"It's better to be lucky, than good....."
Who hasn't heard that credo? Especially as a gambler, you hear it way too often. It actually got me to thinking that maybe it is better to be lucky than good!
If you have gambled for any length of time, you know certain guys who fit one of three profiles:
This is where I believe some people are "born lucky", and others are just the opposite.
I know plenty of folks will scoff at that idea, and
some will say that their hard work and dedication to the lines is what gets it done for them, but I wonder.........
We all know that if you flip a coin a million times, it is highly unlikely to be 500,000 heads, and 500,000 tails. Most trials will fall in the range of a few percentage points either way. This is completely expected, and no one thinks anything of it. Every once in a while, you will have a coin that has a very skewed total of heads or tails. These are the runs that seem to throw probability right out the window.
Now, if we said "heads" was a winning wager, while "tails" was a loss, you would have some very happy people, and some very sad. (and poor!)
I contend that the coins can just as easily represent people. Some are bound to be 'great', while others flounder well below average.
The law of large numbers seems to make this a reality. You want to believe that you will balance out the losses, but if you are one of the "bad coins", it just won't happen for you.
Of course, a coin toss is pretty static in it's ways and results. As a gambler, you can make choices that a coin toss can't. You can attempt to learn, and better your odds in your game of choice. A greater knowledge may lessen the loss percentage to some extent.
Plus, we can alter the value of each game, where as the coin toss has an equal value each and every toss.
That leads to my next point.
Most people lack money management, in a major way!
I have always been an advocate of ranking my wagers by how strong I felt they were, in accordance with the line.
If I felt that the line was way off, I risked more money. A lot of people play this way, but the other camp play the same amount every wager. Now, by subscribing to my coin flip theory, the subset of people who "rank" their plays would also have some guys who get more of their big plays wrong, and others who hit more of the big plays. With all of this in mind, I feel that the vast majority of players do not wager a static amount on each and every game.
Here is my reasoning:
I think that most sports gamblers would agree that they fall in the "average" category.
They don't win too much, but they don't really get "beat up", either. So, if we are all grouped in that pool, why are there so few "winners" when you talk about the money aspect? As a gambling
society, we don't know too many winners at this, do we? Sure.....there are a few, but we know far more people who lose money at this. The vigorish most certainly accounts for a portion of lost dollars, but it can't be held responsible for all of it. Or can it?
"VIG IS A PIG!!!!!!!"
We need to hit 54% of our wagers (based on equal play) to show a profit. If our "coin flips" involve an average discrepancy of heads and tails equal to 5% either way, that means you will fall between 45% winners, and 55% throughout your wagering life. I don't need to tell you that if you fall in 90% of that range, you are a failure! If you made it into the 10% that "made money", you still don't have much to show for it, in most cases.
In my opinion, if you bet the same amount every time, you are destined to lose......You just can't overcome the juice! So, even by "managing your money" by placing the same bet every time, you can't win. That leaves "rated" betting, or "units", or whatever you choose to call them.
Unless you are able to hit a great majority of bigger wagers, this method will put you in harm's way quicker than the straight wager will, but even hitting the big wagers will only slow your demise, not prevent it. I just don't think you can overpower the 'vig', when it comes to sports betting.
If you look at it this way, it is easy to see why books make cash, and we are looking for re-load bonuses!
Unless you are one of the very few who where "born lucky", you are ultimately pissing into the wind.
Just my opinion, but I told myself it's a damned good one!
Who hasn't heard that credo? Especially as a gambler, you hear it way too often. It actually got me to thinking that maybe it is better to be lucky than good!
If you have gambled for any length of time, you know certain guys who fit one of three profiles:
- The Average Joe
This is most everyone who gambles. They win some, and they lose some. Year in, and year out, they are in the group that really gets no special recognition.
They don't deviate much from the 50/50 range, no matter how many bets they make, or how many years they play. They just flounder in mediocrity.
- The Lucky Fukker
This is the guy who is always right! He just can't seem to lose! He is most often a smallish bettor who plays 'here and there', because if he played too much, the vig would eat him up just like nyone else, but he plays often enough that veryone knows him.
- The Lost Cause
This clown is everyone's dream! Everyone here knows this guy! Some of you might be fortunate enough to know a couple of guys like this.
He can't pick the winner of a one horse race, but stays in there swinging, just like a heavyweight with an 0-27 record.
He is the guy at work, the club, the bar, school, etc who loves to run his mouth about "tonight's game". He doesn't have his own account or
bookie, but loves to place his action with a friend who has an 'out'.
Outsiders would find him annoying as hell, but the smart guys all know that he is a gold mine, and will treat him like a king.
"Who you on tonight?"
"Are you kidding? Old U is a lock! Only giving up 8? They will win each quarter by eight!"
As soon as Sappy is out of earshot, all of his "friends" bust out laughing! They know, the game is in the bag........
Far more often than not, they are right about Sappy's plays.
This is where I believe some people are "born lucky", and others are just the opposite.
I know plenty of folks will scoff at that idea, and
some will say that their hard work and dedication to the lines is what gets it done for them, but I wonder.........
We all know that if you flip a coin a million times, it is highly unlikely to be 500,000 heads, and 500,000 tails. Most trials will fall in the range of a few percentage points either way. This is completely expected, and no one thinks anything of it. Every once in a while, you will have a coin that has a very skewed total of heads or tails. These are the runs that seem to throw probability right out the window.
Now, if we said "heads" was a winning wager, while "tails" was a loss, you would have some very happy people, and some very sad. (and poor!)
I contend that the coins can just as easily represent people. Some are bound to be 'great', while others flounder well below average.
The law of large numbers seems to make this a reality. You want to believe that you will balance out the losses, but if you are one of the "bad coins", it just won't happen for you.
Of course, a coin toss is pretty static in it's ways and results. As a gambler, you can make choices that a coin toss can't. You can attempt to learn, and better your odds in your game of choice. A greater knowledge may lessen the loss percentage to some extent.
Plus, we can alter the value of each game, where as the coin toss has an equal value each and every toss.
That leads to my next point.
Most people lack money management, in a major way!
I have always been an advocate of ranking my wagers by how strong I felt they were, in accordance with the line.
If I felt that the line was way off, I risked more money. A lot of people play this way, but the other camp play the same amount every wager. Now, by subscribing to my coin flip theory, the subset of people who "rank" their plays would also have some guys who get more of their big plays wrong, and others who hit more of the big plays. With all of this in mind, I feel that the vast majority of players do not wager a static amount on each and every game.
Here is my reasoning:
I think that most sports gamblers would agree that they fall in the "average" category.
They don't win too much, but they don't really get "beat up", either. So, if we are all grouped in that pool, why are there so few "winners" when you talk about the money aspect? As a gambling
society, we don't know too many winners at this, do we? Sure.....there are a few, but we know far more people who lose money at this. The vigorish most certainly accounts for a portion of lost dollars, but it can't be held responsible for all of it. Or can it?
"VIG IS A PIG!!!!!!!"
We need to hit 54% of our wagers (based on equal play) to show a profit. If our "coin flips" involve an average discrepancy of heads and tails equal to 5% either way, that means you will fall between 45% winners, and 55% throughout your wagering life. I don't need to tell you that if you fall in 90% of that range, you are a failure! If you made it into the 10% that "made money", you still don't have much to show for it, in most cases.
In my opinion, if you bet the same amount every time, you are destined to lose......You just can't overcome the juice! So, even by "managing your money" by placing the same bet every time, you can't win. That leaves "rated" betting, or "units", or whatever you choose to call them.
Unless you are able to hit a great majority of bigger wagers, this method will put you in harm's way quicker than the straight wager will, but even hitting the big wagers will only slow your demise, not prevent it. I just don't think you can overpower the 'vig', when it comes to sports betting.
If you look at it this way, it is easy to see why books make cash, and we are looking for re-load bonuses!
Unless you are one of the very few who where "born lucky", you are ultimately pissing into the wind.
Just my opinion, but I told myself it's a damned good one!
Last edited:
