The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

[UsManyDead]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Well' date=' Simmo made a claim and he has the burden of proof, don't you think? If you can think of any other way, let us know. I tried to put you guys to the test, I tried to put my money where my mouth is, what else do you want? :-)[/quote'] I never said I know a pro bettor, so I don't know what test you put me up to. The most important thing is: if you want to claim something you should prove it, as you ask for proof yourself. So if you want somebody to believe what you are saying prove it. And even if you fail, meaning that what you are saying is true, it wouldn't mean that everyone is destined to fail, or have the same end. I still think you are looking at things too pessimistic and narrow. If you lost some (or all) of your money because you tried to venture in betting (and not gambling), I think you should look back and see where/what you did wrong, and try again. This road ain't easy, like going to the mall and get your pants. It's harder than a lot of the things. After all you are trying to predict the future, and this ain't a simple matter. If you can't do it, you shouldn't stop others to try.

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Okay guys, I won't take this any further since I don't think we're adding anything to the discussion. Despite that, my offer stands, as does my intention to consider any alternative offers to prove that there is such a thing as a professional sports bettor.

[MPLouis]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. pinkisntwell, On this thread you have argued that no one makes a worthwhile living from sports betting. I think you've made a reasonable case. On another thread you started, you asked about peoples experiences following tipsters, with the idea that you would like to follow some yourself. Given your well-argued views about how hard it is to profit from sports betting, can I just ask you what you are trying to achieve by following tipsters? I'm not taking sides with or against you, just genuinely interested in what you are trying to achieve by following tipsters.

[RocknRolla]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. I am far from being a pro bettor but Im only doing betting for a living. Using a simple staking plan and only bet what I think is value! Its really easy in my place, where online betting is still illegal and there are different local bookies offering fixed odds only. With the standard here I can hope for a job payed 300 euros at best and with the average ROI of 12% in the last 14 months Im more than happy to be in front of the pc when ever I want/can. Doing the usual staff, lurking through the forums, following odds by the opening, checking team news, infos, etc. Sometimes follow tipsters, mainly loungers which proved to be profitable. I have a great edge over five locals and their fixed odds and its much easier compared to worldwide bettor. Its not that easy, but its possible and very simple if you have the edge.

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

pinkisntwell, On this thread you have argued that no one makes a worthwhile living from sports betting. I think you've made a reasonable case. On another thread you started, you asked about peoples experiences following tipsters, with the idea that you would like to follow some yourself. Given your well-argued views about how hard it is to profit from sports betting, can I just ask you what you are trying to achieve by following tipsters? I'm not taking sides with or against you, just genuinely interested in what you are trying to achieve by following tipsters.

I think this is off-topic here, but let me just say that "making a profit from betting" is light years away from "making a living from betting", so your comparison makes no sense. But really, let's not derail this interesting discussion, if you want to discuss the other thread, take it to the other thread please.

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

I am far from being a pro bettor but Im only doing betting for a living. Using a simple staking plan and only bet what I think is value! Its really easy in my place' date=' where online betting is still illegal and there are different local bookies offering fixed odds only. With the standard here I can hope for a job payed 300 euros at best and with the average ROI of 12% in the last 14 months Im more than happy to be in front of the pc when ever I want/can. Doing the usual staff, lurking through the forums, following odds by the opening, checking team news, infos, etc. Sometimes follow tipsters, mainly loungers which proved to be profitable. I have a great edge over five locals and their fixed odds and its much easier compared to worldwide bettor. Its not that easy, but its possible and very simple if you have the edge.[/quote'] What's the overround at the bookies you are playing? Can you provide a typical set of odds for a football match? Let's say the Euro 2012 matches tonight.

[pg_yid]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

I think it's more accurate if we put it this way: To make a profit from sports betting all you need to do is to be more accurate in your predictions than the millions of people who are betting alongside you. Because the people shape the odds, not the bookmakers. If you try to be a smart guy and bet early you will find that bookmakers have very low stake limits on their early odds and they can ban you at the drop of a hat (i.e. when you accumulate a miniscule profit). If you try to play at the exchanges you will struggle to get matched on most of the markets that you could have an edge at and most of the time it will be for peanuts (for example, yesterday's snooker qualifiers had matched bet totals about 2 thousand per match at betfair). That is why I stand by my opinion that there are no long-term professional sports bettors.

Good point. I think, however, that your post elucidates another reason why it is hard to be a pro, but does not prove it's impossible. Not all the "value bets" I place are done early, before the market reacts. Sometimes they are on more obscure markets, so the price does not get noticed as being wrong by a sufficient amount of people for it to change much. Secondly, the people/market are wrong sometimes as well. Look at the amount of money going on Liverpool in the season just gone. The money helped make the prices on opposing Liverpool even better value than they were originally. Also, couldn't you just put your early bets on with Pinnacle? The odds might not be best price but considering their small margins they probably wouldn't be too much off it either. I've read the stories of some pro gamblers and have no reason to disbelieve them, so I'm confident they exist. Perhaps though when you get to a certain level you need a network of people putting your bets on for you, both online and in-shop, consistently creating new accounts etc. and you need to pay them as well (have heard of one guy doing this).

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Sometimes they are on more obscure markets' date=' so the price does not get noticed as being wrong by a sufficient amount of people for it to change much.[/quote'] What kind of markets are those and how much money can you get on?

[stho1978]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. I am sure there are probably people out there that over exaggerate when it comes to how well they do with their betting. However, I am also sure that some people do quite well out of it. There is no point arguing as we will never know which people are which on here and there's no point eyeing everyone with suspicion just because they say they make money / living / decent profit out of betting. People are always going to be sceptical if they have tried and failed at betting or think that it's too hard etc. But I think we should remember that just because we've not seen it it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe best to just listen to the interesting discussions and try to pick up useful information. As for some of the other points re value, getting bets on early etc - a lot of the betting is done by people who do not know about or are interested in value. Therefore you don't neseccarly have to find value (or whatever) that other gamblers haven't found because chances are other gamblers won't have noticed the value or even have the slightest interest in such value. Betting markets seem to overreact as in the example above about Liverpool. Just because it was Liverpool people, without looking into it or considering what a decent bet would be, backed them for top 4 finish. Finally I was reading an artical in the RFO (I think it was). They carried out a survey of 600 punters - 90 odd % of them would bet based on emotion at Euro 2012 which goes someway to highlight the fact you don't neseccarly have to an edge over fellow punters to allow you to get the odds you want / need.

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

As for some of the other points re value' date=' getting bets on early etc - a lot of the betting is done by people who do not know about or are interested in value. Therefore you don't neseccarly have to find value (or whatever) that other gamblers haven't found because chances are other gamblers won't have noticed the value or even have the slightest interest in such value. Betting markets seem to overreact as in the example above about Liverpool. Just because it was Liverpool people, without looking into it or considering what a decent bet would be, backed them for top 4 finish. Finally I was reading an artical in the RFO (I think it was). They carried out a survey of 600 punters - 90 odd % of them would bet based on emotion at Euro 2012 which goes someway to highlight the fact you don't neseccarly have to an edge over fellow punters to allow you to get the odds you want / need.[/quote'] You are repeating the well-known myth that markets are inefficient because some small-time bettors bet on emotion. If what you say is correct it would be advantageous to lay popular teams, which clearly isn't (as a matter of fact, there was a bias a few years ago which rendered popular teams slightly advantageous to bet).

[stho1978]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. I'm not saying lay popular teams - I'm just saying that the market doesn't always react as you think it would do based on what you think the actual odds should be. EG you think the odds for a particular team should be 1/2 but the book makers have it as evens you haven't always got to rush out and bet as soon as bookmakers price the event up due to you worrying that everyone else has the same idea on what the odds should be. Simmo summed it up when he said that you don't have to be more accurate than the millions of punters (although I think he / she could have been a bit kinder than saying you were so wrong it was laughable).

[MPLouis]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

let's not derail this interesting discussion' date=' if you want to discuss the other thread, take it to the other thread please.[/quote'] Good point - done :ok

[UsManyDead]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. @MPLouis and stho1978 I think you should leave the man alone and don't enter further discussion with him. First of all he doesn't even read carefully what someone says (eg.: stho1978 gave an example about Liverpool and pinkis said "If what you say is correct it would be advantageous to lay popular teams" - which is nonsense regarding what stho said). Second, he always has something to say to anyone who posts in this thread (he didn't even start this thread) and he sustains only his ideas without tring to understand what someone else says. Third, he is usually wrong in his arguments and responds. (by the fact he doesn't correctly answers to what the person said) Forth, and most important, (this is only for pinkis): you made your point and said your thoughts and ideas, so please don't pollute the thread saying 100's times again the same thing.

[only1woz]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. I will add that I am not a pro bettor, far from it. I consider myself a distinctly average one. Although I have graduated from the "mug" punter bets (sitting in the bookies at 2.45 on a Saturday afternoon, putting on an 8-team acca and crossing my fingers) I would say that I'm not exactly making a fortune from this. I reckon that since I moved on from mug punter status, about 2 years ago, I am either a little up, or a little down. In that region definetely. Point being, that there are a lot of people out there who are waaaaay better at betting than me, so I don't think it's inconceivable that there are a few folk, not many, but a few, who manage to do it for a living.

[RocknRolla]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

What's the overround at the bookies you are playing? Can you provide a typical set of odds for a football match? Let's say the Euro 2012 matches tonight.

Dont know how to get the overround but heres England match as example. Sweden 3,20 draw at 3,15 and 2,20 England. Nothing that tempted me on the outright market but took a small punt on under 1,5 at 3 which seemed nice value. There was a conversation in Euro thread about the odds on most ball possession in that match and it was only bwin offering odds on that market where England were set slight favs at 1,8 which looked wrong for some. Checked local special bets and found Sweden on +5% handicap @ 1,85 in the same market which looked a big mistake and a must bet for me. Took that with medium stakes just to think it was a bad bet for the whole game. It somehow came through at the end to make a decent profit for the day. My point is that there are some really bad mistakes by all of the locals from time to time and its easy to be used by those seeking value and theres not much of those here just to make the job easier.

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Dont know how to get the overround but heres England match as example. Sweden 3' date='20 draw at 3,15 and 2,20 England. Nothing that tempted me on the outright market but took a small punt on under 1,5 at 3 which seemed nice value. There was a conversation in Euro thread about the odds on most ball possession in that match and it was only bwin offering odds on that market where England were set slight favs at 1,8 which looked wrong for some. Checked local special bets and found Sweden on +5% handicap @ 1,85 in the same market which looked a big mistake and a must bet for me. Took that with medium stakes just to think it was a bad bet for the whole game. It somehow came through at the end to make a decent profit for the day. My point is that there are some really bad mistakes by all of the locals from time to time and its easy to be used by those seeking value and theres not much of those here just to make the job easier.[/quote'] They surely make mistakes, as does everyone, but the overround you're looking at (with 3.2-3.15-2.2 or 1.85-1.85) is so big (as is always the case with local bookies) that they have to be way wrong for any value to exist. The example of the ball possession market is obviously such a mistake on their part, but I would expect the betting limits on that market to be miniscule.

[pg_yid]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

What kind of markets are those and how much money can you get on?

I would advise trying to find competitions which the bookmakers don't spend much time or resources pricing up, but where you can find information which would give you more knowledge on the event than the bookmakers, and therefore an edge. Bookies only have limited staff, and most of them are pricing up Man City vs Man Utd. I have had success with the more obscure international games, youth internationals and the Welsh Premier League. There are a few other areas I've looked into but haven't done enough research to really gain any expertise on them yet. Here is an idea for you though http://www.urhotv.fi/ This is a website which shows live Finnish games. You have to pay a small fee to subscribe, but in the long run it should be more than worth it. Do you think the bookies watch those games? Not a chance. There is your edge. I have only had trouble with not getting enough money on with Paddy Power and Betvictor (am banned from the latter). But then again my stakes are not that of a pro punters; as I've already said I am only aiming for some supplementary income from betting. Bet365 will let me win £250 per bet on those sort of games, I'm not sure what limits other bookies set but I've never been thwarted except by PP and BV.

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

I would advise trying to find competitions which the bookmakers don't spend much time or resources pricing up' date=' but where you can find information which would give you more knowledge on the event than the bookmakers, and therefore an edge. Bookies only have limited staff, and most of them are pricing up Man City vs Man Utd. I have had success with the more obscure international games, youth internationals and the Welsh Premier League. There are a few other areas I've looked into but haven't done enough research to really gain any expertise on them yet. Here is an idea for you though [url']http://www.urhotv.fi/ This is a website which shows live Finnish games. You have to pay a small fee to subscribe, but in the long run it should be more than worth it. Do you think the bookies watch those games? Not a chance. There is your edge. I have only had trouble with not getting enough money on with Paddy Power and Betvictor (am banned from the latter). But then again my stakes are not that of a pro punters; as I've already said I am only aiming for some supplementary income from betting. Bet365 will let me win £250 per bet on those sort of games, I'm not sure what limits other bookies set but I've never been thwarted except by PP and BV.

Your suggestion is very good. I might try it in the future, although the Finnish league is not considered as obscure as you believe. It's played during the summer, so it doesn't have to be tracked together with the big leagues.

[pg_yid]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Your suggestion is very good. I might try it in the future' date=' although the Finnish league is not considered as obscure as you believe. It's played during the summer, so it doesn't have to be tracked together with the big leagues.[/quote'] Good point, though I would doubt the bookies have someone watch all the matches. Besides, it was merely an example. I am sure there are competitions for which the bookies work out their prices using only stats and algorithms rather than through closely following the leagues and watching the matches. Where are you based? If you're not in the UK, Spain etc you could follow your local league. Even if you are in these countries you could look into non-league football. I also believe there is decent value to be had on popular competitions as well. Though some of the problems you mention rear their head more frequently in such competitions.

[F.]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Okay guys' date=' I won't take this any further since I don't think we're adding anything to the discussion. Despite that, my offer stands, as does my intention to consider any alternative offers to prove that there is such a thing as a professional sports bettor.[/quote'] It's been more than three years since I last posted here. Sooo many things have happened in my life since then, and one of those is that my foray into sports gambling led me to do a Master's in Applied Statistics, and the title of my thesis is "Statistical Methodology for Profitable Sports Gambling." So I'm willing to take your challenge. Your original conditions to consider this hypothetical gambler a pro are: 1) He has to post selections and stakes 2) "Satisfy us that he would be able to get the bet on" 3) Make at least 20 thousand euros within the next 12 months I noticed that you used the expression "burden of proof", which I interpret that you have at least some training in the scientific method. Based on that I want to provide scientific evidence, where scientific means a) backed up with data, b) published in scientific journals, and c) reproducible results. I am able to provide you not with one but with TWO people satisfying your criteria. (Quoting from my upcoming thesis) "As part of its corporate social responsibility program Bwin and the Harvard Medical School launched a joint research project in 2004 focusing on specific features of Internet gaming. Bwin provided a dataset with information representing eight months of aggregated betting behaviour data for 40,499 sequential sports betting subscribers who opened an account during the period from February 1, 2005 through February 27, 2005. LaBrie et. al (2007) initially used the dataset to conduct research on gambling addiction but the dataset can also be used to characterize the actual profit or losses incurred by online gamblers." You can download the dataset at: http://www.thetransparencyproject.org/Availabledataset ("Actual Internet Sports Gambling Activity: February 2005 through September 2005") Long story short: the top 2 gamblers achieved a profit of 38,310 and 26,300 euros. Both of them placed more than 600 bets, so their profit isn't the result of just one big bet coming through. I can't post attachments in the forum, but I am providing a link to the actual Excel spreadsheet I am using in my project. One worksheet is just a copy of the original data, but the other one is a prettified version that also includes some calculated columns to derive useful numbers, such as total profit/loss, or total yield (don't mind the color of the columns, that's just for me to make it easier to identify some columns). Just take a look at the top 2 rows, and those are the gamblers I'm providing as evidence: http://goo.gl/lDzwg Obviously the data satisfies conditions 2 & 3, as it is actual gambling records reported by the bookmaker. I can't match the first of your requirements (include selections and stakes) but I suppose the whole point of the requirement was to prove that everything was kosher: selection, stake size, odds at which the bet was placed, and so on. In that case this dataset is as good as it gets and I think I have provided enough evidence to claim the 500 euros you offered. If you think otherwise, I'd love to have that discussion with you. Cheers, F. P.S.: My own gambling record would have made me win the bet, but providing evidence would be much more time consuming ;)

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

It's been more than three years since I last posted here. Sooo many things have happened in my life since then, and one of those is that my foray into sports gambling led me to do a Master's in Applied Statistics, and the title of my thesis is "Statistical Methodology for Profitable Sports Gambling." So I'm willing to take your challenge. Your original conditions to consider this hypothetical gambler a pro are: 1) He has to post selections and stakes 2) "Satisfy us that he would be able to get the bet on" 3) Make at least 20 thousand euros within the next 12 months I noticed that you used the expression "burden of proof", which I interpret that you have at least some training in the scientific method. Based on that I want to provide scientific evidence, where scientific means a) backed up with data, b) published in scientific journals, and c) reproducible results. I am able to provide you not with one but with TWO people satisfying your criteria. (Quoting from my upcoming thesis) "As part of its corporate social responsibility program Bwin and the Harvard Medical School launched a joint research project in 2004 focusing on specific features of Internet gaming. Bwin provided a dataset with information representing eight months of aggregated betting behaviour data for 40,499 sequential sports betting subscribers who opened an account during the period from February 1, 2005 through February 27, 2005. LaBrie et. al (2007) initially used the dataset to conduct research on gambling addiction but the dataset can also be used to characterize the actual profit or losses incurred by online gamblers." You can download the dataset at: http://www.thetransparencyproject.org/Availabledataset ("Actual Internet Sports Gambling Activity: February 2005 through September 2005") Long story short: the top 2 gamblers achieved a profit of 38,310 and 26,300 euros. Both of them placed more than 600 bets, so their profit isn't the result of just one big bet coming through.

I will not accept this as a winning bet. I have a simple explanation for this, which I can present in two ways. First, for the non-statistically trained readers: If I place a bet on Germany to beat Greece tonight, and Germany loses, I cannot call the bookmaker and demand to be paid because Germany has beaten Greece in the past. Your claim amounts to that, nothing more, nothing less. Now, the second explanation, for the (not-so-much) statistically-trained readers: You used that data for gambling addiction research, for which they are suitable. Why don't you try to use it also to publish a paper supporting the hypothesis that professional betting is viable (i.e. sports betting markets are not efficient), as you're trying to do here? Don't rush, it would never be accepted by the editors. See, there is no problem in finding bettors whose past record is profitable. I don't need a master thesis for that, or even (possibly biased) data from a bookmaker. I can simply head over to an independent site like http://www.sports-tipsters.co.uk/ or even right here at http://www.punterslounge.com/tipster-competition/. But since you have statistical training you don't even need to do that; you can simply perform the following calculation: Assume a hypothetical bettor plays at a betting exchange. He only bets when the market has very high liquidity and only takes odds of evens, that is 2.00 in decimal. This means that the market expects the bet to win half the time. But our bettor needs to pay 5% commission, so the odds he's paid at when he wins are really only 1.95. Let's assume that our bettor places 500 such bets. To have a yield higher than 5% on those 500 bets he will need to hit at least 270. If the market is efficient (i.e. his expected loss is only due to commission) then he's got a 4.05% chance of hitting 270 or more (equal to 1 - binomcdf(k = 270, n = 500, p = 0.5)). So out of 40k such bettors I would expect to have 1,620 with a higher than 5% yield. Doing a similar calculation you can find that I also expect 72 to have a yield of more than 10% and 1 to have an extraordinary yield of more than 15%! And all that with an efficient market (i.e. an expected loss for each betting sequence). I believe I have sufficiently justified my grounds for not accepting your after-timer's bet. That said, my betting offer still stands, exactly as I had initially presented it. It can start any time you wish.

[F.]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

You used that data for gambling addiction research' date=' for which they are suitable. Why don't you try to use it also to publish a paper supporting the hypothesis that professional betting is viable (i.e. sports betting markets are not efficient), as you're trying to do here?[/quote'] Because that isn't the hypothesis I'm trying to disprove. I'm trying to disprove that "the number of gamblers that can win more than 20,000 euros in a 12 month period is equal to zero." And I did. I feel a hint of sarcasm. I don't think I deserve it as I just presented my argument. BTW, if you are not willing to accept data that has been used for serious scientific research, that means you are selectively discarding evidence that weakens your case. Not the most scientific thing to do. ...which is enough evidence to prove that at least one person can live off from gambling, even if it's due to sheer luck. Everything that you just stated is correct. However, you omit the fact that the gambler with profit of 26,300 euros has a yield of 77.8% over 689 bets. That is not to be expected, even in a cohort of 40,000 gamblers. However, your argument reminds me of the discussion about Warren Buffet. Is he a billionaire because he has superior financial skills, or is he just the lucky outlier that it is to be expected in a distribution?

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Because that isn't the hypothesis I'm trying to disprove. I'm trying to disprove that "the number of gamblers that can win more than 20' date='000 euros in a 12 month period is equal to zero." And I did.[/quote'] Well done, but I had proposed no such hypothesis. The numbers you quote are related merely to my bet offer which is by now obvious that you're not willing to take.

[Fedar]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. A very interesting discussion which I read with enormous interest. Some very interesting output from experienced punters. I am a bit confused as to what the actual objective of the author of the thread is, since he did not seem to try to understand and value the input of others - he looked more like trying to exercise his debating skills and imposing his opinion on others, rather than searching for new insights and knowledge. Pretty much most of the points have been covered already, but I am surprised that very few were touching the aspects of the professional and methodological analysis and expert knowledge of the game itself, which could give huge edge for a punter. The discussion was almost entirely centered on prices, mathematics and trading, as if knowledge on the game itself is totally insignificant and it is easily ruled out by the probability theory in combination with bookies giving lower prices. Another point is that very frequently in the discussion winning yields of around 5% have been mentioned. Am I mistaken, or you will readily get similar winning yields if you just deposit your money at a bank? And if this is the case, then why bother talking about this kinds of returns? I check the tipsters competitions posted on this and other forums. What is very curious for me is why those tipsters give like tens of tips per day and often hundreds per week?! It is very unlikely that a man would be able to deeply analyze so many various picks each week (and deep analysis does not include just a look at soccerway, in majority of the cases it should mean knowing the teams you bet on, and having WATCHED them play recently at least a few times). And even if a tipster devotes all his time and is very efficient with his analysis, so that manages to reach the above-mentioned work-rate, then comes the big question: Is it possible that such a great number of decent selections daily and weekly exists?!! I mean you can know each single small details of both teams, you could have watched every their game, but in most of the cases you would not be able to discover a decent bet. I myself have been betting for nearly one year, and sometimes I cannot find a good pick for one or two whole weeks (oh, summer time). And I would never bet good money if I don't value the pick - I could just put some small sum for recreational purposes. That is how I reach the answer of key questions, asked in the discussion. Yes, I believe that there can be tipsters winning in the long term. These are the people with good expert knowledge of some teams and leagues, the people with quick reaction and good investigation of prices. Contrary, it is very unlikely that a tipster can do betting as a profession. The reason is simple and one I disclosed in last paragraph - very often you find just few decent bets over several weeks, while your expenses are constant and regular - rent, leasing, credit, living expenses. Hence, in my opinion, betting is a good option for extra cash, not the main and only source.

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Fedar, I agree 100% with everything you wrote. Here is my answer to your question though:

Another point is that very frequently in the discussion winning yields of around 5% have been mentioned. Am I mistaken' date=' or you will readily get similar winning yields if you just deposit your money at a bank? And if this is the case, then why bother talking about this kinds of returns?[/quote'] Assume you have a bank that pays 5% interest. This means that each year they will give you 5 euros for each 100 euros you have in your account, but those 100 euros have to be there for the full year. In sports betting you can use the same 100 euros to bet over and over again. It is not unrealistic to expect to make at least 2,000 euros in bets per year for every 100 euros you have in your bankroll, which means that the bank interest would have to be 2,000 / 100 * 5% = 100% to give the same returns.

[Fedar]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. I think I am missing something here...As far as I understand, 5% is average yield. Average yield naturally includes both winnings and failures. So, if a punter has a 5% average yield, and you give him 10,000 pounds to play with over one year, its expected that he will return you 10,500 euros at the end of term. Which is exactly what you will get from banks, sometimes for even shorter terms, only that they are thousands time more reliable.

[froment]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Fedar, you're right; but Pinkisntwell is also right. ;) Meaning of his post was that Bank holds your bank for exactly one year to give you 5%; but in betting shop, you are not limited by timeframe you will spend your bank within. In your example, with bank of 10.000 EUR, Bank will hand you 500 EUR each year. However, in betting shop, you may spend 10.000 EUR within one month, or half of year, or whatever, and each time you spend 10.000 EUR, you will get profit of 500 EUR - the more bets you place, the bigger your profit. Say, if you place a bet every single day with stake of 100 EUR, that will be total of 36.500 EUR staked for a year, and profit of 1.825 EUR compared to 500 EUR from the Bank, with the same ROI.

[Fedar]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Froment, maybe we going a bit off-topic, but I still disagree. Here I come back to my 10K euro example. You are absolutely right that you can at a bet shop you can get your money over two-hours, sometimes over just several minutes, while in bank you need to wait at least six months. But my point is that 5% average yield entails also losses. You may invest 10K in a betting shop and get your 500 bucks in the end of the month, for instance. But, then, when you reinvest in the second month, it may turn out that this has been a bad month for your betting-shop, and now you are left with 9,000 euros. Then, in the following month, they make-up for it, until in the last of the whole term they theoretically reach the average yield of 5%. My point is that this average yield involves many fluctuations over the course of time. So it is reasonable to estimate it over a longer period, like for example one year. Otherwise, it does not make much sense - it might happen even that your first-time investment is a loser. So, 5% average yield is pretty much the same as bank deposit, only that it is much more risky.

[froment]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Maybe a bit off topic indeed, but not to be concern, I think - it's still betting related stuff. I still disagree with you, too, so that's fine. ;)

You may invest 10K in a betting shop and get your 500 bucks in the end of the month, for instance. But, then, when you reinvest in the second month, it may turn out that this has been a bad month for your betting-shop, and now you are left with 9,000 euros. Then, in the following month, they make-up for it, until in the last of the whole term they theoretically reach the average yield of 5%.

Very correct. But where I disagree with you is "whole term"; looks like we don't see "whole term" in the same way; you look at "whole term" in terms of time - month, year, etc. - while, by definition of ROI, that's amount of money you staked, regardless of time. ROI is defined as ratio of profit and total stakes; when I say "total stakes", I mean sum of stakes from all bets - winning ones and losing ones; whereas you have profit only for winning bets. Thus, ROI of 5 % means that in long term you will profit 5 units for each 100 units staked, nevermind of timeframe and number of bets. That's what I'm trying to explain - in Bank, you invest 10.000 EUR, and that's it for entire year; in betting shop, you can invest 10.000 EUR as many times as you can within one year, and each time your stakes sum up to 10.000 EUR, ROI of 5% means you get 500 EUR - regardless if you placed 10 bets or 100 bets, if you placed them within one day or one month. But, mind you, in above examples, we operated with "theoretical", guaranteed, constant ROI of 5% all the time, while in reality it can change - as they say, past performance is not guarantee of future success, so profit can easily turn to loss, so of course you're right it's more risky, and that's main difference between two investments. Now, I need to correct myself: the figure I described above, ratio of profit and total stakes, is in fact yield; ROI is ratio of total return and total stakes, so yield of 5% corresponds to ROI of 105%, but that does not change math above.

[Fedar]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. I want to return to the previous points made in this long discussion about reality of sports betting. And to particularly emphasize something which I believe is the answer for many questions in this business. Many people, including in this forum and discussion, claim that bookies price events in the big majority of cases at their real value. This is something that I disagree with. I have a theory that bookies price events with a clearly defined favorite and underdog at what I call "MUG PRICE" - this is the price that would fulfill one main objective: - Protect against massive hits from mug-punter bets, and at the same time keep mug-punters in the game. To clarify more this concept I have to define mug punters - these are players who base their picks on stereotypes and popular beliefs, rather than thorough insight and analysis and who, consequently, tend to over-estimate favorites, and underestimate underdogs. You would probably ask yourselves why would bookies try to protect against those types of players, as they are their "wet-dream". I would try to illustrate my point with a case-study example: Liverpool's Overestimation: 2011-12 Those of you, who follow closely Premiership and bet on it, know that there have been consistent value over the whole season in betting against Liverpool in games when the Scousers were the favorite. Despite Liverpool showing continuous and permanent weakness in terms of goal-scoring, creativity, and being vulnerable to set-pieces and quick counter-attack football, the bookies would still continue to over-estimate the team. Why is this?! Think of purely imaginary game between Liverpool and Swansea at Anfield, somewhere in March, when Liverpool's form has been at its lowest, while Swansea have been performing above expectations throughout whole season. The pro-punters and the bookies believe that Liverpool should be priced at around 1.75-1.80. However, mug-punters are willing to lump-up huge money on home win, even at prices of 1.40. What should the bookies do? Price it at real price or at mug-punters price? Let's investigate both options. First, the real price of around 1.75-1.80. At this price, bookies virtually take pro-players out of the game, because they are almost exclusively value seekers. But they attract disproportionate amount of mug-punter money. Which, in turn, leaves them over-exposed in case that Liverpool - still the favorites, win that game. Now, let's investigate what happens if bookies decide deliberately to over-estimate Liverpool and put a price of 1.35 on home win. Now they are totally safe against mug-punters, because even if Pool wins, they will easily recover their money and earn much more than that in the next game if they follow this policy. On the other hand, bookies are exposed in this case to pro-punters, who would immediately explore the value that they spot in betting against Liverpool. So, after investigating both options, we should ask ourselves - against whom bookies would rather want to be protected - pro-punters or mugs?! Although intuitively you will answer "professional betters", I believe that the answer is just the opposite, at least in the scenario of clear favorite and underdog plus very popular market. Mug punters are the ones who comprise the big majority of players in the popular markets. Mug punter money exceed in total those invested by pro-punters by far, and therefore the bookie needs to design the ideal price which simultaneously will protect it from mug-punter winning big time and still keep mug-punter money in the game in huge amounts. Last but not least, let's not forget that bookies dispose of serious weapons against pro-punters: account limits, closed accounts, maximum stake limits etc. To sum it up, I believe that in their pricing policies, bookies do not aim at the real price, but rather at the "popular" price, i.e. the price, as perceived by mug punters, plus a small price premium to attract those mug punters. I will continue my reasoning later, to try to prove that bookies often aim for the popular price even in more obscure markets like the Bulgarian Premier League. I will present you with a small case study about how bookies systematically and deliberately make "pricing errors" in this league, and how they profit from them.