquid and efficient, the game is becoming harder. But that's the fun! Finding books that are established enough to pay you out but weak enough to exploit.
My mentor is shut down across many books but he somehow always finds more. Crushes them. Gets the boot. Repeat.Comment -
Spot Betting is the only way but that is boring
Exchange betting ok but USA not allowedComment -
Nobody wins long term anyway
its a diseaseComment -
Sammy, y do ur own laundry when you can have others wash it for you....Comment -
its my hobbyComment -
Out smart themComment -
Most people have access only to -110 lines therefore tough to win long term
Spot betting takes some of house edge away.Comment -
The other day tried to put $150 on a Soccer bet at Will Hill... they referred it to a trader who offered me $149.60 at the same odds. lolComment -
No shit sherlock.Comment -
Why aren't more members here networking with each other to draw action though different accounts?Comment -
For starters, the average sbr member appears to be dumber than a tree.Comment -
well......Comment -
I'm just reiterating the babble that I hear repeatedly w/ no proof. And even w/o proof, a simple depiction of the distribution across books would provide an insight into the honesty/dishonesty of the statements. O/c, none are ever provided.
It is the same as these think tank threads that go on about the programs they have written backtesting thousands of picks, proclaiming the accuracy of their models... and yet, when such a person is challenged to make a series of picks... that person does so and it becomes undeniably clear that that person has never even attempted to make actual picks and has no idea what he is doing... yet he has all these theoretical bullshit models which are 'incredibly accurate', lol.
It's like listening to a white liberal go on about the merits of certain people, yet that person has never stepped foot in a ghetto, has no experience w/ said people, and has never been to other countries where such people are the majority. They don't know jack about fukking ******, yet they sing their praises, lol.
Never ceases to amaze me.Comment -
that's a better avatar, Ace
got more pics?Comment -
youre trying to bring politics into a thread where there once wasnt the mention of it.
your actually proving to be more weird than stupid.
disturbing.Comment -
thats why no one in the think tank actually says or does anything their best offering are stupid one liners that try to denounce anything anyone says that actually bets sports to make money.
I said it when the internet first started and I still say it if those math guys were so smart and everything they created was really THAT good vegas would have been bankrupted long ago. It had a BRIEF profitable period but that was based on the odds books gave and not the programs people created to 'beat' them. Once the books changed then these so called math models and bullshit stopped being any good at all.
There is still money to be made and these guys will help, but you have to be a guy who bets a virgin number or one that moves the 'wrong' way initially and then buys it back at a no lose position. basically you become a trader or the bookie (but with control over what bets you take).
While you CAN pick one side of a game and make money it simply takes too much in action (with no guarantee) to make any worthwhile profits. Like I said A guy betting 2500 a game and hitting 65% ( which some people would say is impossible) would after 100 games have a profit of 66250 @ -110. I have made almost that much the first month of baseball nearly risk free. And almost that much fading the lakers. And that was just dumb luck mostly because I knew the lakers would be bad I just didnt think they would be historically bad ATS.
But ANY book that is actually using sound book making policies isnt going to care about winners. You need winners just like you need losers, if they arent balancing their action enough then theyre gambling. Gamblers lose, which is the irony of this thread, because most people here are gamblers and thus losers, and why they think it is impossible to win. But REAL books that know how to do it profitably all do well at it, if they didnt they wouldnt be in business.Comment
