All Forums | The Archives

Moving to Vegas to become a full time pro handicapper

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 973048
Posts: 14201
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #5826
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

Quote Originally Posted by chisy22:



Im at work so didnt run any numbers but wouldnt it be less than that figure since you only really lose the juice on winning bets?

Well - I will go back and correct that once again...
On winning bets, he is not winning as much as he should.
So on a 1,100 bet, he is currently winning 1,000 - but he should be winning 1,047.
On losing bets, he is losing more than he should.  On a 1,100 bet, he should only be losing 1,050.
So my original number of 2,400 is pretty damn close.
So scratch my post 5860.  It is as bad as I originally thought.


Is that really correct, didn't chisy22 get it right? You gotta keep the wager consistent when doing the calculation to compare. Risking 1100 to win 1000 when he should win 1047, still loses the same amount, 1100, regardless of juice. You can't know a priori which bets are winners and which are losers, and adjust risked amount accordingly (the assumption of your reasoning above).

To rephrase your own post: On a 1,100 bet, he is currently winning 1,000 - but he should be winning 1,047. On losing bets, he is still losing the 1,100 wagered.

I can't get my head around it being any other way.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2013
Posts: 145
Posted: #5827
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:


Well - I will go back and correct that once again...
On winning bets, he is not winning as much as he should.
So on a 1,100 bet, he is currently winning 1,000 - but he should be winning 1,047.
On losing bets, he is losing more than he should.  On a 1,100 bet, he should only be losing 1,050.
So my original number of 2,400 is pretty damn close.
So scratch my post 5860.  It is as bad as I originally thought.

Is that really correct, didn't chisy22 get it right? You gotta keep the wager consistent when doing the calculation to compare. Risking 1100 to win 1000 when he should win 1047, still loses the same amount, 1100, regardless of juice. You can't know a priori which bets are winners and which are losers, and adjust risked amount accordingly (the assumption of your reasoning above).

To rephrase your own post: On a 1,100 bet, he is currently winning 1,000 - but he should be winning 1,047. On losing bets, he is still losing the 1,100 wagered.

I can't get my head around it being any other way.

Yea Vanzack is wrong here. You have to have a consistent bet amount. You can't predict which bet you will win or lose, so how can you change your bet size accordingly? Can't be done. Anyway, a little over $1000 is still on the table for CG and when you only need 3k a month, that is a very big amount to be giving away. 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2013
Posts: 37
Posted: #5828
Quote Originally Posted by baronman:

Entertaining Day CG , Can't wait for Video. I found out today on thread 378 , from Left Nut.I am Vietnamese box , with 15 kids & I need to get back to Rice fields .Im going to ask my parents about this .Om not prejudiced like this Nut Case.But I'm pretty sure , I am Italian/ Irish. All this prejudice because I told him, you said CG was 0-2 .When he came back to win 2nd Game.To wait till games over. Then I got the great Hutch , to tell me to shut up over this. Another prejudiced person. Like CG said earlier do another Naysayer. Don't Bring my family into it. How you know I love Rice & have 15 kids.I again apologize for his insult of all Vietnamese people. I will be reporting this to Covers Monitors. I did about Tdog 25 .To all my other Naysayers Go Portland -2/Houston.Posted in Nba




can u please stop responding to this thread.. you do not know how to type, speak english, or anything..  reading your posts is the worst thing in the world... can u please put friggin spaces between anything... make fuckkkkin sense kid...this is getting so old and so annoying having to read your nonsense gibberish...go back to wherever you are from and never come back to this country/ thread again... your so fukkin annoying
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 60107
Posted: #5829
Quote Originally Posted by Ballerholic:


Yea Vanzack is wrong here. You have to have a consistent bet amount. You can't predict which bet you will win or lose, so how can you change your bet size accordingly? Can't be done. Anyway, a little over $1000 is still on the table for CG and when you only need 3k a month, that is a very big amount to be giving away. 

Im not going on predicting which bet will win or lose - I am looking at which bet DID win or lose.

I guess you could say that looking at historical data is different than projecting future data in this way.  Looking back - isn't it correct that he would have 2,400 more in his pocket IF HE RISKED EXACTLY WHAT HE DID?

I might be wrong here - just trying to reason it out.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 60107
Posted: #5830

So let me keep thinking out loud here....

If he wagered the same 53k at -105 instead of -110 - in other words - he risks exactly what he did risk already - wouldn't he have 2,400 more dollars than he does now?

Im being extremely lazy here by not plugging the numbers - but busy with some other stuff and interested in working this out in my head conceptually rather than with a spreadsheet.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #5831
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

So let me keep thinking out loud here....
If he wagered the same 53k at -105 instead of -110 - in other words - he risks exactly what he did risk already - wouldn't he have 2,400 more dollars than he does now?
Im being extremely lazy here by not plugging the numbers - but busy with some other stuff and interested in working this out in my head conceptually rather than with a spreadsheet.

I'll plug it into sheet, just a sec
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2010
Posts: 12241
Posted: #5832
mynigga
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 60107
Posted: #5833

Alright - I think I have my final answer..... 

I think in the end I side with everyone here that I was wrong originally, and that the number is closer to 1,200 than 2,400.

I was double dipping.

I haven't proven this on a spreadsheet - but after several conversations with myself - I got it wrong originally.  I think.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2008
Posts: 907
Posted: #5834
Vanzack is human!

I agree, it is closer to the $1,200. Assuming he risked the same amount, he should have won more on the bets he won, but lost the same amount on the bets he lost.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1472
Posted: #5835
AKV two mistakes??!! Impossible!!  And unforgiveable in his world. 
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2008
Posts: 907
Posted: #5836
It's still an excellent point, and losing $1,200 a month is a perfect example of why the vig you are paying matters.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 60107
Posted: #5837

Quote Originally Posted by Livan33:

Vanzack is human!

I agree, it is closer to the $1,200. Assuming he risked the same amount, he should have won more on the bets he won, but lost the same amount on the bets he lost.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 60107
Posted: #5838

Quote Originally Posted by RodWoman:

AKV two mistakes??!! Impossible!!  And unforgiveable in his world. 

My statement "unforgivable in my world" was giving away an extra penny when you don't have to.

Not sure if my writing made that unclear or not - but I was referring to the fact that an extra 1,200 bucks a month will kill you longterm.  It is money you are just choosing to give away.  And that is unforgivable.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 60107
Posted: #5839

I did make a mistake on the math, but lets not lose that theme.....

I will round it off so you it is easy to remember as this thread moves forward....

Every 50k CG wagers, he is paying an additional 1k that he doesn't have to and could easily avoid.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #5840
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

Alright - I think I have my final answer..... 
I think in the end I side with everyone here that I was wrong originally, and that the number is closer to 1,200 than 2,400.
I was double dipping.
I haven't proven this on a spreadsheet - but after several conversations with myself - I got it wrong originally.  I think.

I made a copy of the bet history sheet with - 105 instead. Leave it up for a while. He'd be down - 1,471 instead of - 2,650. His inconsistent staking makes it hard to do a quick comparative calculation.,got to put it in the sheet
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2008
Posts: 16192
Posted: #5841
3/12/15. Michigan wolverines +4 (-110) $1100/$1000. This team has a ton if pride and Illinois can't shoot they shoot 41% as a team
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1472
Posted: #5842
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

I did make a mistake on the math, but lets not lose that theme.....

I will round it off so you it is easy to remember as this thread moves forward....

Every 50k CG wagers, he is paying an additional 1k that he doesn't have to and could easily avoid.

  Not if he wins them all.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2008
Posts: 16192
Posted: #5843
Louisville Cardinals +2.5 (-110) $1100/$1000. Not impressed by Carolina. Louisville D will be the difference
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #5844
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

I did make a mistake on the math, but lets not lose that theme.....

I will round it off so you it is easy to remember as this thread moves forward....

Every 50k CG wagers, he is paying an additional 1k that he doesn't have to and could easily avoid.


It's a grave mistake Van, not because you double dipped (that's understandable just doing the calc in your head).

It's grave because, right now, after reading this back and forth, CG is probably chuckling to himself and now thinks he has an EXTRA $1,200 in his pocket compared to your original post of -$2,400.

Matter of fact, he'll probably make an additional K play today with all that extra money!


 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2008
Posts: 907
Posted: #5845
Quote Originally Posted by RodWoman:

  Not if he wins them all.




Does anyone else want to explain this again?
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2008
Posts: 16192
Posted: #5846
Let's go Wolverines and Cardinals!! Sportsbook packed fellas
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #5847
Quote Originally Posted by Livan33:

Quote Originally Posted by RodWoman:

  Not if he wins them all.
Does anyone else want to explain this again?

Not if he loses them all would be correct. Winning them all makes the difference between betting at - 110 and - 105 larger.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2006
Posts: 8485
Posted: #5848
Seems like he is still convinced he can survive as a dime player with a 20k bankroll so even the most simple premise of money management that everyone agrees on he dismisses. We all know where that leads its only a matter of how much time it will take till he busts out if he insists on playing dimes with a 20k roll.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2012
Posts: 1665
Posted: #5849
Good luck CG *handshake
 
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 12677
Posted: #5850
Quote Originally Posted by collegegambler:

3/12/15. Michigan wolverines +4 (-110) $1100/$1000. This team has a ton if pride and Illinois can't shoot they shoot 41% as a team

It's +4.5 almost everywhere online (+4 +101 at Pinnacle) , and South Point is showing 4.5 as well.
All Forums | The Archives
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.