30% of all bets will be losers, Fair statement?

TheGeneral+ · Jun 14, 2003

I know we talk about straight ATS bettors not being able to beat the 55-60% win percentage target, so then we know that 70% ATS is unrealistic. We know that we'll probably only hit a mediun or small + % of the realistic remaining tolerance of the betting game & with only 35-50% probability of winning from the 70%, then we should lose most often.

Damn, the books got us

TTinCO · Jun 14, 2003

Way too general, especially given the variance.

It's pretty much an irrelevant #

TheGeneral+ · Jun 14, 2003

TTinco,

Can we figure out this betting thing with statistics?

TTinCO · Jun 14, 2003

Actually, that 70% number COULD be relevant as long as they included +/- in the calculation.

(Don't mind me tonight.....I'm blind & brain dead from lack of sleep)

TheGeneral+ · Jun 14, 2003

If you know you cant hit 70%, then you cant expect to hit 70% can you? Therefore, the probability of you winning is definately less than 70% and i doubt it will be 60%.

DannyMay · Jun 15, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by The General:
If you know you cant hit 70%, then you cant expect to hit 70% can you? Therefore, the probability of you winning is definately less than 70% and i doubt it will be 60%.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if you know for a fact that you cannot hit 70 %, the probability of you winning could be higher than 70 %.

Example.

Likelihood you hit 70 % or higher -- 0 %
Likelihood you hit 60 - 69.9 % -- 60 %
Likelihood you hit 54 - 59.9 % -- 25 %
Likelihood you hit below 54 % -- 15 %

Here using 54% or better as the mark where you win, your chances off winning would be 85%, even without any chance of hitting 70% or higher.

TheGeneral+ · Jun 15, 2003

Thanks Danny.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Likelihood you hit 60 - 69.9 % -- 60 %
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If i am not likey hit 70%, then you are saying one could be able to win 60-69% and have a 60% chance of doing so?

If so, then I will not be able to hit 60% consistently, therefore right back to the beginning, banking on 55-60% to make money

So if 5% of players or less can hit 55% or more over 5 years, the sportsbooks still got the big edge.

But, we knew that

PatrickMcIrish · Jun 15, 2003

No doubt the books have a clear edge over the vast majority of us. It's very hard to outrun the juice in sportsbetting. Imagine a poker game where they take 10% out of each pot with NO CAP on the rake. The money will disappear very quickly. However there are things we can use to our advantage as we have control on these things......

- We only bet when we want. Be as selective as you can and only wager when you think you have an edge. I see players spend two hours capping a game then after hitting it will throw the same amount of $$$ on the late game just to have action. Don't bet until you have done your homework.

- We can bet on what we want. This is a big weakness for many. They can beat the NFL and do so every year but put big holes in their bankroll in the offseason. Wait until football rolls around again! Just because they hang a number doesn't mean we have to bet it.

- We can bet how much we want. At least for the most part. Players have got to understand money management and have some sort of discipline to win long term. We can bet $1 or $100,000 if we choose. Learning how to use this to your advantage is critical to long term success.

PatrickMcIrish · Jun 15, 2003

I got caught off but basically those are things we need to maximize the best we can. Books can't tell us when to bet, what to bet or how much to bet. Make wise choices as we have full control when it comes to these decisions.

PS - I'm a total square and admit it. I give good advice but never heed my own. LOL.

TheGeneral+ · Jun 15, 2003

Good stuff Patrick.

Money management is the key

areeff · Jun 15, 2003

But occasionally we get lucky.. I went 64.5% on my NFL picks ATS last year.

How did i do it?

Line Shopping.

If i saw DE/NE 2.5 i knew that i could probably find 3 or 3.5 out there.

In this game i was tempted to take NE -2.5. But then i saw DE +3.5 -110 and i took that instead.

If you manage money well and get the best line you can beat the spread consistently. It seemed almost once a week i would win a game because i shopped the spread better than the spread was.

The downside is sometimes you have to use money in the lesser reputable books to do this.. So that is a gamble as well

DavidMatthews · Jun 15, 2003

The math is really simple...

If you pick below 52.4% you will lose. If you pick at 52.4% you will break even. If you pick above 52.4% you will win. (This is with -110 juice).

The house (at -110 on each side) has a 4.5% edge over the player on each dolalr bet, if the player is throwing darts at a dartboard.

Anyone who tells you he picks any better than 57% over the long haul is either a lier, or a bad bettor, because he is throwing away bets that have a 55% win expectancy and therefore have positive expectation.

David

DavidMatthews · Jun 15, 2003

And to answer your question...

for the vast majority of people betting on sports, almost exactly 50% of their bets will be losers.

David

dimeplayersonly · Jun 15, 2003

Quote...by Patrick "books cant tell us when, how much or what to bet on"

not entirely true...........

TTinCO · Jun 15, 2003

You can win 70% of heavy chalk & still be a loser. That is why this is irrelevant.

Railbird · Jun 15, 2003

I hit 43% of my basaeball plays last year and won 8% on my money.

Sodium Pentethol V · Jun 16, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Anyone who tells you he picks any better than 57% over the long haul is either a lier, or a bad bettor, because he is throwing away bets that have a 55% win expectancy and therefore have positive expectation <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dave how do you know before the fact whether something is a 55% or a 57% win expectancy?

Thanks

jwunderdog · Jun 16, 2003

I know we talk about straight ATS bettors not being able to beat the 55-60% win percentage target, so then we know that 70% ATS is unrealistic. We know that we'll probably only hit a mediun or small + % of the realistic remaining tolerance of the betting game & with only 35-50% probability of winning from the 70%, then we should lose most often.

Damn, the books got us

I am totally confused over this statement. What are you trying to ask concerning a Statistical proof?

Flipping a coin you have less then a 4% chance of it coming up heads 60% or more times.

BUt I know that is not what you are asking, please clarify and I might be able to give you a statistical #.

TheGeneral+ · Jun 21, 2003

jwunderdog,

What I mean is that It is not realistic to expect to hit 70% in sports wagering. Using 70% as the remaining realistic figure, then we will not hit 100% of that. Figuring that we will only hit a % of remaining realistic 70%, then i assume the winning % to be much less that 70% for sure. It has been stated though that one needs 52.5% to win.