Sports wagering continues to be a losing proposition for EVERYONE!

[Tman]

Sorry, meant to put an example of the difference in juice

With above record at 100 a game

-110 you would be +9,660 at
-108 you would be +12428

as you can see this is why i think reduced vig is the most important.

 

[THE KOD]

The only thing missing is, "Don't bet for 30 minutes after eating."

Why are these items on your 'no-no' list? Are they bad bets, or just bets you can't win, so no one else should make them? Kinda the pot calling the kettle black, no? Half time wagers offer some of the best bang, because you see how the teams are playing.

yyz

what you are saying is that Gibber with the winning record he has posted in football this year, is not good enough and is losing money and will always lose money?

Are are you practicing to be a brain surgeon ?

Mr. Madison,(or yyz) what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Then to top it off you attack his short list of do's and don'ts which he has shared with us out of the goodness of his gambling heart.

This has been working for him and you ridicule it like it is is piece of shit.

Not sure if you are trying to help with this thread or just to aggrevate winners. I agree with Nick. You are just a loser.

:moon: :moon: :moon:

Scott King of the Dogs

 

[yyz]

Gibby,

I can't keep doing a circle jerk with you. "Some games don't go as planed." Well, no shit! WTF do you think this ENTIRE thread is about! It's the bounces in those games that make you a winner or losre, NOT great handicapping!

As for Wolf being a pro? Okay great......but what is his 'documented' record? Maybe that unfair to mention because it is one season, but I look at the private section over at bestbettor, and it frightens me.

Like someone said a while back.......Let's just agree to disagree.



Scott,

No.....I am not saying gibber is having a losing year.....I am saying he will have a losing career.

 

[THE KOD]

YYZ-
You are the person at Madjacks I disike the most. You often use sarcasm to humiliate others. You've offended me in a thread before. You say you have stopped gambling, yet you are responding to or creating posts it seems like all day/everyday. You are a busy body.

Stag

:lol: :talk: :lol: :nutkick :nutkick :nutkick

damn why dont you tell us how you really feel about yyz.


Scott King of the Dogs

 

[Eddie Haskell]

From the bookies I used to know, they look for consistent players as clients. They do not like nor want the spot player. That tells me that, like at a casino, the longer and more you play, the less your chances of winning.

Books and vegas know that most players are in it for the action. The guys who play occasionally, more business like, are the ones that may cost them. Just my 1.02.

Ed

 

[djv]

Gibby we still dont know why you stay away from the NBA. Is that the spot you lose at so you learn to stay away. And No half time plays. Thats funny guys here say there makeing a killing on half time plays.
YYZ back to the very first thought of your post. Yes everyone need some luck. No one seems to just say that. They better understand even with all there work they had some luck in there wins. They also had some bad luck in there looses.
Odds are simple to see. The long time player with the vig that is against them will not come out ahead.
Will they all lose no. But only 2 to 3 % will win. Those are facts. The smart and long time folks here will tell any of you that is the truth. So to all who think they will win year after year after year. Good Luck you will need all you can find because just good capping will not be enough to get job done.
Can we now get this thread back to these points as it was started for and stop all the name calling.

 

[THE KOD]

Books and vegas know that most players are in it for the action. The guys who play occasionally, more business like, are the ones that may cost them. Just my 1.02.

Ed

Haskell

Your contention is without merit.


Scott King of the Dogs

 

[ferdville]

This isn't easy to say, but Eddie Haskell is right. Casinos will do anything to attract the player that arrives with x thousands of dollars and will play it all until he loses. Have had a lot of friends like that and they get all the comps they want. do they win occasionally? Sure. Have another friend that plays very selective blackjack at 2-3 grand per hand. If he gets up 7 ot 8k, he is gone. They hate him. He has to ask for every comp, but doesn't like to do that. Of course, his wife, who feeds the dollar slots, gets all the comps they need.

 

[theGibber1]

I can't keep doing a circle jerk with you.

agreed.. lets play "soggy biscuit " instead...LOL (for those who dont know what soggy biscuit is....well you dont want to know)

i think your right. lets agree to disagree.. cause neither of us will change our minds..

DJV,

to answer your question about the nba..
nba is impossible for me to cap..
these guys play to many games.. which means half of the time they dont give a shit.. which also means i can never tell when these gangster thugs are going to take the night off..
People like yourself and roger, JT, Hoops, Steel, and others... they have a handle on these ghetto bangers.. i can never tell whos going to play hard or half ass...

as far as half time bets... i think they can be a good thing if you didnt wager on the game before it started... what i mean is if you bet the entire game.. then make half time bets.. youve got to many wagers on one game.. if you dont win all of them the juice will kill you... i just think the more you push your luck on one game the man has to many chances to beat you.. also i found that if i just stuck w/ my original wager.. the game worked itself out.. i usually won anyway.. better to save the vig

again this is my formula that has worked for me.. it isnt for everyone and im sorry if it came off that way..

GL

 

[StevieD]

Great thread.
In my opinion it all depends on money managment. Those that can manage a losing streak will survive. Those that can't will perish. We see bone headed coaches and bad calls change the outcome of games everyday. I have to feel that the bad calls will even out over your handicapping career. Bone headed coaches should be figured into the game. That is part of handicapping. Another thing, although I cash the ticket. When I win one of these bad call games I do not call it a victory. When I decide to bet a game I am not betting because I believe the line is a point or two off. I am usually betting because in my handicapping I saw what I believe to be a mismatch that the line doesn't reflect.

Another misnomer seems to be that it is us against the book. I am not so sure of that. The book sets the line but I can bet on either side of it. I don't really know who the enemy is here. Sometimes I think it is myself. I have to keep disiplined and I can't get lazy or greedy.

The NFL this year seemed very hard to pick. It seemed situations meant more to the outcome than the better team winning. Now that the playoffs are here maybe things will run truer.

I hope my post made some sense.

.

 

[KotysDad]

YYZ....got a serious question for you. Actually anyone can chime in and give their opinion, but I'll direct it to YYZ since its his thread. I find this topic interesting, so I wanna pose the following situation and get your feelings about it.

You sample say 100 games. Lets say 50 of those games come down to some screwed up call, or flukey bounce that decides the cover. Basically, some shit you cant figure into your handicapping. Ok, so you go 25-25 in those games, because as much as someone would like to argue I have to believe that half those screwed up calls go with you and half go against you, unless someone feels there is conspiracy against them personally.

So that leave 50 games where you have to go 28-22 I think to beat the juice....56%. Now since we already eliminated the fvcked up games, dont you think that someone with good handicapping skills, good money management, and good sports knowledge can go 28-22 in those "normal games"?

Now maybe you think that 80 of those 100 games are screwed up, starting you with a 40-40 record and a needing a record of 13-7 to beat the juice. 65% would definitely be hard to come by no matter how good you are.

So I am curious, do you see things as one of these two scenarios? I am guessing you dont see the first since you dont feel like you can win in the long run. But maybe somewhere in the middle, I dont know.

Alot of people with differing opinions have said alot of things I agree with....and a few things I disagree with. But I am curious how you or anyone else who takes this seriously sees the situation I presented.

 

[Nolan Dalla]

I'd like to address this with two unrelated points:

POINT 1: As many people who read my daily page know, I had a horrendous run of games this weekend. Kink in the ass losses on four games, and a whopper of a ballbuster tonight on the 49ers UNDER. I should have lost a fortune. Incredibly, I ended up losing only $140 for the week. Why so little?

DI-VERS-I-TY

I diversified my bets.

Sure, we all hear the notion of NOT PLAYING TOO MANY GAMES. Sounds like good advice. But, I don't adhere to this so-called "rule" and neither do many handicappers who are far more successful than I am.

Tonight for instance, I had two NBA totals that won. That offset my loss on the 49ers UNDER -- which ended with a decent profit at .9 units. Thanks to doing some research on my own, I ended up winning money.

Yesterday, I lost about $2000. But thankfully, I had Boston College in college football for a dime, Wisc. for $500 and several NBA and Bowl games that produced a profit. So, the wins offset the losses. I do not bring this up for any reason other than to say that "IF" (this is a big IF) you can hit > 53 percent winners, you are actually better off betting as many games as possible. Don't take that out of context. I do NOT mean bet every game. What I mean is to bet games where there is a perceptible advantage (and angle or whatever). It stands to reason that the bettor who plays 400 games in a season and hits 55 percent will win a ton more money than the bettor who hits 55 percent and plays just 40 games a season. Do the math on that. In fact, this is so important, I am going to highlight and say it again:

It stands to reason that the bettor who plays 400 games in a season and hits 55 percent will win a ton more money than the bettor who hits 55 percent and plays just 40 games a season.

Now, please listen close.

I chose to bet LOTS of games because I do not have a bankroll sufficient to do the alternative (see Point #2). I am very pleased to make +2 units a week (after the vig). If you bet as I do, that may not seem like a lot of profits -- but gaining 2 units a week at $220 per wager represents about $400 a week. Enough to live on? Depends. But, that's my goal.

I will confess that had I won the Washington game yesterday, my bankroll would have been sufficent to go up to $330 per wager/ Again, I would prefer not to disclose specifics, but I want to counter the perception that has been put forth about sports betting NOT being profitable. The fact is, if you play smart and grind the percentages, it can be!

I will also confess that many of my wins (other than angles -- which I am very proud of -- I busted my ass researching all those) have come from the generousity of others. I have publicly stated that KC Wolf has made me a significant winner with his plays. I have also done a lot of coattailing here. I do not play all the games, but when I see a very reasonable argument and what seems like a good spot, I will bet it. As I said before, you do not have to be the smartest guy on the planet to make some money at this, you just have to surround yourself with people who know what they are doing (and there are a lot of people here who DO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING!)

POINT 2: The other alternative to sports betting is making SPOT plays. These are plays that do not come along often, but are very solid moneymakers. I could list some examples, but everyone knows of games that come along a few times per month that are gifts from the ilnesmakers. They are not "locks" but they are games that have a high chance of covering.

If I was in a better financial situation than I am (I'm talking about having $50K in liquid assets strictly for gambling), I might very well drop my numbers game and stick to SPOT plays. Hit these games with $5,000 in action. If you bet twenty games like that a year and hit 60 percent of them (a modest expectation), that's $16,000 in profit. That's about what you can make by playing the numbers as I do, but with lots less work and sweat.

Of course, these numbers may not mean anything to some people. $16,000 is not enough to live on. To truly earn a living from sports gambling (EXCLUSIVELY) you need a very large bankroll and then you must adapt one of the two strategies outlined above. Neverthless, an extra $1500 a month from gambling would probably be satisfactory to the vast majority of gamblers here at the site and elsewhere.

In my estimation, THAT is how you make money in sports betting.

-- Nolan Dalla

 

[yyz]

Koty's Dad,

My man with the knack for numbers!

The catch in the 50/50 theory, is that you won't go 50/50! As a man of numbers, surely you understand what I said about flipping a coin. It won't come out 50/50. You will see a substancial lean towards heads or tails on the "bounce" plays. This is what will determine winners and losers. (IMO)

I have to go to work, so I can't address this any more at the present time, but I will get back to the thread later.

Thanks for the input.

 

[TLove]

Nice Write-Up Nollan.....

I couldn't agree with you more.


Seems to me with money management profits are for the taking....

That's the key: Money Management. We can all say it but I venture to say that only about 10% of the gambling population use it. Or is 10% to high????

 

[StevieD]

I think we all use money management to some degree. But what method is the best. We have guys here that bet the same amount every game, guys that vary the amount, guys that double up when they lose, guys that double up when they win, and everything in between.
If money management is the key, then what is the best method?

 

[ndnfan]

YYZ....got a serious question for you. Actually anyone can chime in and give their opinion, but I'll direct it to YYZ since its his thread. I find this topic interesting, so I wanna pose the following situation and get your feelings about it.

You sample say 100 games. Lets say 50 of those games come down to some screwed up call, or flukey bounce that decides the cover. Basically, some shit you cant figure into your handicapping. Ok, so you go 25-25 in those games, because as much as someone would like to argue I have to believe that half those screwed up calls go with you and half go against you, unless someone feels there is conspiracy against them personally.

So that leave 50 games where you have to go 28-22 I think to beat the juice....56%. Now since we already eliminated the fvcked up games, dont you think that someone with good handicapping skills, good money management, and good sports knowledge can go 28-22 in those "normal games"?

Now maybe you think that 80 of those 100 games are screwed up, starting you with a 40-40 record and a needing a record of 13-7 to beat the juice. 65% would definitely be hard to come by no matter how good you are.

So I am curious, do you see things as one of these two scenarios? I am guessing you dont see the first since you dont feel like you can win in the long run. But maybe somewhere in the middle, I dont know.

Alot of people with differing opinions have said alot of things I agree with....and a few things I disagree with. But I am curious how you or anyone else who takes this seriously sees the situation I presented.

KotysDad.......that's basically the exact thinking I was trying to get across to yyz earlier in my first post in this thread. True a lot of games throw your handicapping off by "luck" or some "fluke" stuff, but NOT EVERY GAME! And yyz.....No, you might not go 50/50 on those games. Like you said...if you flip a coin 100 times, more than likely it won't land heads exactly 50 times.

yyz, I really don't know what your thinking is here. It all goes with the short term, long term stuff....that's why they say sportsbetting is a marathon, not a sprint! The more you flip that coin, the more the heads and tail will even out and the 50/50 will be closer to just that....YOU CAN BE ASSURED OF THAT! You do get an edge in those other games that go as you have planned. In baseball I've got my own personal records to show if it was a fluke win or one that went as planned......one reason I have the same thinking along the lines of what I said earlier in this thread and what KotysDad just brought up....You do get an edge if you're handicapping the game right....the so called "fluke" games do even out in the long run....and geez, yyz not every game is decided by luck :nono:

I know certain sportsbettors that seem to always lose, yet these are the same people that continue to bet and continue to INSIST that the game is fixed, or that they jinxed the team by betting on them.....get real! Heck, most people that lose in sports are probably the most knowledgeable sports people out there! But they don't know moneymanagement and they don't know how to cap a game. They're looking at the obvious things which are already built into a line and the linesmakers have those "obvioius factors" already built into the line bringing that line close to even to them, but not to a sportsfan. That's why you hear people calling lines traps, etc. Gimme a break....if you're looking at the right things and handicap a game right, you'll see it's a joke when people call games traps and such. They're looking at the obvious stuff and not the important stuff.

Don't know why I posted anymore on this, cause it seems everyone already has their mind made up on this subject no matter what anyone posts, but I was bored this morning, so I decided to throw this up here.

-ndnfan

 

[KotysDad]

Koty's Dad,

The catch in the 50/50 theory, is that you won't go 50/50! As a man of numbers, surely you understand what I said about flipping a coin. It won't come out 50/50. You will see a substancial lean towards heads or tails on the "bounce" plays. This is what will determine winners and losers. (IMO)

Totally agree with that, yes. But here is something to think about. True, that in those say 50 fvcked up games, it is very "unlikely" that you will go 25-25, but ..... the chances of going 26-24 as opposed to 24-26 are equally likely....same goes for the chances of going 23-27 or 27-23. I believe in the long run you have to "expect" that those will even out and what it comes down to are capping those normal games.

The argument that ndnfan and myself make might totally break down if my assumption about the percentage of fvcked up games is way underestimated over time. Lately it seems like almost every game is that way, but human nature tells you that you more remember the things that go against you than with you when it comes to gambling. If the referees continue on the track they are heading (and Nolan hasnt killed them off as a result lol) then the percentage is going to increase and make it harder to overcome the juice with the games remaining. I guess that remains to be seen.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic nonetheless even if no two of us ever come to complete agreement.

 

[AR182]

This is a very interesting topic. Thanks for starting it,yyz. Some great insights by other posters.

Nolan,

Your last post was right on the money with my philosophy in wagering. I have been betting for many years,although the last few years my gambling has been less frequent. I am not by no means a pro at this but when I am able to spend time at it, I follow Point #1 in your post. On a given Saturday I will play 10-15 games per day & hit about 53-55%, all flat bets in the beginning. As my bankroll increases, I will increase my wager if imo it warrants it. I never chase & do gamble for enjoyment only.

Good job guys !

 

[yyz]

ndnfan,

You are most certainly correct in saying that not all wins come down to luck. I never intoned that wasn't the case. I'm not even saying most wagers come down to luck. That is the variable, though......it is the unknown.

Another "unknown" is what the long run and short run are. These factors are like debating the existance of god. Some will see it one way, some another. There is no black and white.

One thing that is curious to me:

Although people use the 54% point as a profit point, and say that is very attainable, they will also tell you 60% or more is very difficult. Anything higher than that gets met with a scoff and a sneer. I ask you guys "Why?" What happens beyond 60% that makes this game so hard to beat? Surly if you are a decent handicapper, you should be able to pound out 6 or 7 out of ten. I mean "good handicapping" should get you 5 games, and the 50% luck games should get you 1 or 2 at a minimum. So, by that thinking, 60-70% winners should be easy.

But.......we all know it aint! So PLEASE tell me what happens?
:shrug:

If all games went the way we "handicaped" them, we would all win every bet. We know this doesn't happen. Why? What happens when we lose?

I'd still rather handicap a game and make what I consider an educated wager, over guessing, but you still need a lot of bounces to make money in this game.

Many, many, solid cappers here can't break past the 50% range, and there has to be a reason beyond their abilities to disect a game. If it isn't luck, what is it?

 

[ndnfan]

ndnfan,.

One thing that is curious to me:

Although people use the 54% point as a profit point, and say that is very attainable, they will also tell you 60% or more is very difficult. Anything higher than that gets met with a scoff and a sneer. I ask you guys "Why?" What happens beyond 60% that makes this game so hard to beat? Surly if you are a decent handicapper, you should be able to pound out 6 or 7 out of ten. I mean "good handicapping" should get you 5 games, and the 50% luck games should get you 1 or 2 at a minimum. So, by that thinking, 60-70% winners should be easy.

But.......we all know it aint! So PLEASE tell me what happens?
:shrug:

If all games went the way we "handicaped" them, we would all win every bet. We know this doesn't happen. Why? What happens when we lose?

YYZ....I know where you're coming from with the unknowns or variables.

The best answer I can give to this and one of the biggest variables that screws with the %'s is the "human factor" People aren't machines, they're human...thus you have emotions, motivation, and so much more that is tricky and sometimes impossible to cap.

I used to spend a lot of time at the track, and you spend hours capping a horse race according to the previous lines, but that doesn't guarantee anything. A horse may have won 5 in a row, and ends up finishing dead last the next race...much is the same... a horse is not a machine, either....he may not be feeling well that day, or who knows what the deal is, but for ever reason he didn't get the win even though everything points to he should.

This is where of some of that lost percentage goes?? :shrug: I think to a degree, but I feel what it comes down to, is simply all the variables which in no way everyone can have capped down to a tee or in some cases "guessed" right on.

I might be wrong, but there's no way you "catch" all the variables. For example, if I have a game outweighed by say 4 major situational factors, of course they probably won't all hold true, but if a couple do, more than likely it'll be enough to get you by and hopefully the win and the % boost. Personally, I don't think you can get deep enough into a game.

Just my .02