$$$—Sports Betting Thread—$$$

[mopkins]

Ok. Let me revisit this again. I realize betting on a favorite will prob not get you an even 1:1 payout. So, if you bet $100 on the favorite might win $30. But isn't it still worth it to take your chance on that underdog and possibly win $4,700 taking that chance you might lose $70 in the end.

I mean if a guy had enough bank roll to deal with could pop $500 down on the favorite just for insurance but still have the rare chance the underdog might win for a payout.

I better stick to Blackjack!

well then you're just paying the juice and vegas still wins. The moneyline odds have juice baked into them.

lets do a real world example. This weekend Nebraska is -180 over Colorado +160. If you put $100 on Colorado it would win $160. But you'd have to put $180 on Nebraska to win $100. So if you bet both ways you'd bet $280 total. if Colorado wins you cash out $260 (lose $20) and if Nebraska wins you cash out $280 (break even).

Always remember that you're not smarter than Vegas and you'll be fine.

 

[mopkins]

And even then it's loss-minimization instead of profit maximization. Rational gambling assumes profit and loss are equal proportionally on a spectrum and that a profit of $10 is the same "amount" of desirable as a $10 loss is undesirable. Where us dumb humans get caught is that we think losing $100 sucks way more than we think winning $100 is awesome. And that's how the psychology steers us the way the books want us to go.

If you had a billion dollars to make 100,000 bets and some serious computing power you could make a small amount of money hedging (that's what mutual funds do in the stock market), but your "odds" of coming out ahead by hedging are statistically no different than throwing darts.

You're exactly right. My buddy does this all the time and I rip on him. But sometimes fluky shit happens and you just want to get out of a bet....and Vegas laughs all the way to the bank. Still though, I've seen him double dip a couple times and win massively...but you're hoping for a wedge in between two spreads and your odds are pretty terrible.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Wouldn't do it. Bobby Diaco will have UConn ready to play. He hates Illinois with a passion and probably has this one circled as their Super Bowl.

Uh...Diaco is now DC at La Tech

 

[Fryowa]

...Still though, I've seen him double dip a couple times and win massively...

The problem for him is that over the long run his massive wins won't outweigh his smaller but more numerous losses.

...but you're hoping for a wedge in between two spreads and your odds are pretty terrible.

The best way to explain hedging to people (and many other things in life) sometimes instead of doing the math is just to say, "If it were profitable, everyone would be doing it."

If Bridgewater, or JP Morgan, or Google, or whoever, with their 12-figure resources, computing power, and MIT-level smart people haven't figured out a way to make money from arbitrage under the current framework and regulations of sports betting, there is no chance in a million hells that someone like me has thought of an idea that will work.

Betting exists because of irrationality of humans and the thrill they get out of it. If humans were rational, betting would not exist. There is literally zero possibility of anyone reliably coming out ahead in the long term. There are sharps who make money, but it is at a level of reliability (and likely rate of return) orders of magnitude less than something that already exists (diversified investment in the stock market). In other words, you can reliably say that you will make money long term by investing it diversely in the stock market (even with very little knowledge due to mutual fund risk reduction). It's been proven for years and years and years.

Gambling, on the other hand, has never been shown to be a reliable money-maker (even to those who have tons of knowledge), because there exists a third party (the house) that is after profit, and sets the rules. As soon as someone smart finds a loophole and exploits it (card counting, playing games with MLB spreads, etc.), the house is free to change the rules at will, and they do.

That $50 I mentioned putting on Illinois will reliably make me more money in my 401k, but that's not as much fun. There's no rational reason to gamble when other avenues exist to make more money, other than the thrill.

 

[4thngoal]

I'm not going to share my way of doing things. I don't get paid to do that.
But to answer your question, it is like the stock market, the higher the risk, the bigger the pay out. It's that simple. Because your odds of seeing that payoff are low. You are right, the best way is to spread your bets around. Just like being diversified in a portfolio.
I have given several people tips about the stock market and gambling and my number one rule is even keel. People are naturally prone to get excited and start thinking oh crap I'm down, I have to bet bigger to make it up. Huge mistake. They are also prone to self importance and think oh I'm on a roll and start betting more. Again huge mistake. Basically don't get overly excited either way.
The last thing is, again like the stock market it's easier to make money with money.
Because 50,000 shares that go up 50 cents is easier than 5,000 shares that you need to go up $5.
Be methodical.
A little help from above is always a good thing too. And remember "you never count your money when you're sitting at the table".

 

[Fryowa]

I'm not going to share my way of doing things. I don't get paid to do that.

And because you don't make money doing it. Tell us all the lies you wan't, but you ain't no sharp, Jack.

 

[mopkins]

I'm not going to share my way of doing things. I don't get paid to do that.
But to answer your question, it is like the stock market, the higher the risk, the bigger the pay out. It's that simple. Because your odds of seeing that payoff are low. You are right, the best way is to spread your bets around. Just like being diversified in a portfolio.
I have given several people tips about the stock market and gambling and my number one rule is even keel. People are naturally prone to get excited and start thinking oh crap I'm down, I have to bet bigger to make it up. Huge mistake. They are also prone to self importance and think oh I'm on a roll and start betting more. Again huge mistake.
The last thing is, again like the stock market it's easier to make money with money.
Because 50,000 shares that go up 50 cents is easier than 5,000 shares that you need to go up $5.
Be methodical.
A little help from above is always a good thing too.

I actually disagree with spreading bets around when it come to sports betting because you're getting juiced out at 10% per win. So if you bet 10 games and win 5 of them you still lose.

For entertainment purposes I will volume bet for sure. Its more fun to have more action out there.

 

[Fryowa]

Because 50,000 shares that go up 50 cents is easier than 5,000 shares that you need to go up $5.

Lol. No it isn't.

Quite literally it's not. That's a fallacy and you believing it is a reason why you shouldn't give people life advice.

 

[Fryowa]

I have given several people tips about the stock market and gambling...

Jesus Christ.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

The problem for him is that over the long run his massive wins won't outweigh his smaller but more numerous losses.
The best way to explain hedging to people (and many other things in life) sometimes instead of doing the math is just to say, "If it were profitable, everyone would be doing it."

If Bridgewater, or JP Morgan, or Google, or whoever, with their 12-figure resources, computing power, and MIT-level smart people haven't figured out a way to make money from arbitrage under the current framework and regulations of sports betting, there is no chance in a million hells that someone like me has thought of an idea that will work.

Betting exists because of irrationality of humans and the thrill they get out of it. If humans were rational, betting would not exist. There is literally zero possibility of anyone reliably coming out ahead in the long term. There are sharps who make money, but it is at a level of reliability (and likely rate of return) orders of magnitude less than something that already exists (diversified investment in the stock market). In other words, you can reliably say that you will make money long term by investing it diversely in the stock market (even with very little knowledge due to mutual fund risk reduction). It's been proven for years and years and years.

Gambling, on the other hand, has never been shown to be a reliable money-maker (even to those who have tons of knowledge), because there exists a third party (the house) that is after profit, and sets the rules. As soon as someone smart finds a loophole and exploits it (card counting, playing games with MLB spreads, etc.), the house is free to change the rules at will, and they do.

That $50 I mentioned putting on Illinois will reliably make me more money in my 401k, but that's not as much fun. There's no rational reason to gamble when other avenues exist to make more money, other than the thrill.

This is why I asked the question. I knew something in my thinking was amiss.

 

[mopkins]

the house is free to change the rules at will, and they do.

There was a side bet blackjack game that I used to play all the time and I swear I made money long term on it. Anyway they slowly reduced the odds of some of the more common payouts and they didn't announce it or anything. Suddenly the 2:1 paid 1:1 and the 15:1 paid 10:1. Amazing how those things change in the houses favor.

The one thing I ALWAYS yell at people for in blackjack is when players take even money on a blackjack vs an Ace. Literally the house WOULD NOT OFFER YOU THE OPTION to take even money if they didn't WANT you to do it. There's generally a 4/13 chance the dealer has a face card underneath an ace. so to take even money is to throw away one of the few edges you have

 

[4thngoal]

Fry, I'm not going to get into it with you.
Do what you want.
I feel no need to validate myself to you.
People I know are happy and that's all I really care about anyway.

 

[Fryowa]

There was a side bet blackjack game that I used to play all the time and I swear I made money long term on it. Anyway they slowly reduced the odds of some of the more common payouts and they didn't announce it or anything. Suddenly the 2:1 paid 1:1 and the 15:1 paid 10:1. Amazing how those things change in the houses favor.

What drives me bonkers is slot machines. Casinos quite literally program the machines with how much money they want to win, and they very freely admit that you can't make money playing them. It's 100% impossible to do.

And I get that people play them for thrill. But... walk into any casino in America and find the people who play the most consistently over the longest period of time, and it's stupid people at slots. Worst odds in the place long term yet they're packed full of people who sit there for 6 hours twice a weekend and think they have a system figured out or that they're ahead over the long run. IT ISN'T POSSIBLE. Casinos actually adjust the machines and tell them how much money to steal from you, with the only variable of how stupid they think a crowd is over a given period of time (which is always way >0).

 

[Fryowa]

Fry, I'm not going to get into it with you. Thanks.

Do what you want. Okie doke.

I feel no need to validate myself to you. Umm...fine with me?

People I know are happy and that's all I really care about anyway. Not sure what that's supposed to mean, but I'm glad.

 

[4thngoal]

I actually disagree with spreading bets around when it come to sports betting because you're getting juiced out at 10% per win. So if you bet 10 games and win 5 of them you still lose.

For entertainment purposes I will volume bet for sure. Its more fun to have more action out there.

If you are only hitting 50% you would be better off just listening and doing what a talk show hosts says that's hitting 55-60%.
And no need to pay someone to watch your investments, just watch motley fool and do what he says.

 

[Fryowa]

If you are only hitting 50% you would be better off just listening and doing what a talk show hosts says that's hitting 55-60%.
And no need to pay someone to watch your investments, just watch motley fool and do what he says.

Nobody hits 55-60%. No one.

The most successful sports gamblers in the world are right at or just barely over 50%. Which is what @mopkins is getting at. There's no such thing as an advantage after juice. None.

Professional gamblers make money off of volume and not losing big sums. Which leaves the rest of us and folks like you who feel they have some "system" or edge. It's pie in the sky.

 

[mopkins]

What drives me bonkers is slot machines. Casinos quite literally program the machines with how much money they want to win, and they very freely admit that you can't make money playing them. It's 100% impossible to do.

And I get that people play them for thrill. But... walk into any casino in America and find the people who play the most consistently over the longest period of time, and it's stupid people at slots. Worst odds in the place long term yet they're packed full of people who sit there for 6 hours twice a weekend and think they have a system figured out or that they're ahead over the long run. IT ISN'T POSSIBLE. Casinos actually adjust the machines and tell them how much money to steal from you, with the only variable of how stupid they think a crowd is over a given period of time (which is always way >0).

One of my best friends is the closest thing to a profession gambler without being a professional gambler. Like he's legit up on DraftKings for the year, he showed me the slip DK sent him. He's spent like $240,000 on entries and won $254,000. He also studies lines and line movement and all that shit.

BUT, he is addicted to slot machines. The other day he dropped like $3,000 in slot machines. I just don't get the draw at all. He knows its a sucker game, yet he still plays them. It must be an addiction.

 

[Fryowa]

One of my best friends is the closest thing to a profession gambler without being a professional gambler. Like he's legit up on DraftKings for the year, he showed me the slip DK sent him. He's spent like $240,000 on entries and won $254,000. He also studies lines and line movement and all that shit.

Jesus. does this dude have a huge income or has he just saved up that big of a bankroll? I'm gonna assume it's play money because he's probably smart enough to know he could have made more than 5.8% on a mutual fund after fees?

 

[mopkins]

Nobody hits 55-60%. No one.

The most successful sports gamblers in the world are right at or just barely over 50%. Which is what @mopkins is getting at. There's no such thing as an advantage after juice. None.

Professional gamblers make money off of volume and not losing big sums. Which leaves the rest of us and folks like you who feel they have some "system" or edge. It's pie in the sky.

yep even the best sports bettors in the world don't hit at a 60% clip. You have to hit at a 52.4% clip to break even. The sharps just try to beat that, but with lots of bankroll

 

[mopkins]

Jesus. does this dude have a huge income or has he just saved up that big of a bankroll? I'm gonna assume it's play money because he's probably smart enough to know he could have made more than 5.8% on a mutual fund after fees?

Well he has an ok job, but he earns tax free dollars on the side selling stuff that isn't exactly legal. Then he uses that cash to bankroll his habits.

spending $240,000 on draftkings isnt as hard as you would think. he plays mostly cash games with a high volume of entries. So like 10 entries at $300 each and he'll win some and lose some. Over and over and over and over...suddenly you're in the hundreds of thousands off of $3000 starting. Plus their incentives give you a lot of free entries. Just like any other "pro" he just looks for the noobs to eat up and banks off those.