Sports wagering continues to be a losing proposition for EVERYONE!

[maverick2112]

YYZ........great thread. Good points on both sides. But I notice how people that disagree with you bring up records for say the past few years..........WHAT DOES THAT MATTER!!!!!!

I think the question to answer is

SINCE YOU STARTED SPORTS BETTING ARE YOU UP OR DOWN $$$$......

It doesnt really matter if I won 50,000 in the last 2 years in the NFL if I am down $500,000 for the last 30.

I would be curious to see the answer to this question from the ones who say they are successful at this.

 

[Nolan Dalla]

YYZ........great thread. Good points on both sides. But I notice how people that disagree with you bring up records for say the past few years..........WHAT DOES THAT MATTER!!!!!!

I think the question to answer is

SINCE YOU STARTED SPORTS BETTING ARE YOU UP OR DOWN $$$$......

It doesnt really matter if I won 50,000 in the last 2 years in the NFL if I am down $500,000 for the last 30.

I would be curious to see the answer to this question from the ones who say they are successful at this.

Maverick,

I respectfully disagree.

I do not believe this is an important issue. It might be important if you were to ask this question to an 80-year old man who gambles, since we can pretty much be certain that his "lot in life" has been cast (e.g., he is already and WINNER or a LOSER and the next few years are not going to change that position). This question would be pointless for a much younger person -- since it's conceivable the young gambler lost lots of money early in his betting "career" and learned from his mistakes and slowly but surely became a more skillful gambler -- in other words, a winner.

I'll give you an exmaple. Pro poker player Daniel Negreanu quit high school and became a professional poker player by age 17. By his own admission he went broke several times. Broke! By the age of 24 (I think) he won his first World Series gold bracelet. Had you asked him at the age of 22, for instance, if he was up or down LIFETIME, he would probably say he lost. But, he took all that knowledge and experience and became a better poker player. Now, he plays $200-400 every day at the Bellagio (which requires a six-figure bankroll).

The same thing applies to sports gambling, albeit to a lesser extent.

Think of it this way.

People think nothing of spending $100,000 to get a college degree, which in and of itself is no assurance of getting the money back. There is no guarantee, particularly if you study somethink like history or philosophy (non-marketble degrees). It's an investment in knowledge. In a sense, all gamblers get their "college degrees" through hard knocks and losses. Most never graduate. But some do. Some do graduate. They take the losses and become better handicappers.

So, the point is -- it matter not how much money was lost (or won) X years ago. It all comes down to -- where are you NOW? What have you learned? How are you a better gambler now than years ago? Are you winning NOW.

I think Message Forums like this make us all into more astute gamblers. We still make mistakes, sure. But many of us learn from those errors, which then INCREASES our chances to profit in the future.

I suppose if past gambing losses were analogous to a college degree, I'd be a PhD.

-- Nolan Dalla

 

[detox]

So, the point is -- it matter not how much money was lost (or won) X years ago. It all comes down to -- where are you NOW? What have you learned? How are you a better gambler now than years ago? Are you winning NOW.


So Nolan are you winning this year from sportsbetting?

 

[Nolan Dalla]

So Nolan are you winning this year from sportsbetting?


Since the year 2003 began about 29 hours ago, I have placed two bets. I lost one and I won won. I am down $20 this year. Oh mercy, I'm having a losing year!

-- Nolan Dalla

 

[detox]

you got 364 more days

 

[maverick2112]

Nolan, I respect you as one of the best cappers out there. But I tend to wonder for every Daniel Negreanu out there, there are literally thousands of people losing and losing. I tend to agree with you that a skilled poker player can win in the long run but when it comes to sports I am beginning to wonder. The truth is I am not really sure I see to many ones who are successful. As a finance major this sports gambling sure reminds me of people trying to win in the stock market, they all say the make money but the ones who have made $$, its only because of the growth on the market and not from being about to" predict the future".
Believe me, I am one person who would like to say you can really win at this for I have been studying for the past 20 yrs but the only ones I see making $$ consistantly are the books and the touts. One thing I know for sure is I have spent to much time and money of this sh** to give up now, so I will continue to try to learn as much as possible.

 

[maverick2112]

People think nothing of spending $100,000 to get a college degree,

Nolan, somehow I think if I were applying for a position with a company..........I would stand a lot better chance of getting the job if I were to say........."I have my Phd in History" rather than saying "I have my Phd in sports gambling, dont you notice all the bumps and bruises"

 

[djv]

Ok you guys are starting to get to deep in to this stuff for me.
Can we keep it simple. We know and have been told by the best of the best. Nolan I include you. Maybe Five thats 5% are winners at this. Maybe 2% to 3% can make a living. Seems simple.
Seems if these number are true. I been given this info for over 20 years now. Then what YYZ is saying is at least 95% correct. And that is one high percentage.
And we have not even got into the pay for your pick plans. Now the percentage to make a proffit just went up. Need to make the $100 or $200 a month for the service first. Then you can count any proffits. Your percentage neede to win just went higher.
This is easy math no rocket engineer needed here.

 

[TheShrimp]

Thought experiment (not necessarily original).

Say we take a million people today and they start flipping fair coins. They all flip a few coins per day, or say 4-5 coins every Sunday. Let's pay everyone $10 when a heads comes up and take $11 from everyone when a tails comes up.

After a year or so, there are going to be a considerable number of people who are ahead. There are going to be even more who are down.

After two years, there are still going to be a lot of people who are ahead (we started with a million people. They may have only flipped 1000 coins). They might even start writing columns about how they apply pressure with their thumb to certain parts of the coin to get a better than 52.3% percentage of heads.

A couple might even start businesses where you bet on the outcome of their coinflips, and you hope they keep flipping heads. After starting these businesses, some may seriously go in the tank, some may keep on getting more than their share of heads. Some may even wind up close to even (you don't need to go too far from this site for examples of all three).

There's been a lot written about how far removed from reality this scenario really is (ever read Mike Caro's column about the sports games on the Alien planet, and the point-spreads therein?)

I think my sentiments lie closer to what YYZ orginally said than what anyone else said.

I can argue against myself here, and probably for different reasons than some of you may, but I'll hold off and see what others have to say.

TheShrimp

 

[yanno]

Hi Shrimp...and yyz too and ndn etc

Hi Shrimp...and yyz too and ndn etc

I luv thought experiments...Einstein did them of course...and came up with interesting stuff.

My question for u, Shrimp. How is sportsbetting different than flipping coins? If it isn't, we should all go take a shower and go home.

My suggestion...it is different because there is no one but God (or Mamma Booka or whoever) making the lines on coin flips. For Us...there are linesmakers making the lines. Sounds like a truism and it is. Soooooo....

The fundamental question in sportsbetting is this. Can we outsmart the linesmakers? The linesmakers. Not the books. (The books are not the enemy, they are only the facilitators.) And the linesmakers are not the enemy, either, they are just guys like you or me, with jobs. (Unless you think that the moon landing was filmed in the same Navada hangar where the next Superbowl game has already been staged. Then they are part of the great conspiracy.)

The linesmakers are very smart. I mean they are smart sportsguys. BUT I bet they have losing weeks/months/years themselves if they are foolish enough to stop making lines and start betting. I am sure many of them do.

SO...the QUESTION IS...

Can we be successful by finding holes in the lines? If we can't, we cannot win. WE HAVE TO CAP THE THINGS THE LINESMAKERS HAVE NOT CAPPED. This is not impossible, but it is hard.

Maybe we have to do it in the places the linesmakers are weak...e.g. the CFL, maybe the NHL or maybe in places where the action/$$$ is not so great. OR...maybe we have to develop some smarts and specialist analysis like ndnfan has done in baseball. Get into it deeper than the linesmakers with jobs. But then of course they will learn from us...jeez, the neverending story.

LOOK...sorry for the rambling. I have had one too many drinks, I fear. Just trying to make some sense out of all this.

Happy new year, guys...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

two issues

1st I would not classify poker as true gambling. In elements that require skill such poker,playing pool,golf ect where a person is pitting "his own" skills against others and no oddsmakers compensating with lines, the outcome is very predictable given that one can control ego and walk away when over matched.
Case in point: If you took 3 people at random an had them pick nfl card the chances of one of them beating a savvy capper in a given week, would be quite possible given the 50-50 element of "the line". However lock these same people in a room with Nolan for a day in a game of poker with a substantial ante and result would a given.
--another view If you had 9.5 sprinter stand up in bar and challenge anyone in the house to foot race,is that gambling?

2nd issue Kelly Theory (raising bets when on winning streak)
IMO This would be great if you knew when winning streaks and losing streaks started and stopped.
Bottom line: Show me any way other than betting same amount that will guarantee if, you hit 54% given 10 cent line, that you will have profit for year.
Flip side is I'll show you a method (kelly) in which you can hit 60% and still lose.
Now I would say after a long period or an entire season of success in a sport that raising wager a tad the following season would be in line.

---one final thought is to Nolan
While I know this year has not been what you wanted it does not diminish all the knowledge you have passed to us in your writings.
Rarely do I ever read an article of yours that I do not find myself jotting down a tidbit for future reference. It is a dubious task to put plays out year after year when it is so easy to forget the good years and dwell on the bad. I would like to thank you for another year of great articles and knowledge that you have passed to us here this year.--and never think of it as your responsibilty to make decisions for us but rather to arm us with insight to enable us to make more objective decisions.
Thank you my friend

 

[djv]

DTB that is a very good point. Info and the more you arm your self with should help in the long run of trying to be a winner. I agree I read all Nolans info and only wish I had the patients to write all that he does. As sports players we do not have to follow anyones advise. We all can make up our own minds. But info that help you deside is always needed. I also agree with your Poker Golf thoughts. They are differant then playing on a football or Basketball spread. In fact I would never sit down and play poker with Nolan. I might as well just write him a check to start with. So the depate goes on. All and all this has been a interesting thread.

 

[Nolan Dalla]

Two points:

1. Wayne (Dogs That Bark)....it is I who should thank YOU for introducing me to the halftime bets a few years ago. Had you not gone out of your way to send me the booklet and the note, I would never have gotten involved in 2H betting and would now be about five-figures poorer. What I want readers to know is that what I do is often related to something I've seen or read here or started as a simple e-mail or a conversation. NO man is an island. We pick up things and learn from others, and many of you (DJV, Wayne, and so forth) have given me an inestimable number of interesting ideas and concepts to work with. Gratis Dumneavastra.

2. As far as poker goes, keep in mind that even the best pros LOSE about a third of their sessions. Looking back over the year, I lost about 40 percent of my sessions. Worst loss was close to $2,000. The 60 percent winning sessions fortunately overcame the loses, but poker is like on the NFL -- ON ANY GIVEN DAY.......


This has been a thought provoking thread, I must say.


-- Nolan Dalla

 

[Nick Douglas]

I have to take issue with the idea that you are trying to beat "linesmakers". I guess that theory holds water if you believe that lines are set to indicate how many points "linesmakers" think one team will beat the other team by (speaking strictly of spread betting here, of course).

I think it is pretty common knowledge that a point spread has very little to do with how many points a "linesmaker" thinks a team will win by. Every sharp gambler I've ever talked to or read an interview with and every bookmaker I've read an interview with has said that lines are made to either A) get somewhat equal action on both sides and make a profit on the vig, or B) get a majority of bettors on the "wrong" side of a play.

I do believe that the way to make money gambling on sports long term is to use information wisely. I also believe that you are, as in poker, playing against the general public more than you are playing against the "linesmakers".

Really, I think that poker and sports gambling have an incredible number of similarities. I don't buy that a poker player is putting "his own skills" up against other players any more than a sports gambler is. In poker the limitation is the draw of the cards and in sports gambling the limitation is the wagered game played by people who are uninvolved with betting on it (hopefully ). Obviously gambling on pool, golf, speed of masturbation, etc. is quite different from betting on poker or sports because you have direct control over your performance.

 

[maverick2112]

xxxxxxx Sorry wrong forum

 

[NySportsfan]

Finally, Nick, you hit the nail on the head, I was thinking and have thought the same thing......If I would have bet the Jets today (I passed, but for the sake of argument).....I didnt beat the man per say, I took the money theoretically of somebody who bet the Colts, so in theory You are betting against other people, with the bookmaker keeping the vig......you are pitting your expertise against other people betting the other team, you're also right about them trapping people to the wrong side, although sometimes games end up being as obvious as they seem and we overthink it, such as many heavy favs in college basketball that win, any idiot can circle arizona,duke,kansas on their sheet every time they bet, brainless people can do it, but sometimes theyre even handed gifts.
Good post Nick, good point you brought to everyones attention

Mike