Handicapping Forums

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,077
1,357
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
I don't know what you guys think, but win or lose, do you guys really take people seriously that bet over 100 football games through the first five/six weeks?

I'm not bashing those of you that bet 20+ games a weekend, I just don't understand who could follow you. Even if you have a winning record, I can't really say anything about your selections because I can't see how in the hell you are going to keep it up. With the amount of losers you post, it's almost like posting a limited version of lines you could find in the paper.

I just don't get it, I guess. Any year I've bet more than my best bets each weekend has been a losing year.
 

yyz

Under .500
Forum Member
Mar 16, 2000
42,961
2,080
113
On the course!
This is no different than hanging out in a bar, except there are no drinks being served.

You hear a million guys talking about what they bet, and what the bet on.

(And the same guys can't find their checkbooks when they owe $50 to someone on here......go figure.)
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,077
1,357
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
some for action some for profit..not many do it for a living..do you?:shrug:

Hell no, I don't do it for a living. I was just asking a question. I know a lot of people follow others here, but I just have to wonder if anyone else looks at some of these prolific bettors the way I do.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,077
1,357
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
What would you think is too many per week?

Honestly, I think 5 plays a day woud be the absolute max for Saturday and Sunday players.

There are guys on here that supposedly do it for a living and they make double digit plays both days, I don't know how they do it, but apparently they do it and do it well enough to live off of.

I know some people around here are playing for serious money, I just don't see how it could possibly make that kind of sense to spread it across that many plays...unless, of course, it was really chump change that you were playing with.
 

Blackman

Winghead
Forum Member
Aug 31, 2003
7,867
42
48
New Jersey
I've thought the same. Some people must have bankrolls of 200k for gambling or their unit amount is single digits. Either way I don't understand how anyone could have the time to research plays and pump out close to 100 per week, just not my style I guess.

To each his own.
 

Agent 0659

:mj07:
Forum Member
Dec 21, 2003
17,712
243
0
51
Gym rat
To this point in the NFL, I have made 79 bets.

Would you rather be 12-8 (60%) or 48-31 (60%)? The key to making money gambling (in my mind), is applying a small advantage many times over. Casinos are the master at this. That 1% house edge in Craps isn't much, but applied a million times over, it sure adds up! This is how I approach betting.

That being said, I don't bet much. I had my run at a younger age when I would fire up to $1,000. Now? My standard bet is $25-$50. Can I afford more, absolutely, but that isn't the point.

I know guys that pick 2 games early, 2 late, hoping to never go 0-2, they split mostly, and once in a while go 1-1 and the juice eats them alive. That's why price shopping is so key to being successful long term. You're paying a dime to flip a coin for a dollar. If you can pay a nickel it sure helps! If you can go 12-8, you can make a hell of a lot more being 48-31.
 

TontoKowalski

BoomOuttaHere
Forum Member
Apr 26, 2008
1,927
0
0
U.S. American
I bet a lot of games because I honestly feel I know the NFL well enough to be a winner if I stay disciplined and play most of the games. I will lay off games that don't look attractive, but chacnes are I will bet an outcome rather than not.

To me it's akin to sitting at a poker table where you know you are a better player than the rest of the table. You are going to play "sub-prime" (hehe) hands just to see the flop cuz you can outplay them.

Now in college, I'm much more likely to focus on a lower % of the games, but still put in a lot of action.
 

Handi Capper

'That Said'
Forum Member
Apr 8, 2004
11,661
414
83
66
northern Ky
To me it's akin to sitting at a poker table where you know you are a better player than the rest of the table. You are going to play "sub-prime" (hehe) hands just to see the flop cuz you can outplay them.

:shrug:

i out play my bookie after game starts all the time:confused:
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,077
1,357
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
Chad: I guess you are kind of making my point when you talk about the house edge. I'm glad you are making a nice profit playing that many games per week, I just struggle with people folowing those players.

Using the numbers you posted (20 games vs 79 games) at $110 per game, you'd be risking $2200 to win $2520 or $8690 to win $10080. 60% is a helluva clip in sports betting, I'm just not willing to risk that kinda money to get there. And, for what it's worth, $110 per game is not what a lot of these guys purport to be betting.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,077
1,357
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
I bet a lot of games because I honestly feel I know the NFL well enough to be a winner if I stay disciplined and play most of the games. I will lay off games that don't look attractive, but chacnes are I will bet an outcome rather than not.

To me it's akin to sitting at a poker table where you know you are a better player than the rest of the table. You are going to play "sub-prime" (hehe) hands just to see the flop cuz you can outplay them.

Now in college, I'm much more likely to focus on a lower % of the games, but still put in a lot of action.


Tonto: You should try the Station Casinos or Hilton Contest for a full season. You pick 5 games a week. From my experience in the Station Contest, you can cash if you roll in around 56%. Lots of people putting up $1000+ coming in below the number. NFL is a tough nut to crack, if you can beat it, try the contests.....good payoff for the risk.
 

Agent 0659

:mj07:
Forum Member
Dec 21, 2003
17,712
243
0
51
Gym rat
If people go broke, it won't be because they can't pick winners; it will almost certainly be due to bad money management.

That's the absolute fact. Most people on this board could pick between 55-58% ATS. However, managing the $$$ along the way, well.....:sadwave:
 

Agent 0659

:mj07:
Forum Member
Dec 21, 2003
17,712
243
0
51
Gym rat
A CRASH COURSE IN VIGORISH
...AND IT'S NOT 4.55%

Who Pays?...How Much?


///

Chances are, if you ask several different sports bettors what percentage they pay their bookmakers you'll get several different answers, and, chances are, most of those answers will not be ringing with confident finality. Even battle-worn veterans who flatly answer "Four-and-a-half percent" are really operating with a false understanding of what's going on. Contrary to what many veteran gamblers believe, almost no one actually pays 4.55% in bookmakers' commissions.

Many bettors are also operating under the fallacy that losers pay vigorish. The fact is - as explained below - losing bettors actually play for free. Only winners pay vigorish...And it's not 4.55 percent.

WHO PAYS HOW MUCH VIGORISH?

In sports betting when risking 11 to win 10, vigorish is deducted from winnings, not added to losses. (See text below.) Figures below show that only the bettor who wins exactly half his bets pays 4.55% in vigorish. Everyone else pays something different. The higher your winning percentage, the higher the percentage of vigorish you must pay. Successful sports bettors who win more than 55% of their bets actually pay more than 5% in vigorish. Whenever you win a bet when risking 11 to win 10 the bookmaker charges you 9.1% of your winnings.
W-L...VIG% W-L...VIG% W-L...VIG% W-L...VIG%
0-100...0.00% 25-75..2.27% 50-50..4.55% 75-25..6.82%
1-99...0.09% 26-74..2.36% 51-49..4.64% 76-24..6.91%
2-98...0.18% 27-73..2.45% 52-48..4.73% 77-23..7.00%
3-97...0.27% 28-72..2.55% 53-47..4.82% 78-22..7.09%
4-96...0.36% 29-71..2.64% 54-46..4.91% 79-21..7.18%
5-95...0.45% 30-70..2.73% 55-45..5.00% 80-20..7.27%
6-94...0.55% 31-69..2.82% 56-44..5.09% 81-19..7.36%
7-93...0.64% 32-68..2.91% 57-43..5.18% 82-18..7.45%
8-92...0.73% 33-67..3.00% 58-42..5.27% 83-17..7.55%
9-91...0.82% 34-66..3.09% 59-41..5.36% 84-16..7.64%
10-90..0.91% 35-65..3.18% 60-40..5.45% 85-15..7.73%
11-89..1.00% 36-64..3.27% 61-39..5.55% 86-14..7.82%
12-88..1.09% 37-63..3.36% 62-38..5.64% 87-13..7.91%
13-87..1.18% 38-62..3.45% 63-37..5.73% 88-12..8.00%
14-86..1.27% 39-61..3.55% 64-36..5.82% 89-11..8.09%
15-85..1.36% 40-60..3.64% 65-35..5.91% 90-10..8.18%
16-84..1.45% 41-59..3.73% 66-34..6.00% 91- 9...8.27%
17-83..1.55% 42-58..3.82% 67-33..6.09% 92- 8...8.36%
18-82..1.64% 43-57..3.91% 68-32..6.18% 93- 7...8.45%
19-81..1.73% 44-56..4.00% 69-31..6.27% 94- 6...8.55%
20-80..1.82% 45-55..4.09% 70-30..6.36% 95- 5...8.64%
21-79..1.91% 46-54..4.18% 71-29..6.45% 96- 4...8.73%
22-78..2.00% 47-53..4.27% 72-28..6.55% 97- 3...8.82%
23-77..2.09% 48-52..4.36% 73-27..6.64% 98- 2...8.91%
24-76..2.18% 49-51..4.45% 74-26..6.73% 99- 1...9.00%

(Figures assume all bets are same size)
100-0...9.09%

The bookmaker's rather unique commission has no precise English definition, but the French word for it is "vignes." American gamblers have long since converted "vignes" to "vigorish," or to just plain "vig." Nevertheless, the bookmaker's fee is as much a commission as a broker's fee for handling a stock transaction or a Realtor's fee for handling a real estate deal. To account for this commission on standard pointspread wagers or over/under wagers, at traditional bookmakers for every $10 a bettor wants to win he is required to risk $11 - to "lay" $11. (Many internet bookmakers now charge less, allowing bettors to risk as little as 10.5 to win 10, but for our purposes here we will use '11-10' bets.) These 'eleven-ten' bets lead many gamblers to conclude that they are paying the bookmaker a commission of 10 percent if they lose a bet, but that they pay nothing if they win.

That's not correct. Here's how it actually works: Say two bettors each risk $110 with the same bookmaker on opposite sides of the same proposition, each bettor trying to win $100: The bookmaker receives a total of $220 from the two bettors. One bettor wins, one bettor loses, and the winner picks up a total of $210; - the $110 he put at risk, plus his $100 profit. That leaves the bookmaker with $10 gross profit as his vigorish on the deal. The bookmaker kept $10 of the $220 total amount risked.

That's a service charge of 4.55 percent. Had the two bettors each risked $110 against the other without using the services of the bookmaker, the winner would have walked away with $220 instead of $210. The bookmaker kept 4.55 percent of that $220. The amount risked by each bettor was $110; not 100 dollars.

($10 divided by $220 = .0455)

So the bookmaker does, indeed, charge 4.55 percent of the total amount put at risk by both bettors...But be sure to note which bettor paid both bettors' share of the vigorish. It was not the loser. The loser - since he lost the bet - would have lost whatever he put at risk, with or without the services of the bookmaker. The winner paid. The winnings, which would have been $110 without using the services of the bookmaker, were shorted by ten dollars - 9.1 percent.

($10 divided by $110 = .090909091)

The winner got back only 191 percent of the amount he put at risk.

($110 x 1.90909091 = $210)

This is also the way it works in virtually all other casino games, such as craps, roulette, baccarrat, blackjack, and even slot machines. When a loser loses, he loses what he puts at risk, of course. In roulette, for example, someone betting on an 'even-money' proposition (red or black, high or low, odd or even) and losing, loses his bet, whatever he risked, period. But someone winning an 'even-money' roulette proposition does not get paid the 'fair' odds of 10-to-9. (There are 20 ways to lose an even-money bet at roulette and only 18 ways to win. The odds are 10-9 against you.) The winner only gets paid 1-to-1 odds. In all these table games, the winner pays the vigorish.

Of course, in a larger, more philosophical sense losers not only pay the vigorish but also the light bills of the casino and the salaries of the casino employees and all the other expenses of the casino. But we're not addressing philosophy here. We're addressing how the business of gambling actually 'works'. This is no place to play with words and semantics. Vigorish is deducted from winnings.

It is important to understand this point. You can be sure most bettors don't. In effect, the bookmaker becomes a partner of the winning bettor. Understanding this point is important when figuring the real cost of various sports betting opportunities, including parlays. (See our article, Parlays & Profit.) For example, laying 12-to-10 is a one-way ticket to the poorhouse. Laying 12 to win 10 costs the winner a whopping 16.67% of his winnings.

The illustration accompanying this text (above) shows precisely the cost of vigorish when dealing with 11-10 bets. Notice that since the winning bettor is always charged for the vigorish, the higher the percentage of bets won, the higher the percentage of vigorish paid. It might help if you picture what happens this way: If you lost all 100 of 100 bets, you would lose 100 percent of the amount put at risk - with or without the services of a bookmaker - but if you won all 100 of 100 bets, you would win only 91 percent of the total amount you were required to risk.

In those two extreme cases, the 0-100 loser would have played for 'free' while the 100-0 winner would have paid more than 9 percent in vigorish. Notice also that even though the bookmaker's commission is 4.55 percent, it is only the bettor who wins exactly half his bets who pays precisely 4.55 percent in vigorish. Everybody else pays something different. In order to break even you must win 53 percent of your bets - assuming the sizes of all your bets are exactly the same - and in order to win 53 percent of your bets, you must pay 4.82 percent in vigorish. Successful sports bettors who win more than 55 percent of their 11-10 bets typically pay more than 5 percent in vigorish.
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
Gmroz -- I disagree completely with your perspective here. Why would I want to limit my earning potential by limiting plays? In fact, it bothers me when my initial screen of the games produces only a few leans, because I am aware that 12-8 pays more than 6-4. It should be noted that I am confident that I can select at least 55% winners in ncaafb over the course of a full season. Since I am not as confident in my capping in the MLB and NBA, I play way less games. Were I to do this professionally, I would risk an equal amount on every game where I see an advantage. The more wagers where I hold an edge over the house, the better I feel.

Also, I would (and do) place as many of my plays as possible with a low-juice book.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,077
1,357
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
Gmroz -- I disagree completely with your perspective here. Why would I want to limit my earning potential by limiting plays? In fact, it bothers me when my initial screen of the games produces only a few leans, because I am aware that 12-8 pays more than 6-4. It should be noted that I am confident that I can select at least 55% winners in ncaafb over the course of a full season. Since I am not as confident in my capping in the MLB and NBA, I play way less games. Were I to do this professionally, I would risk an equal amount on every game where I see an advantage. The more wagers where I hold an edge over the house, the better I feel.

Also, I would (and do) place as many of my plays as possible with a low-juice book.

I hear ya, CG, I just don't get it. I wanted to start this so people could explain how it makes more sense to spread money across 20+ games per weekend than to use the same amount of funds across 5 or 6 games you feel the most confident in.

I know I'm being critical, but I'm really looking to hear what you guys are thinking.

-GM
 

jr11

08-18-05
Forum Member
Jul 19, 2002
5,830
29
0
114
HELL
To me, it bothers me more to see people on here put their amounts out there. Just keep a record, and I don't need to know you bet 2 dimes or 2 dollars on a game. To each their own, because many on here will see, wow so and so has Team A for 17 dimes it must be a play. Pick you play and keep a record, just W's L'. In baseball it matters for amounts, but I don't care in football or basketball. Either this or rank your plays and keep track of the rankings.
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
I hear ya, CG, I just don't get it. I wanted to start this so people could explain how it makes more sense to spread money across 20+ games per weekend than to use the same amount of funds across 5 or 6 games you feel the most confident in.

I know I'm being critical, but I'm really looking to hear what you guys are thinking.

-GM

I don't see much of a difference in win % between games I'm almost certain will be winners and on games that I have a slight edge. I used to try and focus on 4 games a week and do all sorts of research from statistical, trend, weather and intangibles and would spend 2-3 hours a game during a week handicapping, now I spend 20 minutes tops on a college game and in the NFL, it's more about feel than anything else. I haven't had success so far this year in either the college or pro, but I will - it always works out by the end of the season and it's because of the higher number of games will take out the variance to a large degree.

As far as people following me, I don't think anyone follows me, and I don't blindly follow anyone. I do check out cappers to see if their on the same side of me to see if I need to look at something deeper. I know if Cie's on a game with me, I'm on a side that supports a "trangression to mean" type handicapping - If AR's on a game, then the trends most likely support it, if Irish is on the game, then this year's fundamentals probably support it. Just the fact that you like Penn State makes Wisconsin a play that I'll look into further before finally making a decision.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
he who makes his living off gambling on sports,raise your hand..........


:rolleyes:


btw...i agree with gmro...seems like it would be hard to win consistently by playing large numbers of bets...

agent`s point about winning more by winning more bets,though valid, can be flipped on it`s head...you lose more bets and you pay more juice...

99% of the population would starve if they had to live off their gambling winnings...

who do you think gets the cheese?...the gambler or the house?...all you have to do is look at vegas...

just my opinion...

btw....looks like the bailout isn`t exactly engendering confidence in wall st.....

hunker down gents....we`re in for a rough ride down the line...
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top