Found this article last year..
-J. R. Miller
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL SPORTS BETTORS
There are key differences between winners and losers
During my years handicapping sports I have come to recognize certain characteristics of successful gamblers that set them apart from the average bettor. Some of these differences manifest themselves in very subtle ways, often seemingly unrelated to the act of gambling itself. For example, to a man, the real pros I've known do not regard sports betting as some sort of carnival thrill ride. It's a business, and as a business it comes with good days and bad days. It's as though real pros are not quite sports fans in the normal sense of that term. You won't find them cheering or screaming or swearing at television screens. They accept losing days without frustration and they accept winning days without a lot of celebration. They are at once single-minded, but open to suggestion. They are self confident, but somehow humble, never cocky. They do not hesitate to go against popular opinion if they think they are correct in their own opinion, but they never fail to listen to other opinions; - that is, they have an open-minded ability to keep learning.
I was reminded of this particular characteristic some years ago by my friend Lem Banker. Lem, of course, is known throughout the gaming world as a life-long professional-level gambler. He and I were interviewed by the New York Times in 1997 as two of the top sports bettors in the country. Lem once told me he's never drawn a paycheck in his life, that he's made a living gambling since high school. Lem's name is among the first names heard when the subject of professional-level sports betting comes up.
Lem and I were together at the Gambler's Book Club in Las Vegas, and Lem was quickly cornered by a fellow who obviously had things to say. Most gamblers (me, included) regard Lem as something of a celebrity, and this fellow was a fan. I moved closer to hear the conversation, but it didn't take me long to hear all I needed. I heard this guy telling Lem, "I like to pick three NFL games a week, no more, no less, and concentrate on those three games...."
I overheard more, but I don't remember what else the guy said. My brain clicked off after hearing the above foolishness. It's nonsense to limit yourself to a pre-set number of plays. Such a plan would mean either passing plays you should be making or making plays you should be passing. The man was obviously no pro. I moved away.
...But Lem didn't walk away. I noticed Lem seemed actually interested in what the man was saying, and he went on listening for quite a long while. In fact, the fellow evidently laid out his entire betting strategy, hardly giving Lem a chance to say much at all. (If you know Lem, you know that ain't easy!) I remember thinking, here's a guy one-on-one with the great Lem Banker, and instead of listening to what this legend of the industry has to say, this po-dunk was doing all the talking.
I doubt if Lem learned anything during that incident - but I did. I learned that Lem Banker is always ready to learn something - anything - no matter what the source might be. In fact, that characteristic is perhaps the biggest of all differences between professional gamblers and chronic losers. The pros are ready to weigh any and all evidence in a wholly objective manner, and to change their strategy on a dime if the new evidence is strong enough and makes sense. Losers, on the other hand, are often wedded to strategies and methods that seem set in concrete. To many amateurs, it's as though the harder they believe in a "system," the more apt it is to actually work. They are often imprisoned by their own resistance to change. I'm not a psychologist, but I'll bet a lot of losers' sportbetting techniques are connected somehow to their self-esteem, their self image, their macho.
Another prevalent difference between successful gamblers and chronic losers is that pros never gamble unless they are relatively sure the odds are in their favor. For example, there is no such person as a professional craps player and there is no such person as a professional roulette player. In spite of what you may have heard otherwise, neither craps nor roulette are beatable over the long run. The built-in odds in those games cannot be surmounted nor avoided. The only way to make money over the long haul against craps or roulette is to either cheat or own the table.
The same is true of slot machines, video poker machines, bingo, keno, etc., with certain exceptions. These exceptions concern rules variations that can occasionally turn the odds in the players' favor, such as progressive jackpots. Such variations, however, are not suitable for someone seeking to make gambling his full time occupation.
Horse and dog racing can - in theory, at least - be beaten, but not bloody likely. The taxes and commissions charged against horse and dog bettors amount to a vigorish of approximately 20 percent of the monies risked. It's never been shown to me that such horrendous odds can be overcome. When was the last time you met a rich full-time horse player?
Poker can be beaten because the only thing that's required - aside from understanding the odds involved - is to be a better judge of human nature than the other players at your table. It's a highly subjective game wherein cards are used only as a vehicle by which to outwit your opponents. The house usually makes its profit by renting the chairs in some manner.
Blackjack can be beaten, too, under certain conditions that are becoming harder and harder to find and exploit. All you must know to beat blackjack is whether the remainder of the deck(s) is in your favor. It's not easy, but there are a lot of professional-level blackjack players out there. Trouble is, the wages-per-hour for a full-time blackjack player have been reduced dramatically over the years. Defensive rules installed by casinos, along with quick barring policies, make blackjack less and less attractive.
By far the best way to gamble nowadays is sports betting. Against sports, all you must do to be a long term winner is outsmart the opinion of the general betting public at least 55 percent of the time. Considering you can win 50 percent of your bets by simply flipping a coin, squeezing out another 5 wins over the next 100 bets doesn't seem all that tough. You're not even taking the bookmaker's money; you're taking his other customer's money and splitting it with him by giving him 9.1 percent of your winnings. It's not like blackjack, wherein you're taking money from the house itself. Make no mistake about it, the house doesn't like losing money. They will bar you from playing blackjack in an eyeblink if they suspect you're an expert player.
When the linesmaker posts a pointspread or a total on a game, his goal is not to predict which team will win the game, nor how many points the two teams figure to score. His goal is to get a suitable amount of money wagered on both sides of the proposition.
Winning 550 of 1,000 bets (55%) results in a profit of 55 betting units after paying vigorish, and a bet size of 2 percent of the beginning bankroll results in more than doubling the original investment.
Which brings us to the other big difference between successful sports bettors and chronic losers; - money management.
The first book I ever read about how to beat NFL football is still one of the best so far as handicapping teams and games. At the same time, I can't recommend the book because of its disastrous advice concerning money management. In fact, a couple years ago someone told me the author of that book - although he's one of the best handicappers in Las Vegas - is currently waiting tables at a downtown restaurant. He simply never understood correct money management, and evidently refused to learn.
It doesn't matter how well you handicap games, if you're using faulty money management you will fail as a sports bettor. Here's a very interesting line from this fellow's book: "...If you can consistently pick winners, a $55 bettor can easily be betting $550 a game by the end of the season."
Welcome to Suicideville. If you follow the above advice you will go broke, I promise you that.
The irony of correct money management is that so many people do it wrong while it is so simple to do correctly - or, at least, correctly enough to be a winner. For openers, if you're risking two or three times as much on some bets as others, you are doomed. There's not room here to explain the fallacies of a so-called "one-star, two-star, three-star" system, or the so-called "Kelly criterion," but progressive betting systems are actually a one-way ticket to Tap City. Over the long haul, the size of your bets cannot be used as a pry-bar to win more money than you deserve.
Generally speaking, you can't go far wrong by simply keeping the size of your bets the same. One relatively safe system is to use 2 percent of your beginning bankroll as your bet size until your bankroll has either grown or shrunk by 50 percent. Then reset your bet size at 2 percent of the new bankroll and begin anew with the new size. Let me say, however, that using 2 percent is a very aggressive plan. Most pro's use less. Nearly all amateurs, wanna-be's, and claim-to-be's use much more than 2 percent, which is another clear difference between winners and losers.
-J. R. Miller
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL SPORTS BETTORS
There are key differences between winners and losers
During my years handicapping sports I have come to recognize certain characteristics of successful gamblers that set them apart from the average bettor. Some of these differences manifest themselves in very subtle ways, often seemingly unrelated to the act of gambling itself. For example, to a man, the real pros I've known do not regard sports betting as some sort of carnival thrill ride. It's a business, and as a business it comes with good days and bad days. It's as though real pros are not quite sports fans in the normal sense of that term. You won't find them cheering or screaming or swearing at television screens. They accept losing days without frustration and they accept winning days without a lot of celebration. They are at once single-minded, but open to suggestion. They are self confident, but somehow humble, never cocky. They do not hesitate to go against popular opinion if they think they are correct in their own opinion, but they never fail to listen to other opinions; - that is, they have an open-minded ability to keep learning.
I was reminded of this particular characteristic some years ago by my friend Lem Banker. Lem, of course, is known throughout the gaming world as a life-long professional-level gambler. He and I were interviewed by the New York Times in 1997 as two of the top sports bettors in the country. Lem once told me he's never drawn a paycheck in his life, that he's made a living gambling since high school. Lem's name is among the first names heard when the subject of professional-level sports betting comes up.
Lem and I were together at the Gambler's Book Club in Las Vegas, and Lem was quickly cornered by a fellow who obviously had things to say. Most gamblers (me, included) regard Lem as something of a celebrity, and this fellow was a fan. I moved closer to hear the conversation, but it didn't take me long to hear all I needed. I heard this guy telling Lem, "I like to pick three NFL games a week, no more, no less, and concentrate on those three games...."
I overheard more, but I don't remember what else the guy said. My brain clicked off after hearing the above foolishness. It's nonsense to limit yourself to a pre-set number of plays. Such a plan would mean either passing plays you should be making or making plays you should be passing. The man was obviously no pro. I moved away.
...But Lem didn't walk away. I noticed Lem seemed actually interested in what the man was saying, and he went on listening for quite a long while. In fact, the fellow evidently laid out his entire betting strategy, hardly giving Lem a chance to say much at all. (If you know Lem, you know that ain't easy!) I remember thinking, here's a guy one-on-one with the great Lem Banker, and instead of listening to what this legend of the industry has to say, this po-dunk was doing all the talking.
I doubt if Lem learned anything during that incident - but I did. I learned that Lem Banker is always ready to learn something - anything - no matter what the source might be. In fact, that characteristic is perhaps the biggest of all differences between professional gamblers and chronic losers. The pros are ready to weigh any and all evidence in a wholly objective manner, and to change their strategy on a dime if the new evidence is strong enough and makes sense. Losers, on the other hand, are often wedded to strategies and methods that seem set in concrete. To many amateurs, it's as though the harder they believe in a "system," the more apt it is to actually work. They are often imprisoned by their own resistance to change. I'm not a psychologist, but I'll bet a lot of losers' sportbetting techniques are connected somehow to their self-esteem, their self image, their macho.
Another prevalent difference between successful gamblers and chronic losers is that pros never gamble unless they are relatively sure the odds are in their favor. For example, there is no such person as a professional craps player and there is no such person as a professional roulette player. In spite of what you may have heard otherwise, neither craps nor roulette are beatable over the long run. The built-in odds in those games cannot be surmounted nor avoided. The only way to make money over the long haul against craps or roulette is to either cheat or own the table.
The same is true of slot machines, video poker machines, bingo, keno, etc., with certain exceptions. These exceptions concern rules variations that can occasionally turn the odds in the players' favor, such as progressive jackpots. Such variations, however, are not suitable for someone seeking to make gambling his full time occupation.
Horse and dog racing can - in theory, at least - be beaten, but not bloody likely. The taxes and commissions charged against horse and dog bettors amount to a vigorish of approximately 20 percent of the monies risked. It's never been shown to me that such horrendous odds can be overcome. When was the last time you met a rich full-time horse player?
Poker can be beaten because the only thing that's required - aside from understanding the odds involved - is to be a better judge of human nature than the other players at your table. It's a highly subjective game wherein cards are used only as a vehicle by which to outwit your opponents. The house usually makes its profit by renting the chairs in some manner.
Blackjack can be beaten, too, under certain conditions that are becoming harder and harder to find and exploit. All you must know to beat blackjack is whether the remainder of the deck(s) is in your favor. It's not easy, but there are a lot of professional-level blackjack players out there. Trouble is, the wages-per-hour for a full-time blackjack player have been reduced dramatically over the years. Defensive rules installed by casinos, along with quick barring policies, make blackjack less and less attractive.
By far the best way to gamble nowadays is sports betting. Against sports, all you must do to be a long term winner is outsmart the opinion of the general betting public at least 55 percent of the time. Considering you can win 50 percent of your bets by simply flipping a coin, squeezing out another 5 wins over the next 100 bets doesn't seem all that tough. You're not even taking the bookmaker's money; you're taking his other customer's money and splitting it with him by giving him 9.1 percent of your winnings. It's not like blackjack, wherein you're taking money from the house itself. Make no mistake about it, the house doesn't like losing money. They will bar you from playing blackjack in an eyeblink if they suspect you're an expert player.
When the linesmaker posts a pointspread or a total on a game, his goal is not to predict which team will win the game, nor how many points the two teams figure to score. His goal is to get a suitable amount of money wagered on both sides of the proposition.
Winning 550 of 1,000 bets (55%) results in a profit of 55 betting units after paying vigorish, and a bet size of 2 percent of the beginning bankroll results in more than doubling the original investment.
Which brings us to the other big difference between successful sports bettors and chronic losers; - money management.
The first book I ever read about how to beat NFL football is still one of the best so far as handicapping teams and games. At the same time, I can't recommend the book because of its disastrous advice concerning money management. In fact, a couple years ago someone told me the author of that book - although he's one of the best handicappers in Las Vegas - is currently waiting tables at a downtown restaurant. He simply never understood correct money management, and evidently refused to learn.
It doesn't matter how well you handicap games, if you're using faulty money management you will fail as a sports bettor. Here's a very interesting line from this fellow's book: "...If you can consistently pick winners, a $55 bettor can easily be betting $550 a game by the end of the season."
Welcome to Suicideville. If you follow the above advice you will go broke, I promise you that.
The irony of correct money management is that so many people do it wrong while it is so simple to do correctly - or, at least, correctly enough to be a winner. For openers, if you're risking two or three times as much on some bets as others, you are doomed. There's not room here to explain the fallacies of a so-called "one-star, two-star, three-star" system, or the so-called "Kelly criterion," but progressive betting systems are actually a one-way ticket to Tap City. Over the long haul, the size of your bets cannot be used as a pry-bar to win more money than you deserve.
Generally speaking, you can't go far wrong by simply keeping the size of your bets the same. One relatively safe system is to use 2 percent of your beginning bankroll as your bet size until your bankroll has either grown or shrunk by 50 percent. Then reset your bet size at 2 percent of the new bankroll and begin anew with the new size. Let me say, however, that using 2 percent is a very aggressive plan. Most pro's use less. Nearly all amateurs, wanna-be's, and claim-to-be's use much more than 2 percent, which is another clear difference between winners and losers.
