Moving to Vegas to become a full time pro handicapper

You're not the only one. Baronman is a complete shitbird. He comes on here polluting the thread with his shitbum 5$ picks thinking anyone gives a crap. And that isn't even factoring in the abysmal grammar and sage "advice" he gives (ie. betting AZ ml -150 and taking UCLA -3 -110...really dude???) 

Keep up the good work CG. I'm pulling for you and enjoy the thread. PEACE

thanks fellas.  locked in my two plays today earlier at around 10:20 am pacific

2/19/15

Maryland Terrapins -8 (-110) $550/$500

Simply put I feel Nebraska is the worst road team in College basketball.  They are horrific and are 1-7 ATS on the road and routinely lose by 15-25 on the road.  Nebraska is playing awful team basketball and are poorly coached.. I will fade this team until they lose a road game by 10 pts or less. Terps should roll these bumbs like every other home team has basically done.

Purdue Boilermakers +4.5 (-110) $550/$500

Love the way Purdue plays ball.  Physical team who pounds you down low but also has some decent three pt shooting.  They dominated Indiana at West Laffeyete earlier this year and I feel they are touch matchup for Indiana.  Indiana is a very soft team who relies on threes and I think the Purdue D will be a pest to them this evening.  I think this is a 3 pt game either way hence my bet with the LIVE dog imo.

bol all

Since you asked...

I am going to say this factually.  It might sound harsh, but it is not meant to be that way.  I already told you I am a fan of you and your videos and am hoping for the best.

That being said...  I would bet a large amount of money that you are busto by football season.  That means your current bankroll - without getting a job.

The reason is simple. "Gut feel" successful longterm profitable gamblers do not exist IMO.  They are the great white whales.  There are months, even years - where gut feel gamblers can thrive.  But it wont work longterm - or at least I have yet to see it work longterm.

To add to that - nobody goes 57% - 60%+ year after year on gut feel.  And certainly nobody goes 57-60% year after year without doing some serious line shopping strategies.

The guys who do that percentage year after year do it by not only having predictive statistics models, but also by having predictive line movement models that pinpoint precise times and lines to buy.  And most importantly - these guys KNOW HOW AND WHY THEY WIN.  They are able to articulate the conditions necessary for them to win, and what specific segment they are able to exploit.

A guy who says "I don't know how I win" is doomed.  A guy who wakes up and "caps" by reading previews and getting a gut feel, and then drives down to a sportsbook and bets in to -110 lines (often missing the best line) is doomed.

The biggest predictor of a longterm gamblers success is simply by how much he can beat the closing line.  And to do this, it takes a lot more than just gut feel.

Once again, just being honest here.  A lot of people don't like it when I am honest - most say it is too harsh - but I hope you take it in the way it is intended - for you to possibly take some of it to heart.

GL

Quote Originally Posted by ad1260:

CG---

I think what CG is trying to say (and you touched on it briefly) is that yes, you might be right in saying that you are risking a smaller percentage of your bankroll when you only make 1 bet a day at a higher denomination but it's a heck of a lot easier to go 0-1 in a day as opposed to 1-2, 1-3, 2-2, 2-3, etc.

So when you do have those 1-2, 1-3, 2-2, 2-3 days it is a lot less devastating on your bankroll as opposed to going 0-1 4 or 5 straight days at 1k a pop. 

For example---if you had broken up that 0-4 streak you had 2 days ago into 0-1, 0-1, 0-1, 0-1 you'd be down $4,400 dollars as opposed to the 

-$2,090 dollars you lost by having an atrocious 0-4 day, betting $550 a game (which happens and will continue to happen) and the odds of you going 0-4 in more than one day in a row are pretty astronomical. BUT IF you did go  0-4 two days in a row at betting $550 a game then you'd be down -$4,180 (give or take a few bucks depending on the juice). Which is still less than you going 0-1 four days in a row at betting $1,100 a game. 

So imagine worst case scenario….you bet $1,100 a game one game a day and end up going 0-8 (odds are low but this is more realistic than going 0-4 2 consecutive days in a row). That means you'd be down $8,800 (assuming -110 juice). That's a big damn hit to your bankroll in just one week of betting. Your bankroll would decrease roughly 25%. Which is a ton, especially when you are dealing with the kind of money you are and considering this is now your job.

So I'm not trying to speak on the behalf of Vanzack BUT I think he made the "implosion" comment simply because of your rationale in post #1201 (at the very top of this page). Because to be honest CG, your rationale in post #1201 is backwards and probably not the best way to approach your betting strategy. I understand increasing your wager sizes some as your bankroll grows but be patient man. You've made a few K in just a week man, compare that to what you'd of earned in New Jersey during a 50 hour work week. I think it puts things in perspective. 

I'm rooting for you as much as anyone buddy! Just thought I'd stop in with a little constructive criticism and hopefully shed some light on Vanzack's comment. 

BOL today CG---let's pick a couple of winners and live the dream man. 

PS---I now live on the east coast and am very jealous of that 3 hour time difference…I mean Christ, you can actually watch all the games and then go to bed at a "decent hour" 

Let's get that 

Good explanation.

It is very similar to diversification in your 401k.  This concept is why mutual funds exist (and to make market managers rich, which is another story...)

I worry about CGs sophistication (not an insult) with these concepts.  Short term - no issues - but longer term these concepts always catch up to you.

And I am rooting for him as much as everyone else here is.

CG - quit talking in terms of "days".

Days are an arbitrary time period set by you to help you compartmentalize and organize.  Forge the concept altogether.

A winning day or a losing day should mean nothing to you - just like a set amount you bet per day should not exist.  This goes to what I posted above - if a wager qualifies as a play - you should bet it no matter if you have already bet 20 other wagers that day - and if it doesn't qualify - you should not bet it.

Part of the problem of having a non-quantitative approach (gut feel) is that you tend to bet by days.  You have no way to compare if todays 8th best game is better than last Mondays 1st best game.  I get the feeling that you wouldn't bet todays 8th best game because you limit yourself to a certain maximum number of plays per day - even though todays 8th best game is better than tomorrows 1st best game that you will bet.

This is tough concept to get out of because as humans we do this with everything.  It helps us navigate the world.  But it makes no sense in the gambling world.  People that hedge say this all the time.  They say "it is guaranteed money" - but they are thinking about that bet on that day - forgetting that over the course of many hedges they are giving away money.

It is counter-intuitive, but important to understand.

52.38% is break even on flat betting.

If you alter your bets, than you can be profitable at any percentage.  So to answer your question mathematically - you do not have to go 52.38% to break even financially.

There is no advice there.  It is simply math.