skm2 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. 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. What would you and other experienced punters recommend to concerning stakes and yield to stay unobtrusive to the bookies in the long term? given example: 30 bet per month 100 usd flat stake and 5-10% yield. What this be sufficiently low to avoid detection? i am just looking for a rough estimate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkisntwell Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Fedar, When we refer to "yield" or "ROI" in a sports betting context, we refer to the fraction (net profit) / (total stakes, i.e. money that we'd have lost if all our bets lost). You can see that if someone starts with a 100 bankroll and a 5% edge he can bet those 100 euros many times (it's not unrealistic to expect to bet 10 or 20 times that) and the 5% will be multiplied by the total stakes. Note that if he starts with a 100 euro bankroll he doesn't have to bet the full 100 euros in his first bet. He can bet 5 or 10 euros, making it extremely unlikely to go bankrupt, assuming he has a 5% edge (that edge being our original assumption). On the other hand, if you deposit your money into a bank account you need to have the whole sum up front. You are comparing very different things. Now, on to your "bookies guard against mug bettors" argument. This is a tired old argument, which you should be very careful with as it can cost you lots and lots of money. Let me explain myself: If there is "mug money" on sports betting, it's very definitely on the underdogs, not the favorites. In your example the mug money would be on Swansea. This can be proved by the consistent favorite-longshot bias that is evident on bookmakers' prices, that is, if you blindly bet all favorites with your average high-street bookmaker and then do the same with all the underdogs, you will find out that you will lose much more when you bet on the underdogs. This leads us to believe that "mug money" is concentrated on the underdogs, as "mug punters" would be unlikely to bet 10 pounds to win 4. In short, the bookmakers' overround is distributed unevenly, since it is concentrated mostly on the underdogs. There is no such bias in the exchanges, mind you, as people can back or lay so the overround has to stay close to 0 (and you can't distribute something that doesn't exist). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedar Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Froment and Pinkitwell, about the ROI - I am familiar with this concept, but I think you are missing some points. You define ROI always relative to some frame. In case of betting, this frame could be absolute number of bets, time period, etc. This is very important, because otherwise tomorrow I might put three mug bets at small coefficients and then start bragging that I've got ROI of the enormous 30%. Will this make me a better punter that people with 8% return, achieved over thousands of bets for several years?!! Obviously no. Hence, you cannot just define ROI autonomously, without relating it to a frame. Second, ROI in betting is very different than ROI in other investment, especially financing investment. You keep on making the mistake (and actually not reading my point) to claim that the ROI in betting is constant, while in reality it is more than obvious that it is not. Pinkitwell, for instance, says that you bet your money many times and the 5% ROI is multiplied each time. Not true! When you lose, and when you are on a losing streak, your ROI on the particular investment is negative! Your total ROI is decreasing when losing a bet. In contrast, if you invest your money in a short-term, low-risk investment with a pred-defined ROI, you get basically the same ROI each time your investment expires. Completely different than in betting, where your ROI is fluctuating a lot and is often negative. And to be honest, I don't think that ROI is a stable indicator of betting performance at all, because I don't believe a punter can maintain the same ROI over time and numerous bets - it is just changing all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedar Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Fedar, Now, on to your "bookies guard against mug bettors" argument. This is a tired old argument, which you should be very careful with as it can cost you lots and lots of money. Let me explain myself: If there is "mug money" on sports betting, it's very definitely on the underdogs, not the favorites. In your example the mug money would be on Swansea. This can be proved by the consistent favorite-longshot bias that is evident on bookmakers' prices, that is, if you blindly bet all favorites with your average high-street bookmaker and then do the same with all the underdogs, you will find out that you will lose much more when you bet on the underdogs. This leads us to believe that "mug money" is concentrated on the underdogs, as "mug punters" would be unlikely to bet 10 pounds to win 4. In short, the bookmakers' overround is distributed unevenly, since it is concentrated mostly on the underdogs. There is no such bias in the exchanges, mind you, as people can back or lay so the overround has to stay close to 0 (and you can't distribute something that doesn't exist). Pinkitwell, maybe I am being naive in my reasoning and missing the big picture, but your arguments, despite the beautiful theoretic words and concepts, go against the personal experience of me and many other punters. I apologize if I am saying something silly, but it looks to me like someone using obscure theoretic concepts and terms in order to convince me that the sun is rising from the North, while I see it every day with my own eyes that it rises from the East. I am sorry, but I would rather believe my eyes and ears, unless I see really good and solid argumentation, and "the consistent favorite longshot bias" and "the bookmakers overround" are really not enough to convince me. Especially when I see and hear every day people saying "Lol, United/Barca/Bayern playing against some weak teams - I am gonna lump some money on them", while the old punters in this forum never do this, despite what your theory says. You realize that those mug punters are not familiar with the "longshot bias" and "the bookmakers overround", and they are rather choosing the intuitively easiest way to easy money?! You claim that mug punters would be unlikely to bet 10 pounds to earn 4?! Would be true, only if you replace mug punters with pro-punters. Because that's exactly what mug punters would want to do, probably only in different numbers - betting 100 pounds to win 40 pounds in a "certain victory" for the big team. Do you realize how many times I heard this year the sentence: "Those scum from Liverpool screwed me again with my money"? People were constantly lumping money on them against underdogs and losing. Pinkitwell, I see that your are very theoretically prepared, but could please restrain from using fancy terms and concepts, and stick to more plain language - if what you are saying is so true, then it definitely can be explained also in more popular words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
froment Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. tomorrow I might put three mug bets at small coefficients and then start bragging that I've got ROI of the enormous 30%. Will this make me a better punter that people with 8% return' date=' achieved over thousands of bets for several years?!! Obviously no. Hence, you cannot just define ROI autonomously, without relating it to a frame. [/quote'] Looking only at betting, you are correct, and I agree with your post. Though, you are the one who started comparing investment in the Bank and investment in betting, and that's where I got involved. In order to compare pros/cons of those two, you must assume the same ROI in both instances, so we concluded that Bank investment is safer, and betting investment allows you faster profit if you can maintain the same ROI. So, for comparison purposes, you must not consider significant variations of ROI (ups and downs from month to month), as you have patiently done - in that case, you simply cannot compare the two things; and that was point of my discussion, which starts to make me tired now, so I'll refrain from further discussion on that topic - looks like we cannot understand each other. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPLouis Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 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. It's a good question by Fedar asking why you should bother betting at 5% profit when you can get the same at a bank with much lower risk. I like your reply above Froment. By 're-using' your capital on many bets you can increase your return. But it is also important to remember bankruptcy risk - and limit your stakes. Leaving your money in the bank, there is a very little risk to your capital. But if you bet the whole 10,000 euros on one bet and it loses, you're bust on the first day. From what I've read about 'staking', a lot of people recommend limiting each bet to around 1%-2% of your capital. If we make it 1% and your starting bank is 10,000 euros, that would mean betting 100 euros at a time. A lot less exciting, a lot less risky too. You could lose your first ten bets and bank would be down 10%, but you would still have 9,000 euros, and over time, if you averaged 5% profit, you should still see a decent profit. I've noticed a lot of people in the 'Glory Hunters' forum (in threads with titles like '£100 to £1,000,000 in 12 months') stake a large chunk of their capital on each bet and often go bankrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkisntwell Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Pinkitwell, maybe I am being naive in my reasoning and missing the big picture, but your arguments, despite the beautiful theoretic words and concepts, go against the personal experience of me and many other punters. I apologize if I am saying something silly, but it looks to me like someone using obscure theoretic concepts and terms in order to convince me that the sun is rising from the North, while I see it every day with my own eyes that it rises from the East. I am sorry, but I would rather believe my eyes and ears, unless I see really good and solid argumentation, and "the consistent favorite longshot bias" and "the bookmakers overround" are really not enough to convince me. Especially when I see and hear every day people saying "Lol, United/Barca/Bayern playing against some weak teams - I am gonna lump some money on them", while the old punters in this forum never do this, despite what your theory says. You realize that those mug punters are not familiar with the "longshot bias" and "the bookmakers overround", and they are rather choosing the intuitively easiest way to easy money?! You claim that mug punters would be unlikely to bet 10 pounds to earn 4?! Would be true, only if you replace mug punters with pro-punters. Because that's exactly what mug punters would want to do, probably only in different numbers - betting 100 pounds to win 40 pounds in a "certain victory" for the big team. Do you realize how many times I heard this year the sentence: "Those scum from Liverpool screwed me again with my money"? People were constantly lumping money on them against underdogs and losing. Pinkitwell, I see that your are very theoretically prepared, but could please restrain from using fancy terms and concepts, and stick to more plain language - if what you are saying is so true, then it definitely can be explained also in more popular words. You are, very simply, wrong. Read this http://www.gamblingonlinemagazine.com/gambling-features.php?articleID=35 and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favourite-longshot_bias. I also have some data handy, they are from the Greek state bookmaker, they are located here http://www.anendotos.gr/stix/stapodstat.asp (sorry, page is in greek). Here is some examples (all the following concern home teams): Odds of 1.1: won 87.2% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.959 Odds of 1.2: won 76% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.916 Odds of 1.5: won 59.47% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.893 Odds of 2.0: won 44.4% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.888 Odds of 5.0: won 15.64% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.782 Odds of 10.0: won 4.17% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.417 There is more data if you want, but I'm at work right now. Do yourself a favour and forget the smart-ass way of thinking, i.e. mug punters bet on low-odds favorites, I am smarter than them therefore I will bet against said favorites and will make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jase82 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Do yourself a favour and forget the smart-ass way of thinking, i.e. mug punters bet on low-odds favorites, I am smarter than them therefore I will bet against said favorites and will make money. Surely there are two types of mug punter though? The type that bets on favourites because they are a "sure thing", and the type of punter that invests in long shots because the return will be large for much less risk. Both types disregard any notion of value, and both are subjectively described as "mug punters". What constitutes a mug punter though is subjective and a hotly debated term because the person that bets at short or long odds can still turn a profit should they hit the right strike rate. It seems that most people have their own opinion on what makes a mug punter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedar Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. You are, very simply, wrong. Read this http://www.gamblingonlinemagazine.com/gambling-features.php?articleID=35 and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favourite-longshot_bias. I also have some data handy, they are from the Greek state bookmaker, they are located here http://www.anendotos.gr/stix/stapodstat.asp (sorry, page is in greek). Here is some examples (all the following concern home teams): Odds of 1.1: won 87.2% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.959 Odds of 1.2: won 76% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.916 Odds of 1.5: won 59.47% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.893 Odds of 2.0: won 44.4% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.888 Odds of 5.0: won 15.64% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.782 Odds of 10.0: won 4.17% of the time, that means your expected return per unit staked was 0.417 There is more data if you want, but I'm at work right now. Do yourself a favour and forget the smart-ass way of thinking, i.e. mug punters bet on low-odds favorites, I am smarter than them therefore I will bet against said favorites and will make money. Oh, Dear Lord...... First, forgetting the smart-ass way of thinking, is a great advise, which you can make good use of yourself, Mr. Pinkisntwell. Because the person in this thread who constantly shows attitude, refuses to accept or even read others' arguments, pretends that other people claim something they never said, is You, Mr. Pinkisntwell. Second, I have nothing against mug punters - I have been a mug punter myself in the beginning, as nearly everyone here. And I do some mug bets even now (the last was lumping four digit sum on Mexico and USA combined to beat Guyana and Antilles - a classic mug staff). Third, would you be so kind to give me exact quote where I said or hinted that "I bet against favorites and make money of it"?! If you don't do this, I expect you to apologize like a gentleman, or else I accept that you are just a muppet, not worth talking to. By the way, earlier in this thread, you made the same claim against another punter from this forum - that he was arguing that betting against favorites is profitable, which he obviously had not done, and you did not bother to apologize to him, as well. This speaks of really low manners and culture of communication, Mr. Pinkisntwell. Fourth, what exactly are you trying to prove with your data?!! That 1.20 coefficient is more likely to be a winner than, say, 1.80?!! Then you are a bloody Einstein, sir! Go get your Nobel! Fifth, how do your data and links relate at all to my statement that most of mug punters tend to heavily over-estimate favorites?! Be kind to elaborate on this. My statement refers to behavioral characteristic - "Most mug punters tend to over-estimate favorites". Your data refers to analysis of winning strategies. What do the two have in common?! You seem like a native speaker, I really don't understand how you continuously manage to miscomprehend straightforward concepts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedar Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Surely there are two types of mug punter though? The type that bets on favourites because they are a "sure thing"' date=' and the type of punter that invests in long shots because the return will be large for much less risk. Both types disregard any notion of value, and both are subjectively described as "mug punters". What constitutes a mug punter though is subjective and a hotly debated term because the person that bets at short or long odds can still turn a profit should they hit the right strike rate. It seems that most people have their own opinion on what makes a mug punter.[/quote'] Very true, Jase. However, in my opinion, the favorite type of mug-punter is the one that is really important and profitable for bookies. These are the people that lump the big money, and the people who play much more regularly. The long-shot mug-punter usually plays with very little amount of money, and actually, very often these types of players are a net-loss for the bookies. These are the people who play with 50 cents - 1 euro once per week, trying to reach 150-200. Whenever any of them makes the lucky strike, then he is most probably a net winner from betting (hence, net-loss for bookies) for the rest of his life. Whereas, favorite type of mug punters are net-winners, only if they stop betting after several hits, which they rarely do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkisntwell Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Fourth, what exactly are you trying to prove with your data?!! That 1.20 coefficient is more likely to be a winner than, say, 1.80?!! Then you are a bloody Einstein, sir! Go get your Nobel! No, my data have "units returned per unit staked". Anyway, I'm not gonna continue arguing because it is obvious it's leading nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPLouis Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Read this http://www.gamblingonlinemagazine.com/gambling-features.php?articleID=35 and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favourite-longshot_bias. One benefit of standing aside from the arguments is that I can see some very good points being made here :). I like these two articles about longshot-bias. I remember reading something along the lines that in English football, the favourites have to be priced more attractively than they should be to get people to back them - which ties in with this theory. I also know when I discuss betting with friends, they are not interested if I tell them the odds are 1.3 (bet £10 to win £3), but if I tell them they could win £50 by betting £10 (i.e. odds of 6.0) ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPLouis Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. 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. I think you are saying that most punters make too many bets, and I think that's probably true. Not only does it make it harder work, but it also dilutes returns. If you have 2 bets in a month and return 10% profit and the second month you increase it to 10 bets, and make 10% on the first two and zero on the other eight, you are still winning, but your return is then 2% instead of 10%. I suspect in general, the more bets someone has, the worse the average return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anaconda69 Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. For anyone without accounts for betting, use matched betting to gain £7k then arbing till all acounts closed limited etc. Earns a lot in short term so well worth it. Wish I knew about it before opened accounts :S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedar Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. For anyone without accounts for betting' date=' use matched betting to gain £7k then arbing till all acounts closed limited etc. Earns a lot in short term so well worth it. Wish I knew about it before opened accounts :S[/quote'] I don't get what you are trying to say here. Why exactly 7K and not any other random number? How do you expect to do 7K through matched betting when the usual free bet promotions are around 20-40 pounds worth and take place once every few weeks? It could take years before you can make those 7K through matched betting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anaconda69 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. There is average 3500 free bet offers a year inc risk free willhill 25 a week on games so add half that 600 year + free bets 3500 plus open offers of 3500 with 50 bookies and 3 spread betting forms then add bet 365 4-1 offer hitting that once a month = 7000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmo Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. 25 a week? I thought it was just a one-off £25 for a new account? Dont mean to sound cynical but £7k seems a wee bit fanciful based on most of the opening offers out there. Fair play if you managed it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anaconda69 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. 25 a week? I thought it was just a one-off £25 for a new account? Dont mean to sound cynical but £7k seems a wee bit fanciful based on most of the opening offers out there. Fair play if you managed it though. it is £25 a week of risk free bets on slots and £10 on live casino so you make £12.50 average but had slots win on £2.50 spins from my £5 risk free hitting £70 so banked it makes up for times you don't get a return other than your £5 back. I haven't done it as I have accounts open sadly and only doing well trading on betfair and doing odd arb and free bet here and there. With the right mind set ie not a gambler and £300 starting money it will be up to £7k if you did every risk free bet going new accounts and ongoing offers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anaconda69 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Oh and bet 365 would reap £45 on 4/1 or more from matched betting if you are good and hit one in 5 costing you £50*2%= £1 commission with smarkets per bet cover on equal bet this is not an arb to ban you but equal. Its risk free if technically you hit a 4/1 in 45 bets lol assuming you have a 10/1 match bet on next channel 4 race. personally I wouldn't bet it all the time as im sure you'd be banned in time few times a month on a fancied horse may not come up on the radar... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anaconda69 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Also remember the 0-0 money back goalscorer scores money back etc giveaways first hung if the conditions fit. Small money but do 50 @10 profit then your up 500 and probably showing a loss with bookie but profit from betting exchange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datapunter Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. I don't think you quite understand how making money from free bets works. 1) You cannot turn a free bet offer into cash 100%, at best you'll end up with about 70% of it. 2) Have you actually made a list of 50 bookmakers and checked the offers including all terms and conditions ? You'll find quite a few restrictions making only 35-40 available to you, assuming you live in the UK, for other countries only half will be available at best. 3) You'll lose some cash in exchange rates and transfer fees, not to mention the 'human error' factor. 4) And most importantly where do you get the idea its X amount per YEAR ??? 90% of offers are for new accounts, once in a lifetime. Only a handfull of bookmakers have recurring free bets or bonussus and again you must check the terms and conditions as usually there are things like account must be 0 and lifetime result must be negative, i.e. a losing account in order to get new bonussus. If you hit bad luck where a bookmaker needs to payout instead of the exchange and that's the end of the line with that bookmaker. So... if you are new to sportsbetting you can use free bets and matched betting to build a betting bank and i'd say you can get over 1000 pounds pure profit, maybe even 1500 or 2000 for the die-hards. But then that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anaconda69 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. 100% is putting a matched bet or arb to gain free bet then putting a 10-1 shot that is 10-1 on lay side of exchange, i.e. £50 free bet on 10-1 bookie and lay at 11.0 by £45.00 costing £450 liability. 10-1 wins, its £50, 10-1 loses its £45.00 - 2% commission with smarkets. You can even arb it and get 10-1 against 10.0 and win £50.00 minus commission either way. On another forum, someone has £1900 now at July from free ongoing bets including the willhill risk free bets and bet 365. This would be £3500 possibly if the bookies offer some more free bets throughout the year, and premiership will give some I'm sure. The Spread offers are £300 gain for three of them. The main bookies offers are £95 £190 £50 £88 £200 £20 £200 £70 €50 £30 £25 £50 £25 €25betvictor.gif"> £25 £25 £25 £10 £20 £25 £20 £30 £20 £10 €20 £50 €10 £50 £50 €20 £20 £10 £50 £10 £25 £10 £20 £25 £25 €25 =£1800 Granted, some have to be won through, but if you can do it without getting limited etc you'll be okay. Most are safe to win easily. That is £2100 for the free bets above, but there are others and on other sites it does state you can get up to £3200 + spread sites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anaconda69 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. For anyone without accounts for betting' date=' use matched betting to gain £7k then arbing till all acounts closed limited etc. Earns a lot in short term so well worth it. Wish I knew about it before opened accounts :S[/quote'] See above also, I stated anyone without accounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anaconda69 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. My opinion is think of it as a temporary job for the free bet first time offers and with the free bet offers throughout the year to give extra income, should your betting strategy not work out. The arbing I would do, but I'm only doing one or two a month and doing a few other bets so I probably stay off the radar but only just started doing a few arbs really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramaker Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Nice thread. I know a couple of PRO gamblers that make a fulltime living. I'm certainly not there yet, so but here's what I've learned from them and I'm working on applying. 1. FIND VOLUMES of SOLID SOURCES OF EV+ BETS. You can become VERY wealthy if you find good sources of 3%+ YIELD. 2. Can you make 50 to 100 of these bets per week??? 3. Bank roll management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkisntwell Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Nice thread. I know a couple of PRO gamblers that make a fulltime living. I'm certainly not there yet, so but here's what I've learned from them and I'm working on applying. 1. FIND VOLUMES of SOLID SOURCES OF EV+ BETS. You can become VERY wealthy if you find good sources of 3%+ YIELD. 2. Can you make 50 to 100 of these bets per week??? 3. Bank roll management. What portion of offered bets are 3% expected yield? I would say it's close to 2%, but let's say 10%. That means you would need to be offered 500 to 1000 bets per week to find 50 to 100 3% expected yield bets. Do you know of any sport (or any combination of sports that a single person would find it possible to follow to the necessary degree) that offers 500 to 1000 bets per week, in other words 70 to 140 bets per day? Certainly not. Your math doesn't add up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorthaPunt Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. I If I had £1 for all the punters on here who 'talked the talk about value' I would be a millionaire They all think they know what it is but cant put there finger on it. Im not professing Im an expert in the 'dark arts' but at least i dont spout the crap as if I did, like the bull****ters I read on hear with there 'value this value that ****e' There is no difference whatsoever between gambling and running a business or even trading stocks. It all boils down to the same thing make the wrong decision your fcuked, just that with gambling and stocks you get fcuked a bit quicker. It takes certain mentality to be successful not just a few quid and a youthful bravado after reading some book about punting and spouting about 'value ' every other sentence. Winners are the dedicated people who research everything they can, work 24/7 at it and then some, Not you average Joe with a few bob sticking a £10 on a 14/1 shot in the 3.15 because he thinks its 'value' then when it loses saying ' in the long run I'll win because it was value' . The bookies are full of them and so are message boards.......................................click your red shoes together and go back to Kansas. . . Could not have put that better myself. Absolute 100% on the money this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ONEDUNME Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. in my opinion, some advice. 5. before you place a bet ... take your money in hour hand and think if it`s worth to risk them on that odd, if you do accept that bet, at that specific odd, regarding your match analyzed. You know, I think there are a lot of punters who could turn a losing year into a winning one just by taking that piece of advice alone. It's far easier to see numbers on a screen and click the "submit" button than it is to hand over actual cash. If everyone thought of every bet in terms of cold hard cash (and maybe how long it had taken to earn that cash) they might think twice about whether they really do want to take that particular risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saint Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Could not have put that better myself. Absolute 100% on the money this. Absolutely 100% not on the money!! I think what Machine is trying to say is right - but what he has said is wrong. The people he describes as spouting about 'value' just because the selection is double figures or whatever most likely have no clue about the concept. 'There is no difference whatsoever between gambling, running a business or trading stocks and shares' - this is correct. 110%. Successful businesses stay in business because they obtain sufficient value in what they buy before selling it on at a higher price. If they did not obtain VALUE when they bought hteir prodict, they would go bankrupt. The Trader who buys high and sells low, makes a long-term profit because he obtains VALUE in his trades. It is as simple as this. HEADS OR TAILS. A Bookmaker would offer you 10/11 or probably even 5/6. We know that the true odds are Even money so you would be a dick to bet at odds on. At Even money the pair, there is no value - so no bet. If the Bookmaker offered you 5/4 Heads or Tails, you would presumably ask how many spins you were going to get before decinding on your stake and striking a bet. You would make money because you were betting at a VALUE price. The coin still has the same chance of falling on heads or tails but because you were backing the outcome at 5/4 rather than 5/6 you will make money long term. You could spend 24 hours a day researching that the price of the coin flip was evens but if you kept backing this outcome at 10/11 or 5/6 you would lose in the long term. VALUE is the only thing that matters. 10 selections backed at 9/1 with one winner - you break even. Backed at 8/1 - you lose. Backed at 10/1 you win!!! The selections chance did not change but because Value was obtained on these mythical selections you turned a loss in to a profit.... Simples!! TO be fair, I think Machine knows this all to well. No amount of research or decent strike rate will help you out though if you take 5/2 over something you think should be 4/1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramaker Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. What portion of offered bets are 3% expected yield? I would say it's close to 2%' date=' but let's say 10%. That means you would need to be offered 500 to 1000 bets per week to find 50 to 100 3% expected yield bets. Do you know of any sport (or any combination of sports that a single person would find it possible to follow to the necessary degree) that offers 500 to 1000 bets per week, in other words 70 to 140 bets per day? Certainly not. Your math doesn't add up.[/quote'] The ANSWER to your question was already answered on the first page of this thread. I'll let you re-read that page because it's the elusive obvious. Here's 2 hints... Here's hint #1: VERY few people can PROFITABLY handicap a sport. VERY, VERY few people can PROFITABLY handicap more than 1 sport. Personally, I can profitably handicap 2 sports that are relatively related because I trained in that sport for years. That's my EDGE. So I have to go OUTSIDE my own opinion to find 100 to 200 bets. And here's another hint: I BET ON OVER 10 SPORTS. That's how you find VOLUME. Hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.32384c3055cbc1254b0eb6212fda1359.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.