QUESTION OF THE DAY: Today's question comes from "BJOHN"

 

Nolan:

I consider myself a pretty decent handicapper. But my biggest problem is this……I tend to bet way to many games. I noticed in your NBA article you said how years ago you used to bet the whole board. I said to myself that is exactly what I tend to do.

Can you tell me how you realized this was not the way to do it? I always try to limit my number of games, but can't seem to do it. I'm always thinking if I limit my games I will keep the losers while eliminating the winners.

-- BJOHN

 

 

NOLAN'S REPLY: Let me get right to the point, John. You ask -- what made me realize that betting the whole board "was not the way to do it?"

Easy answer: Paying 'the man' each and every week! That's what did it! I was paying the man so much in terms of vig, just for the sake of being in action that I was neutralizing whatever talents I had at picking games (which was admittedly marginal at the time -- remember, this was 12 years ago). Even on weeks when I was winning, or close to breaking even, since I had played an average of 125-150 games a week -- that was roughly 75 losers, or $750 just in juice at $100 per play. Anybody out there got the kind of nest egg where they can afford to pay $750 a week in juice? That's what kept me from accumulating a bankroll. I was like the little hamster you see in the pet store running on the wire wheel. I was working my ass off, but never going anywhere. Sound familiar?

That really brings up the fundamental question: WHY ARE YOU BETTING ON SPORTS? Is it to make money? Is it for entertainment? Is it for the action? Or, are their deeper psychological reasons?

Most gamblers say they want to make money. But then, they act in ways that are diametrically opposed to proven investment concepts. Betting too many games is only one of several self-destructive habits. My feeling is that if the great façade was lifted from the sports gambling community en masse, very few of sports gamblers actually do this "for the money." Most handicappers already have the necessities of life taken care of, and many bettors live lives of relative affluence. So, if it's not for the money, what is it?

My opinion is that the great majority of sports gamblers bet for two reasons -- (1) to have action, and (2) to satisfy competitive instincts.

Action can also be defined as "entertainment." For instance, it's much more enjoyable (or "entertaining") to watch a sporting event and have money riding on the outcome that to watch a game where you have no vested financial interest. That's obvious. "Satisfying competitive instincts" means that we (primarily males) are acting out the games of our childhood in a more adult magnitude. Since we no longer play childhood games, we now use sports betting (or gambling) as an outlet to exhibit these same human needs and qualities -- for social interaction, intellectual stimulation, and immersion into something larger than ourselves.

Those who bet the board each night are going way beyond the bounds of entertainment or vicarious thrillseeking. They are exposing themselves to some serious personal vulnerabilities -- not just financially, but socially and psychologically. Case in point: How many sports gamblers out there add a West Coast game to their picks rach night, just so they can have a little extra action when the early games are done? You're not alone. In fact, I used to bet all the Hawaii games (NCAA) for just that reason! Instead of being in action -- say from 7:00 until 10:00 pm nightly, by betting games in every single time-zone you can be in action from 7:30 until way past midnight. Then, if one of the games becomes a blowout and interest wanes, the "board bettor" can switch the channel and see a different game being played simultaneously. On weekends, it's even worse. Someone that bets the board can conceivably be in action from noon until past midnight. If you have the bankroll and are going this purely for entertainment, that's fine. But, you are not going to make any money doing this and you might as well face the facts that your weaknesses are going to cost you a fortune. It took me a long time to realize that there was no way I could win by betting the entire card every night. It didn't matter how much I knew the game. I couldn't win.

Naturally, this brings up questions such as -- how many games is ideal? And, how many games is "too many?"

Let's presume there are eight NBA games every night. And, there are 50 college basketball games. Assuming you bet both regularly, is there such a thing as an ideal number of games to bet? Theoretically, the answer to the question is, yes.

The answer is ONE.

If you were to play just one game every night (and skip nights where there appears to be no betting edge), you will probably do very well (assuming you have skill at picking games and apply sound money management principles).

Of course, the reality is that very few bettors are going to apply the most simple of handicapping methodology -- to play your "best bet" of the day and dismiss the other selections.

So, why do I recommend sometimes three, four, or five games a night in the NBA? Why do I pick sometimes as many as ten NFL games on a Sunday? Why don't I pick just one game? I do this for the same reason someone invests in more than one stock, or creates a diverse investment portfolio. If you have compelling reason(s) to make a wager (which I define as having "expected value" based on solid analysis) -- then a wager is justified. This may apply to just one game. This may apply to ten games. It varies. However, the more you get involved in a sport, the more you are apt to recognize those situations that have value. The more apt you are at recognizing value, however, the more challenging it becomes to quantify it. So, sports gambling becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. For example, let's say it's snowing and there are 40 mph winds on an NFL Sunday. Games are being played in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Cincinnati (all are reasonably close -- so this scenario is plausible). Would you limit yourself to only one UNDER bet? Or, would you bet all three UNDERS? Given that other factors were neutral, I'd probably play the percentages and bet all three games. But I couldn't tell you which of the three was the "best bet." Agree?

Here's another analogy: You are a blackjack player. You enter a casino and miracle of miracles! You find a (single deck) 21 table where the playing card company has made an error of epic proportions (go along with me here). Instead of 20 high-value cards in the deck, there are 30 (keep in mind – the more face cards and aces that in the deck, the greater the advantage for the player over the house). Let’s say that the disproportionate number of face cards gives you a theoretical advantage of 5 percent. For every $100 you bet, you will get back $105, for a net profit of $5. I presume, as a gambler, you are going to trample over a chorus line of cocktail waitresses to get a seat at that table. But let’s say the next table also has a warped deck. Instead of the standard 20 high-value cards, this deck has 25 face cards. This gives you a theoretical 2.5 percent advantage. Your EV is not quite as high at the second table as the first, but the game is clearly beatable, as defined. If you have are on a blackjack team, that is – you can spread your wagers around as would be the case with sports betting (since you can wagers as many games as you like) – would you play at just one table, or two? My view is that ANYTIME you have positive EV you MUST make the wager (otherwise you have no business gambling). Split your bankroll in two (perhaps 2-1 ratio) and play at BOTH tables. The person who suggests betting just a few games each week (assuming there is value betting on each and every game) is essentially saying it’s preferable to play at just that one blackjack table. This is wrong. My opinion (which is correct) is that you should play at as many blackjack tables as possible (simultaneously – assuming you have a team and a shared bankroll) and have a mathematical advantage. If there are TEN blackjack tables with corrupt decks, you should play at ALL TEN. Not just the best three or four. It’s the same way with handicapping. This is why I take a more aggressive approach to sports betting than is suggested by conventional theorists.

 The answer for most sports bettors is to find what I call a "happy medium." Find a quantity of games that is comfortable for you in terms of your time and energy. That might mean just one play a day. It may be three plays. Or even ten plays, if you are betting the colleges too and have lots of time to do the research. But remember one thing, THE GREATER THE NUMBER OF GAMES THAT YOU BET, THE MORE TALENTED YOU MUST BE AT PICKING GAMES. Everyone -- depending on his/her level of handicapping skill -- will ultimately cross a threshold that turns a winner into a loser if he plays too many games. A very bad handicapper that picks just one game a night is probably going to go no worse than 40 percent over the long haul. So, his losses will be minimal in relation to his level of skill if he bets just one game per day. If he bets the board, however -- he's going to get destroyed. At the opposite extreme, if we ask Lem Banker (an example of someone that consistently picks winners year in and year out) to BET THE BOARD every night, Banker's percentages are going to drop from the 60 percent range down to very near 50 percent. He might even end up a loser. So, even though Banker is far-superior in terms of talent to the bad sports bettor, their final comparative results will be very close indeed (probably within ten percentage points). The reason: One player played too many games and the other player bet an ideal number of games given his level of talent.

If you are closer to Lem Banker in terms of your handicapping ability, you can generally play more games because your skill (i.e. long term earnings) will overcome paying a higher cost of doing business. If you are less skilled, or a losing handicapper, you must play less games because the more you play, and consequently lose -- the worse off you will be.