Posted:
#26
I hear what your saying but if that were true then you could just bet all the dogs 120 or over and make out on the year. This is not the case.
0
laying more than 130 in baseball is financial suicide
Posted:
#28
i love guys like this who write up posts and PREACH how it goes in gambling.
I would then assume by how confident and how straight forward your saying your thoughts are, you must be winning all sorts of cash per year, correct? I mean in the hundreds of thousands a year in sportsbetting?
IF NOT, STFU!!!!!!
sportsbetting is about showing profit, if you can bet a game at -180 and it hits because there was a VERY high chance of it hitting, it is a much better pick than betting on some dog at +180 and hope you win a few of those per week.
freakin ignorant people in this world, my god, no wonder why gambling is known "for the term degeneracy"
everybody thinks they are the experts.
show me your bottom line profits per month or like i said : STFU
I would then assume by how confident and how straight forward your saying your thoughts are, you must be winning all sorts of cash per year, correct? I mean in the hundreds of thousands a year in sportsbetting?
IF NOT, STFU!!!!!!
sportsbetting is about showing profit, if you can bet a game at -180 and it hits because there was a VERY high chance of it hitting, it is a much better pick than betting on some dog at +180 and hope you win a few of those per week.
freakin ignorant people in this world, my god, no wonder why gambling is known "for the term degeneracy"
everybody thinks they are the experts.
show me your bottom line profits per month or like i said : STFU
0
Posted:
#29
Quote Originally Posted by ballinchamp:
i love guys like this who write up posts and PREACH how it goes in gambling.
I would then assume by how confident and how straight forward your saying your thoughts are, you must be winning all sorts of cash per year, correct? I mean in the hundreds of thousands a year in sportsbetting?
IF NOT, STFU!!!!!!
sportsbetting is about showing profit, if you can bet a game at -180 and it hits because there was a VERY high chance of it hitting, it is a much better pick than betting on some dog at +180 and hope you win a few of those per week.
freakin ignorant people in this world, my god, no wonder why gambling is known "for the term degeneracy"
everybody thinks they are the experts.
show me your bottom line profits per month or like i said : STFU
i love guys like this who write up posts and PREACH how it goes in gambling.
I would then assume by how confident and how straight forward your saying your thoughts are, you must be winning all sorts of cash per year, correct? I mean in the hundreds of thousands a year in sportsbetting?
IF NOT, STFU!!!!!!
sportsbetting is about showing profit, if you can bet a game at -180 and it hits because there was a VERY high chance of it hitting, it is a much better pick than betting on some dog at +180 and hope you win a few of those per week.
freakin ignorant people in this world, my god, no wonder why gambling is known "for the term degeneracy"
everybody thinks they are the experts.
show me your bottom line profits per month or like i said : STFU
Great post dawg I feel you 100%. This guys a joke.
I have had runs where I go 18-2. This guy sits here and says its hard to win 55%. I got news for OP. He's just not good at picking winners. Matter of fact thats an understatement.
0
Posted:
#30
Quote Originally Posted by vamosrafa:
Use your heads guys. Take a statistics course at your local University. Laying more than 130, even 120 over the long term will prove to blow you out. Even if you are picking at a 55% clip which of course most of you are not, you will still lose. Think about it. I don't care if you win 15 favorites in a row you will eventually lose and possibly lose big if you are routinely laying wood.
actually it is all about picking your spots. I agree with you as making such a routine practice (heavy favs) will devestate your BR in the long haul, just as playing negative run lines for the heavier payouts will kill you, BUT making steadfast rules as to what we NEVER do is losing many opportunities. As a norm, I do not round robin many plays, and never have done so on multiple tickets until yesterday (Weds), but I played the Cards, the Rays, the phillies, the twins, rangers (rained out), and the nationals +1.5 round robin by 2s, by 3s, by 4s, and by 5s.... the nats lost by 2 in extra innings (as rare as that is in extra innings), but I was heavily invested in 6 games and bet in an out of the ordinary fashion that paid out nicely, and almost incredibly....Once again, it is all about picking our spots.
0
Posted:
#31
Quote Originally Posted by vamosrafa:
Like I said, the new sports bettor or the weekend gambler is one thing, but the "professional" cappers that lay wood cannot be taken seriously. Sorry. If I see them do it even one time I know the guy can't be real at least not in baseball. Some sports like Tennis you have to lay wood, routinely 150 and sometime even to 200 depending on the situation. But that is totally differend as there are less variables. Its just ttwo guys you have to cap. Not starting pictehrs, righty vs lefty matchups, managers, bullpens, closers, umpires, etc. To lay more then 130 in baseball is just plain retarded no matter the situation. Over the long term its a loser even if you are at 55% and again, most bettors/cappers have a tough time getting to 55%. If you are at 55% you are a good GOOD capper. But guess what? You'll only make money of you are laying less than 130. Really its less than 120.....
Now you are just going way too far pal, lol... I have been in Vegas sport betting on and off (months at a time) for years, and full time for the last year, and I know many sportsbook pro's, both good and bad. Though I agree with certain parts of your argument, as I understand you are saying that someone who regularily laying heavy odds and heavy favs will lose money even if they are at a 55% score rate (in fact I could do the numbers and would venture to say that 65% would be a little short of break even), but to say the "pro that does this even once cannot be taken seriously" is ridiculus to its very core. I know many, many guys making great livings and in certain spots they will lay heavy odds, though rare as it is, they absolutely do so, and I am talking the heavy hitters. I could rip through your post a little more, but honestly don't have the time, but I will say that I know many like you here in vegas as well, the quintessential "I know it all, and this is the only way this is done" and I dont know one of them that have lasted, it is just a matter of time until they "POOFFF" they are gone until they come into a little more money.
0
Posted:
#33
Quote Originally Posted by renroh123:
Now you are just going way too far pal, lol... I have been in Vegas sport betting on and off (months at a time) for years, and full time for the last year, and I know many sportsbook pro's, both good and bad. Though I agree with certain parts of your argument, as I understand you are saying that someone who regularily laying heavy odds and heavy favs will lose money even if they are at a 55% score rate (in fact I could do the numbers and would venture to say that 65% would be a little short of break even), but to say the "pro that does this even once cannot be taken seriously" is ridiculus to its very core. I know many, many guys making great livings and in certain spots they will lay heavy odds, though rare as it is, they absolutely do so, and I am talking the heavy hitters. I could rip through your post a little more, but honestly don't have the time, but I will say that I know many like you here in vegas as well, the quintessential "I know it all, and this is the only way this is done" and I dont know one of them that have lasted, it is just a matter of time until they "POOFFF" they are gone until they come into a little more money.
How can you be a bad 'sportsbook pro' 
The definition of a professional is someone who makes a living at what they do. If someone is able to pay the bills off of sportsbetting, how can they be bad?
Anyway... I agree with the OP.. wagering on -135 or greater in baseball is a losing proposition. Say what you want about picking spots and laying juice, but the 'pros' most likey stay far away from those.
0
Posted:
#35
[Quote: Originally Posted by ballinchamp] i love guys like this who write up posts and PREACH how it goes in gambling.
I would then assume by how confident and how straight forward your saying your thoughts are, you must be winning all sorts of cash per year, correct? I mean in the hundreds of thousands a year in sportsbetting?
IF NOT, STFU!!!!!!
sportsbetting is about showing profit, if you can bet a game at -180 and it hits because there was a VERY high chance of it hitting, it is a much better pick than betting on some dog at +180 and hope you win a few of those per week.
freakin ignorant people in this world, my god, no wonder why gambling is known "for the term degeneracy"
everybody thinks they are the experts.
show me your bottom line profits per month or like i said : STFU
I would then assume by how confident and how straight forward your saying your thoughts are, you must be winning all sorts of cash per year, correct? I mean in the hundreds of thousands a year in sportsbetting?
IF NOT, STFU!!!!!!
sportsbetting is about showing profit, if you can bet a game at -180 and it hits because there was a VERY high chance of it hitting, it is a much better pick than betting on some dog at +180 and hope you win a few of those per week.
freakin ignorant people in this world, my god, no wonder why gambling is known "for the term degeneracy"
everybody thinks they are the experts.
show me your bottom line profits per month or like i said : STFU
[/Quote
Why would I waste my time showing some deadbeat my profits from baseball? For what reason? There are only two sports I bet. Baseball and Tennis. You know why? Because those are the onluy two sports that you can win at year after year if you know what you are doing. Far too many variables in other sports especially football with weather. This post was not meant to start an argument because there is no aruguing over FACTS. Numbers don't lie. And for you are anyone to suggest that "a team laying 170 is much more likely to win" is out and out retarded. Then you have a low I.Q. sir and know nothing about probable statistics. You want me to show you my bankroll and baseball betting profits for the last 7 years? I haven't had a losing season in baseball EVER. I've been betting it since 2002 and have never lost, not even one season. I will show you my personal records if you do something for me. Take a statistics course at an accredited University and show me that you passed the course. Once you have done that two things will happen: One, I will show you all my personal records by Fax. Two, you will never sound like and ignorant and completely uneducated buffoon on here again. You will finally know what any remotely successfull baseball bettor knows - that you never EVER lay 130 or more in baseball. Unless you are halfway retarded of course, in that case we'll give you a pass. Now go get your fuckin shine box, dummy.
0
Posted:
#36
Quote Originally Posted by thebayareabeast:
Great post dawg I feel you 100%. This guys a joke.
I have had runs where I go 18-2. This guy sits here and says its hard to win 55%. I got news for OP. He's just not good at picking winners. Matter of fact thats an understatement.
Hey "Dawg" yeah you sound like you could set the world on fire in English class huh? WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT AN 18-2 RUN. We've all had them. Why don't you tell us about the 2-18 runs you've had just like we have all had, huh? Since I've been on here for 4 days I have gone 4-1. Go look at my posts. My picks are there. All Dogs or close to even money 'dawg". If you are winning over 55% for a FULL SEASON, not a week Einstein, then you should be running a tout service and charging $1000 a month for it. Obviously you don't even grasp how hard it is to do 55% PERIOD whether its faves or dogs you are betting. And since you don't even grasp that I can't waste time explaining to someone that has such a low intelligence level that once explained to still won't understand........"Dawg".
0
Posted:
#37
Quote Originally Posted by renroh123:
Now you are just going way too far pal, lol... I have been in Vegas sport betting on and off (months at a time) for years, and full time for the last year, and I know many sportsbook pro's, both good and bad. Though I agree with certain parts of your argument, as I understand you are saying that someone who regularily laying heavy odds and heavy favs will lose money even if they are at a 55% score rate (in fact I could do the numbers and would venture to say that 65% would be a little short of break even), but to say the "pro that does this even once cannot be taken seriously" is ridiculus to its very core. I know many, many guys making great livings and in certain spots they will lay heavy odds, though rare as it is, they absolutely do so, and I am talking the heavy hitters. I could rip through your post a little more, but honestly don't have the time, but I will say that I know many like you here in vegas as well, the quintessential "I know it all, and this is the only way this is done" and I dont know one of them that have lasted, it is just a matter of time until they "POOFFF" they are gone until they come into a little more money.
You must be one of those self-proclaimed "expert" cappers huh? Charging for your picks? Watch Hondo from the NY Post every day. He will only bet underdogs. He is 100% free picks every day one or two games. He will beat your picks every day that you charge for, guaranteed. Even better, visit runthebases.com that is a 100 % FREE daily MLB pick site. They win every year. They will kick your ass in picking baseball guaranteed and once again, 100% free site and they never lay wood. They don't lay wood along with a few other cappers that I respect because laying wood is losing proposition over the long term. Those are hard facts, over 47 years of statistics have showed it year after year after year. So go bet those favorites and go on your "18-2 runs" with them. Just check back here when your streak goes cold and you are losing $150 a night while we are losing $100 a night and lets see who comes out on top at the end of the year when both of our records are at 53%.
0
Posted:
#38
Quote Originally Posted by thebayareabeast:
Great post dawg I feel you 100%. This guys a joke.
I have had runs where I go 18-2. This guy sits here and says its hard to win 55%. I got news for OP. He's just not good at picking winners. Matter of fact thats an understatement.
Hey "Dawg" yeah you sound like you could set the world on fire in English class huh? WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT AN 18-2 RUN. We've all had them. Why don't you tell us about the 2-18 runs you've had just like we have all had, huh? Since I've been on here for 4 days I have gone 4-1. Go look at my posts. My picks are there. All Dogs or close to even money 'dawg". If you are winning over 55% for a FULL SEASON, not a week Einstein, then you should be running a tout service and charging $1000 a month for it. Obviously you don't even grasp how hard it is to do 55% PERIOD whether its faves or dogs you are betting. And since you don't even grasp that I can't waste time explaining to someone that has such a low intelligence level that once explained to still won't understand........"Dawg".
0
Posted:
#39
Read this article gents. Its from Dr. Bob's site. It should clear up how much $ you can make if you hit 55% winners (not easy to do) but REMEMBER SOMETHING - He is talking about basketball and football, spoorts where you lay POINTS and not $ - ok, well $110 to every $100 but at the most -110. Apply this methodology to baseball betting and you can easily see why laying over 130 in baseball is nothing short of retarded unless of course you are hitting about 70% + which of course none of you are doing and neither are the best cappers. The best cappers are at 55-58% which you can win a lot of money at if you aren't laying wood. By looking at hard numbers you can even make a case for laying over 110 is a bad move but I digress. Educate yourselves before you have another losing baseball season.
From Dr. Bob:
I am very proud of my 56% long term win percentage on my Football Best Bets over 21 years in business and my 55% win percentage on my Basketball Best Bets, and I'm constantly frustrated by the number of times I hear novice gamblers say that 55% isn't even winning after taking into account the juice they have to pay on losses.
I'm not sure what kind of math those guys are using, but I didn't need to major in statistics to tell you that it only takes 52.4% winners to break even in sports betting at the standard 11 to 10 odds (that's 11 wins and 10 losses, which is 52.4%) - and odds better than that are readily available online these days. I can also tell you that even 55% winners is an outstanding investment.
Let's say you had $10,000 to invest during 4 months of football season (or could not afford to lose more than $10,000 in a season) and you were planning on playing 160 games or so over the course of the season (NFL and College), which is about what I play per football season on average. If your expected win percentage is 55% over those 160 games, your expected win-loss record would be 88-72 for a profit of +8.8 units (I chose to exclude the possibility of pushes in this article to keep the math simpler). Calculating units is simply subtracting the losses from the wins and then subtracting an additional 10% of your losses to take into account the 11 to 10 odds that the sportsbook is getting. In this case, 88 wins and 72 losses would be +8.8 units (88 - (1.1 x 72) = +8.8). Of course, as in any game of chance, there is variability in the actual results and just because you have won 55% in the past and expect to win 55% in the future doesn't mean that you're going to win 55% this upcoming season. There is variance in sports betting, as there is in most investments, and I need to calculate the variance to figure out how much of my bankroll I can safely wager on each game during the season to accommodate potential negative variance while having very little chance of exhausting my bankroll (of course, we're all hoping for a season with the variance on the positive side).
In the case of an expected win percentage of 55% over 160 games, the standard error is 6.29 wins (the square root of .55 x .45 x 160 = 6.29). If I want to limit my chance of losing my bankroll in a given season to below 1%, then I would need to account for a negative variance of 2.33 times the standard error of 6.29 wins (using the normal distribution table you'll find that 2.33 standard errors or more from the norm is only 1% likely). A negative variance of 2.33 standard errors is 14.65 wins below the expected win-loss record of 88-72, which would result in an expected record of 73.35 wins and 86.65 losses, which is -21.965 units. Remember, there is just as likely a chance that you could be +14.65 wins, but money management is about accounting for a worst case scenario rather than a season of positive variance. If you allow a 1% chance of losing 21.965 units on 160 Bets with a 55% chance of winning each play then you can wager 1/21.965 of your bankroll per bet, which is about 4.6% or $460 in our example of a $10,000 bankroll. So, you could safely bet to win $460 a game given a 55% expected win percentage on 160 games with a $10,000 bankroll. If I achieve a 55% season on 160 bets for a profit of +8.8 units, then I would profit $4048 - which is 8.8 times $460. While a 55% bet is only a 5.5% investment per bet (.55 - .45 - .045 = .055) it is a much more profitable investment over the course of a season, in which a series of per game investments act like compound interest. In this case, my $10,000 initial bankroll is now $14,048 after a 4 month season, which is a 40.48% investment. And that is only at 55%, which most amateurs aren't that impressed with.
A season with an expectation of 56% winning wagers (my long term record in football) on 160 bets would allow me to safely bet to win $540 a game during the course of the season. My expected units won for 160 bets at 56% is +12.16 units, which is 160 x (0.56 - (1.1 x 0.44). So, my expected profit would be $540 times 12.16 units, which is $6566 profit off of my $10,000 initial investment (a 65.66% gain).
Basketball profits can be even better for clients of my service, as there are more games to play in a basketball season than in a football season. My long term Best Bet win percentage in Basketball is 55%, but I average about 400 Best Bets per year and the profits are better because of it. An expected win rate of 55% on 400 wagers would allow me to safely wager to win about $370 per game with a bankroll of $10,000, and my expected profit would be +22 units (400 x (0.55 - (1.1 x 0.45)) = 22). That would result in a profit of 22 x $370, or $8140, for a typical Basketball season at 55% winners (which is an 81% investment). So, as you can see, a Basketball season at 55% Best Bet winners is even more profitable than a football season with 56% winners.
I hope this part of the essay has enlightened you as to the reality of sports betting as a very good investment and that you can now accept the fact that 55% winners in sports betting leads to a very good profit with even very conservative money management.
Note: to make the math easier to follow, I used the number of Best Bets expected in a season and assumed an equal amount wagered per game while excluding the possibility of pushes. For those of you that use my Best Bet service and follow my Star system, you can figure out your amount to bet per Star by using the examples above and knowing that my average Best Bet rating is 2.5 stars. I'll save you time by giving you a simple equation with the assumption that my Football Best Bets will be at my lifetime mark of 56% on a Star Basis and my Basketball Best Bets will be at 55%.
0
Posted:
#40
Quote Originally Posted by vamosrafa:
Use your heads guys. Take a statistics course at your local University. Laying more than 130, even 120 over the long term will prove to blow you out. Even if you are picking at a 55% clip which of course most of you are not, you will still lose. Think about it. I don't care if you win 15 favorites in a row you will eventually lose and possibly lose big if you are routinely laying wood.
Go back to school punk my bank is always positive gambling is taking chances the Yankees were favorite yesterday because of CC I stayed away and to St. Louis and won you need to know how to pick them.
Go lecture some place else I bet you did'nt take Federer last week 3 times and three times he increased my bank roll get a job in Mcdonalds and leave us alone!!!!
0
Posted:
#43
Quote Originally Posted by underrated:
Geeeezzzzz no shit sherlock
Its not about the odds, its about picking the right games. For instance Carpenter at home to SF the other day was -163. That was definately worth a pick, they will win that 2/3 times. But then the next night it was Wainwright with the same amount of juice, that, which unfortunately I also bet on, was not worth it. Just because juice is 120+ doesnt mean it can't be a good pick. You just have to be selective.
0
Posted:
#45
Yeah if you are certain the favorite is gonna win but you dont wanna risk the juice, bet the RL...
Look at this : Toronto - 280/ Florida +230
Most people wanna put their money on Holladay but that is crazy juice to lose
BUT IF YOU TOOK : Toronto -1.5 (-120) thats less juice and chances are, if you like Toronto's chances @ -280, then you should like them to win by more than 1 run
0
Posted:
#49
i dont think i have posted for a few years but read what is mostly useful info over that time here. but this one brings me out of retirement. you sound like you are in college or grad school and math finally dawned on you. be warned, there are quite a few people in here who understand stats pretty well, and there is a zero chance they would agree with some of your assumptions. challenging heavy money line favorite in any sport is valuable, but to draw any line anywhere without theoretical value i dont think works. if you believe a team will win 60 % of games in the data set, then you obviously would lay -130 evenly on each game. as someone referenced, halladay at home is expected to win more that 60 % of the time, so youd take -130 each and every time so long at you can weather (whether?) a 2 or 3 standard deviation move (i figured you would enjoy the mathy-talk). if i felt jays win only 56.5 % of roy's starts, then laying 130 is a poor choice. talk nice to people, words like never and always generally irritate the masses. gl to you and everyone else.
0
Posted:
#50
Quote Originally Posted by MrBuckShot:
if u never lay any juice your eleiminating yourself from almost 50% of the board every day LOL.... thats no way to make money my friend. Im from toronto and your telling me when halladay is -170 favourite at home to lay off him simply bc im risking juice???? open up your eyes.
Uhh, WROONGGGGGGGGGGGG. That is PRECISELY how to make money every day. Ever hear of underdogs and -110 plays? I guess not.
0
Hot Forum Topics
