over 50-100 plays, yes and what kind of profits do you excpect to make off of 50 plays, unless your betting a VERY high pct of bankroll and if that's the case, good luck if you happen to lose a few in a row.
When it gets to 1,000 plays? NO WAY, NEVER
One of the things that drives me nuts is people that believe in the "selective" play theory. These lines are too GOOD to spot 65% plays, there are no such thing and if there was how do you know you would be able to identify them. Too much luck involved. You should pull the trigger when you think you have a 54% play or better, peorid and with enough of them the profits will add up.
When it gets to 1,000 plays? NO WAY, NEVER
One of the things that drives me nuts is people that believe in the "selective" play theory. These lines are too GOOD to spot 65% plays, there are no such thing and if there was how do you know you would be able to identify them. Too much luck involved. You should pull the trigger when you think you have a 54% play or better, peorid and with enough of them the profits will add up.
archimedes said:
i'm pretty sure the implication of that "54%" was to say...
if you feel you have an edge over the break-even point (which 54% clearly would be)...then make the play.
that's why it's called a "grind" if you have the odds in your favor, you make the play. you don't pass up good plays, waiting (and hoping) for the magical "60% or 65%" plays...if you have a perceived advantage, don't pass it up. you're just costing yourself profit.
what was so hard to figure out about iceman's post? i understood it.
You could do it, but show little profit doing it. Plays would be scarce. You'd have to play stuff like SIA totals ( $220 limit) and find their errors. They had a Cubs game under 7 last week, when everybody else had 6.5. I recall an NBA second half awhile back they had at about 100, when 94 was correct.
You might get 65% over a few dozen of these in a year. They pay them, but one could argue they are bad lines, they certainly aren't W/A.
Make it 500 plays in a year and you couldn't do it.
You might get 65% over a few dozen of these in a year. They pay them, but one could argue they are bad lines, they certainly aren't W/A.
Make it 500 plays in a year and you couldn't do it.
I have a dedicated account at pinnacle just for college basketball totals. In 3 years I have had 275 plays and am 63%. Not enough volume for some people, but its definitely been profitable. Considering I only bet at Pinnacle and did not shop for lines at other books, there might have been room for a handful more wins in there.
65% is attainable in my view.
65% is attainable in my view.
Bet-It-All said:
Many know!
For all intensive discussions, virtually 100% IMPOSSIBLE in the true reality of sportsbetting sense..........unless one is playing fixed games.
NO handicapper picking a MINIUMUM of 200 plays a year in basketball/football combined vs. the normal pointspread could hit 65%.
At MINIMUM they would have to go 650-350 in that span.
Put it this way, even ONLY picking 100 games a year in the above scenario, what do you think the odds are of ANY ONE person picking 65% over a 5 year span would be(500 games)?
+200?
+500?
+1000?
KEEP GUESSING, because the above odds are not ANYWHERE even CLOSE to the correct true odds.
Insiders said:
AGREE 100% It is much easier to do in College Football than any other sport. There are fewer games than any other sport and each one is MORE important. I will play MUCH MORE on a CFB game than ANY other sport. If I play any other sport, it is for recreation and giggles. CFB is for the GOLD INVESTMENTS. LT
:money8:
Long term in my oppinion is alot of seasons combined togeather. 1 season is still the short term. Also you have to know that being very Selective and maybe playing 20 games a year and possibly, possibly hitting 58-60% over 5-10 years will not get you anywhere close to the profits you would abtain from betting 200-300 plays a year and hitting 54-55% over the same time period, unless you bet more with less plays. I am a true believer (of course others have proved me wrong) that no play should be worth more then another. If I have a play for value that I like it is one unit. all my plays are the same ammount, I still believe that it is chance in every game and the only reason I would win money is taking advantage of a very small edge.
example:
20 plays a year for 5 years at 60%: (extremely tough and lucky but example)
total plays: 100
Wins: 60
Loss: 40
Money won: +1600
200 Plays a year for 5 years at 55%: (hard to abtain, but much more possible.)
Total Plays: 1000
Wins: 550
Loss: 450
Money Won: 5500
I would also guess with less plays you would be betting substantially more money then if you were betting more plays. This is just a small example, but I agree with most above, if you see value then play it, in the long run real value will win out. Now you just have to be one of the 1% who can find real value....
example:
20 plays a year for 5 years at 60%: (extremely tough and lucky but example)
total plays: 100
Wins: 60
Loss: 40
Money won: +1600
200 Plays a year for 5 years at 55%: (hard to abtain, but much more possible.)
Total Plays: 1000
Wins: 550
Loss: 450
Money Won: 5500
I would also guess with less plays you would be betting substantially more money then if you were betting more plays. This is just a small example, but I agree with most above, if you see value then play it, in the long run real value will win out. Now you just have to be one of the 1% who can find real value....
The key to your question is long term. No one can sustain a "long term" winning percentage of 65% in any sport, even being selective. Short term or even a season, it is not easy but possible. Long term, you will eventually even out over thousands of plays toward the median. If you can sustain a "long term" percentage of 53-54%, you can turn a profit quite nicely. Sounds easy, but it is anything but easy. It is important in this business to have realistic goals. A long term goal of 65% is totally unrealistic.
