When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

How many picks? For the first time, i've been keeping track of all my pics this year (without betting actual money on them). I want to know at what point I can be comfortable investing my hard earned dollars on this and expect to come out on top in the long run. 200 picks...500, 1000?

Here are my rudimentary numbers from excel:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/898/untitled4gb.jpg

I do mostly money lines, but I always flat bet 1% of my bankroll (which I have kept a constant $110 unit). If I was doing this with real money, I would adjust my unit when my bankroll has grown 20%, and never adjust when my bankroll is down.

Because of my flat betting (the same $110 unit whether betting on the favorite, or underdog), and my most common bet being the moneyline underdog, I don't expect my winning percentage to be as high as others, I just simply expect to keep a good Return on Investment.

So, what is the generally accepted amount of picks to feel confident you are a winner?

Oh, and if anyone has any other stats I should be tracking in Excel, let me know...I just threw that all together.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

The answer to your question depends on a lot of factors. How certain do you want to be that you're a winner? What have been the terms of the bets you've made? How good have your results been? etc.


Without knowing more about the bets you made, I can't give you any exact numbers, but a few points:

First, your numbers and description don't quite add up. If you flat bet $110 on 374 bets and netted $2644, your ROI is no where near 14%, so you may want to check that, maybe I'm missing how you're calculating it.

For a point of reference, if all the bets you made were 50/50 propositions (bets with equal odds on either side) your win rate would be about 1.5 standard deviations above random, meaning there's about a 13% chance you'd achieve these results picking randomly. While the chance that you're picking better than 50% is quite good, you'd be much less certain that you're picking >52.4% that you'd need to beat standard vig.

Now if you're primarily picking ML dogs (as you apparently are), this changes things dramatically but you can't really say how much without know what the details of the bets made. Being up about 25 units after almost 400 bets is a starting point. As a side note, there was a thread about a month ago about what constitutes a "unit". I argued that generally one should bet "to win" 1-unit rather than risk 1-unit and this is a perfect example of why. By risking the same on all bets your results are heavily weighted towards how you did on big ML dogs and heavily under-weighted towards how you did on ML favorites. If you hit just a couple "extra" big ML dogs your overall results could be dramatically skewed to look better than they really are and conversely if you've been unlucky so far on big ML dogs and should of hit a couple more, your results might not be doing you justice.

Since these are imaginary bets anyway, I'd suggest you go back and change your bets all to win 1-unit, say $100 so a bet on a +300 dog would be $33 to win $100 and a -180 fav would be $180 to win $100. This will give a much more balanced view of how you're doing on all your bets.

As to whether you should start to bet real money, it's up to you. You've had very good results over a pretty large sample, it's certainly very likely you're a winner. I'd guess very few people establish this extensive a record before wagering real money. I think most books have limits as low as $5 some like the exchanges you can bet as little as you want. So if you're not comfortable putting much money at risk you can start out just about as small as you want and build up a bankroll. You can also churn through some bonuses which makes your risk even smaller.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

Going straight by the math we have the following:

ROI = Your Win % / Your Expected Win %

1.1414 = 0.54 / Your Expected Win %

So, Your Expected Win % = 0.47 (47%)

There is a Standard Error in Your Win % that depends on your sample size: err % = sqrt(Win% * Lose% / Sample Size)

err% = sqrt (0.54*0.46/374) = 0.026

So, your Win Percent with Error is 0.540 +- 0.025, while you need a Win Percent of 0.470 to break even.

0.540 - 0.470 = 0.070, a 0.070 difference,

0.070/0.025 = 2.8 Standard Deviations.

Looking this up on the Standard Normal Curve, we see that based on your current performance, the probability you at least break even on another representative sample is 0.997, 99.7%. So, I would state that mathematically, you have established your methods as viable, and if you continue to use them in the same way should continue to win.

50 picks is a small sample, 400 is decent. If you continue, try hard to stick with what you are doing and hang in there.

If you make 50 picks, with a 54% hit rate, you expect to hit 27 +- 4, between 23 and 31 of them, so there is about a 15% chance that your are even or behind after your first 50 money picks.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

Quick ROI check:

$41140 invested

$42420 returned

ROI = 1.03 Am I doing this right?

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

You were right, the ROI was miscalculated (decimal in the wrong place). I personally don't adhere to the bet "to win" 1-unit philosophy. I feel this would greatly increase my variance and have me betting way above my bankroll when I take a favorite every now and then.
I still haven't decided what to do yet, but thanks for the advice. Good stuff.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

Given the lower ROI your advantage is marginally mathematically statistically significant, but too small to be practical and effective, and, you may even be overbetting your bankroll at 1% a bet.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

[ QUOTE ]
you may even be overbetting your bankroll at 1% a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be stunning to me. As everything I have read, and seen through my history has shown me it would be virtually impossible for me to go broke betting 1%. I'm sure it is possible, but it would require some major statistical imporobabilities to occur.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't adhere to the bet "to win" 1-unit philosophy. I feel this would greatly increase my variance and have me betting way above my bankroll when I take a favorite every now and then.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine, but reweighting your picks would still be an interesting exercise because it will give a truer representation of how you're doing on all your picks. Note that you wouldn't be overbetting your bankroll to bet favorites to win 1-unit=1% but you ARE way overbetting your bankroll when you risk 1-unit=1% on big longshots, see below.

[ QUOTE ]
This would be stunning to me. As everything I have read, and seen through my history has shown me it would be virtually impossible for me to go broke betting 1%. I'm sure it is possible, but it would require some major statistical imporobabilities to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

This again comes back to overweighting your dog picks. These calculations, if done properly, assume betting to win 1-unit. If you're just betting spreads it doesn't make any difference and as long as you're only betting ML's of +200 to +300 they're probably close enough, but if you bet +500 or +1000 or higher, your risk-of-ruin is very high.

A simple example:

Let's look at games where 1 team is a 10-1 favorite. Now you find 200 of these games where you like the favorite and 200 other games where you like the dog, let's see what happens:



Fav If the odds are set correctly, the fav will win 180 of these 200 games, this is what you need to break even. Even after the big vig charged, you still think you have a small edge and you expect to be able to pick "the right side" 183 times but it would not be unusual for variance to be 10 or more games over this 200 games sample, so betting 1% you're looking a loss of 7-units(7%) to a win of 13 units(13%). Not much profit, but very little risk.

Dog Now look at the other side, everything is the same. You need to pick 20 of 200 to break even, you expect to pick 23, and a variance of 10 games would not be unusual. Now you're looking at a range of +130units(130% gain) to -70units(70% loss).





Does this make sense? I hope this illustrates why when you risk the same on all bets, your overall results as well as your risk-of-ruin are dominated by how you do on the longshot bets. Now to be fair, I don't advocate a pure "to win 1-unit" scheme at extreme odds, you do have to scale it a bit. At 10-1 odds, I would wager 5 units to win 0.5 on a favorite and 0.2 units to win 2 on a dog.

Now you don't have to bet this way, a lot of serious bettors do just flat bet. I'm just saying it is difficult to access your success if you are flat betting over a wide range of odds, the longshots will always dominate.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

Fair enough, but I am much more willing to not be able to easily access my success than going broke. I think that kelly betting, and any system that varies your bet size is extremely volatile.

It is very rare for me to make a bet with +500 let alone +1000, so the chance of me going broke on these bets would probably take me the rest of my life. I think it would be much easier to go broke losing 20 bets where you have bet 5 units on a favorite than lose 100 units on betting underdogs...although clearly a ton of other stuff is involved in that.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you are making some bets with 1 unit, and some bets with 5 units, then the only significant bets are the 5 unit ones...you might as well not even make the 1 unit bets.

Lets say you have a night where you have 4 favorites that you like. You will be risking 20% of your bankroll in one night. Am I the only one not comfortable with that? That seems like a vastly greater ROR than flat betting.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough, but I am much more willing to not be able to easily access my success than going broke. I think that kelly betting, and any system that varies your bet size is extremely volatile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, flat betting over a wide range of odds is more volatile.


[ QUOTE ]
It is very rare for me to make a bet with +500 let alone +1000, so the chance of me going broke on these bets would probably take me the rest of my life. I think it would be much easier to go broke losing 20 bets where you have bet 5 units on a favorite than lose 100 units on betting underdogs...although clearly a ton of other stuff is involved in that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, it is easier to lose 100 units betting dogs, just look at the simpliest example of how likely it is to loose that many bets in a row:

Losing 20 bets in a row where you expect to win 90% = 0.1^20 =

.00000000000000000001

Losing 100 bets in a row where you expect to win 10% = 0.9^100=

.000027

Neither are likely, but losing 20 bets in a row as a 90% favorites is WAY more unlikely than 100 in a row as 10% dogs. You should be able to tell that this easily extrapolates to streaks where you the losses don't have to come in a row. It is hugely easier to go on a 100 bet downswing betting dogs than a 20 bet downswing betting favorties (all else being equal of course).

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I am trying to say is that if you are making some bets with 1 unit, and some bets with 5 units, then the only significant bets are the 5 unit ones...you might as well not even make the 1 unit bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, the significance is weighted by the payoff. A 0.2-unit bet at +500 to win 1-unit has the same significance as a 5-unit bet at -500 to win 1-unit. The example above should make that clear.


[ QUOTE ]
Lets say you have a night where you have 4 favorites that you like. You will be risking 20% of your bankroll in one night. Am I the only one not comfortable with that? That seems like a vastly greater ROR than flat betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because my chance of losing 20% is 0.1^4 or 0.0001 or less.

If you find 20 +1000 dogs that you like, would you feel comfortable putting 20% of your bankroll at risk? Because your chances of losing 20% would be 0.9^20 = 12%

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

Nope. 374x$110 bet = $41140.
2644/41140= 6.43%.

[ QUOTE ]
I would adjust my unit when my bankroll has grown 20%, and never adjust when my bankroll is down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to resize everyday when you are betting a small unit size, but plenty of people use thresholds and there's not really anything wrong with it. However, not adjusting when you are losing is a recipe for disaster.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

Wow, you are 90% you will win when you bet the favorite? just wow.
You're right, If you are 90% you will win every bet you make on the favorite, then everything I have said is definately wrong.
Oh, and no, I wouldn't be comfortable putting 20% of my bankroll at risk on 20 +1000 underdogs. I've never bet on an underdog over half that before, so I can say that with certainty. Oh, and betting the moneyline, I have a lot more than 10% confidence in my underdogs...I guess that's why I've won at 54% with a majority of those being underdogs.

So yeah, I guess I was WRONG. No other conclusion or explanaition but WRONG.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. 374x$110 bet = $41140.
2644/41140= 6.43%.

[ QUOTE ]
I would adjust my unit when my bankroll has grown 20%, and never adjust when my bankroll is down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to resize everyday when you are betting a small unit size, but plenty of people use thresholds and there's not really anything wrong with it. However, not adjusting when you are losing is a recipe for disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It would take a monumental downswing for me to lose 100 units (one that I haven't seen to this date). I have lost over 50 a few times however. If I had adjusted my unit when I was losing, I would have had to win SIGNIFICANTLY more bets than I otherwise would have to get back to even. I think adjusting when you are down just makes it one big teeter totter. When I lose, and don't adjust, I only have to win back the bets I lost. If I do adjust, I have to win back more than I lost.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. 374x$110 bet = $41140.
2644/41140= 6.43%.

[ QUOTE ]
I would adjust my unit when my bankroll has grown 20%, and never adjust when my bankroll is down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to resize everyday when you are betting a small unit size, but plenty of people use thresholds and there's not really anything wrong with it. However, not adjusting when you are losing is a recipe for disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It would take a monumental downswing for me to lose 100 units (one that I haven't seen to this date). I have lost over 50 a few times however. If I had adjusted my unit when I was losing, I would have had to win SIGNIFICANTLY more bets than I otherwise would have to get back to even. I think adjusting when you are down just makes it one big teeter totter. When I lose, and don't adjust, I only have to win back the bets I lost. If I do adjust, I have to win back more than I lost.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right that lowering your bet when you go on a downswing will make it take longer to get your head back above water, but keeping your bet flat when you're in a downswing will greatly increase your risk of ruin. Overall, it's personal preference which matters to you, but my outlook is that if you prefer a higher risk of ruin, to avoid the grind, you are less likely to be a long term winner. That's not meant to be a knock on anyone who disagrees, it's just my personal gambling philosophy.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, you are 90% you will win when you bet the favorite? just wow.
You're right, If you are 90% you will win every bet you make on the favorite, then everything I have said is definately wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No reason to get defensive, I'm simply trying to help you out with the math here because you're making some big errors in reasoning. Am I 90% when I pick a favorite? well when I'm laying -1000 I'd better be, because that just gets me back to even (actually you need 91%) and that's what we were discussing -- 10-1 favorites vs. dogs. If I'm betting on a -200 favorite I hit no where near 90%, but I also don't risk 5-units on those either, so putting 20% of my bankroll on 4 plays wouldn't be an issue. The point is, if you flat bet, betting dogs is much riskier than favorites. The bigger the dog, the bigger the risk.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and no, I wouldn't be comfortable putting 20% of my bankroll at risk on 20 +1000 underdogs. I've never bet on an underdog over half that before, so I can say that with certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is good because betting 1% on +1000 dogs is hugely overbetting your bankroll, that was my point. Betting 1% on +500 dogs is still way overbetting, but less so, betting 1% on +300 dogs might be OK if you have a big edge and (as a said previously) if you're betting +120 or +170 dogs, 1% is probably appropriate and only slightly increases your risk-of-ruin from estimates you've read. Since you don't bet big dogs or big favorites, flat betting shouldn't be a problem for you.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and betting the moneyline, I have a lot more than 10% confidence in my underdogs...I guess that's why I've won at 54% with a majority of those being underdogs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you should have more than 10% confidence in your dogs, because you don't bet +1000 dogs, 10% was used as an example for big favorities and dogs. I would be perfectly happy if I could pick 10% dogs as long as I was getting +1200. I just wouldn't be risking 1% of my BR on each play because my ROR would be too high.

And it doesn't look like the majority of your picks were dogs, the average odds on your plays is about -107. If you were hitting 54% picking mostly dogs, you would have done much better than you did. But still, from the numbers you've given, it appears quite likely you're a winning bettor.

Anyway, good luck.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. 374x$110 bet = $41140.
2644/41140= 6.43%.

[ QUOTE ]
I would adjust my unit when my bankroll has grown 20%, and never adjust when my bankroll is down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to resize everyday when you are betting a small unit size, but plenty of people use thresholds and there's not really anything wrong with it. However, not adjusting when you are losing is a recipe for disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It would take a monumental downswing for me to lose 100 units (one that I haven't seen to this date). I have lost over 50 a few times however. If I had adjusted my unit when I was losing, I would have had to win SIGNIFICANTLY more bets than I otherwise would have to get back to even. I think adjusting when you are down just makes it one big teeter totter. When I lose, and don't adjust, I only have to win back the bets I lost. If I do adjust, I have to win back more than I lost.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right that lowering your bet when you go on a downswing will make it take longer to get your head back above water, but keeping your bet flat when you're in a downswing will greatly increase your risk of ruin. Overall, it's personal preference which matters to you, but my outlook is that if you prefer a higher risk of ruin, to avoid the grind, you are less likely to be a long term winner. That's not meant to be a knock on anyone who disagrees, it's just my personal gambling philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool..I agree with you. I'm comfortable with the ROR when playing with 1% bets...in fact, that's why I don't do 2% which I've felt tempted to in the past.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

Think we were looking at it from 2 different perspectives. You were looking at the biggest of dogs, and the biggest of favorites..which I rarely find value in, and therefore rarely bet. However, I did bet on the spurs a night or two ago when they were like +1170. I think that won me $9...If I were actually placeing the bets, I probably would have just parlayed that one though.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. 374x$110 bet = $41140.
2644/41140= 6.43%.

[ QUOTE ]
I would adjust my unit when my bankroll has grown 20%, and never adjust when my bankroll is down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to resize everyday when you are betting a small unit size, but plenty of people use thresholds and there's not really anything wrong with it. However, not adjusting when you are losing is a recipe for disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It would take a monumental downswing for me to lose 100 units (one that I haven't seen to this date). I have lost over 50 a few times however. If I had adjusted my unit when I was losing, I would have had to win SIGNIFICANTLY more bets than I otherwise would have to get back to even. I think adjusting when you are down just makes it one big teeter totter. When I lose, and don't adjust, I only have to win back the bets I lost. If I do adjust, I have to win back more than I lost.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right that lowering your bet when you go on a downswing will make it take longer to get your head back above water, but keeping your bet flat when you're in a downswing will greatly increase your risk of ruin. Overall, it's personal preference which matters to you, but my outlook is that if you prefer a higher risk of ruin, to avoid the grind, you are less likely to be a long term winner. That's not meant to be a knock on anyone who disagrees, it's just my personal gambling philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool..I agree with you. I'm comfortable with the ROR when playing with 1% bets...in fact, that's why I don't do 2% which I've felt tempted to in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]
One other way to look at it, as well, is let's say your unit is 1%. You go on a 50 unit downswing. If you keep your original unit size and keep betting, your units have become 2%. If you aren't comfortable with the ROR that comes from a 2% unit, then you HAVE to cut your unit size in half if you lose half your bankroll.

Of course that's a somewhat extreme situation, 50 units is a lot to lose, but it's not that extreme, it certainly can happen. If you say that you would not reduce your unit size in a downswing, while at the same time saying that you aren't comfortable with the risk of ruin from a higher percentage unit, then you're directly contradicting yourself. Neither view is wrong, but you should probably choose one opinion or the other that you're comfortable with.

And here's wishing you the best of luck, may you never have such a downswing, that this discussion may remain purely theoretical!

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

[ QUOTE ]
How many picks? For the first time, i've been keeping track of all my pics this year (without betting actual money on them). I want to know at what point I can be comfortable investing my hard earned dollars on this and expect to come out on top in the long run. 200 picks...500, 1000?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say 1000 is a bare minimum if you are talking ATS or O/U, but still the short-run. To be confident you are a long term winner would take at least 5000 bets in my book.

You will definitely go through streaks/downswings of 50-100 bets or more, just flip a coin/do a monte carlo of a 50/50 prop and see how long some of the 'runs' get for heads or tails. Doesn't mean it's non-random.

Anyone who thinks 500 bets is enough to declare yourself a longterm winner is kidding themselves, of course, that's why so few people make a living at this.

Naj [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many picks? For the first time, i've been keeping track of all my pics this year (without betting actual money on them). I want to know at what point I can be comfortable investing my hard earned dollars on this and expect to come out on top in the long run. 200 picks...500, 1000?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say 1000 is a bare minimum if you are talking ATS or O/U, but still the short-run. To be confident you are a long term winner would take at least 5000 bets in my book.

You will definitely go through streaks/downswings of 50-100 bets or more, just flip a coin/do a monte carlo of a 50/50 prop and see how long some of the 'runs' get for heads or tails. Doesn't mean it's non-random.

Anyone who thinks 500 bets is enough to declare yourself a longterm winner is kidding themselves, of course, that's why so few people make a living at this.

Naj [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, interesting. Maybe I'll just keep track this year and see what comes. Should be 1500-2500 picks.

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

Fair enough. Good point. I guess in that instance, I would be comfortable betting 2% of my bankroll since I would trust my long term winning percentage makes a 100 unit downswing at a comfortably low level of probability.

Monte Carlo simulations
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would say 1000 is a bare minimum if you are talking ATS or O/U, but still the short-run. To be confident you are a long term winner would take at least 5000 bets in my book.

You will definitely go through streaks/downswings of 50-100 bets or more, just flip a coin/do a monte carlo of a 50/50 prop and see how long some of the 'runs' get for heads or tails. Doesn't mean it's non-random.

Anyone who thinks 500 bets is enough to declare yourself a longterm winner is kidding themselves, of course, that's why so few people make a living at this.


[/ QUOTE ]
Alright, interesting. Maybe I'll just keep track this year and see what comes. Should be 1500-2500 picks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just did one in Excel. 65k trials of 50/50 shot.
I 'won' 50.3% of the time, for a +0.6% EV. If this was the odds line at craps, take 65,000 times [0.6% then subtract the 0.14% house advanatge on 10x odds] times $110 per throw. [$10 + $100 odds bet.]
I just won $43k. Does that make craps EV?
Of course not. And this was with over 65,000 trials.

Runs - 8 in a row and 10/11 to common to mention. Hit two downswing of 10 losses in 11 games nearby, and you feel like a moron, the reverse, and you feel like Bill Gates.

Let's change odds to 10% chance of winning, say at the racetrack, and God tells you the exact odds of each horse, and you decide to play all the horses with a 10% chance of winning with, no vig, just to gamble a bit.

This simulation you would only 'win' 9.84% of the time over 65k trials. That a worse 1.6% EV [10-9.84 over 10] than the true odds.
0.016 * 65k * $100 per bet = $104k loss. Just due to randomness. Was God lying? No, you just didn't hit a perfect distribution. 65,536 races weren't *enough* to take you to the longterm.

This is an incredible fundamental, important concept for any serious gambler to grasp, with the conclusion that you really need a much bigger bankroll than most people think to get anywhere near 'longterm.' [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Naj

Re: Monte Carlo simulations
 

Excellent points, Najdorf. Although I think it depends on how confident you want to be. To say that someone IS a long term winner, based off of 500, or even 5000, or even 65k sample sets is stupid, because you can never be sure. On the other hand, if you wait until you've made 100k picks then by the time you find out that you really were a long-term winner you'll be old and gray, and have missed out on a lifetime of sports betting profits.

500 picks IS enough to determine that your ODDS are significantly better than 50% that you are a long term winner. If there's even a 60-65% chance that you will win in the long term, which I think is safe to say based on the OP's numbers, then I would say it's worth it to start risking real money on your picks. Don't do anything stupid, study risk management, bet within your bankroll, be smart about it. But start betting. You're more likely to be a winner than a loser based on the evidence so far, so go with that until proven otherwise. Especially since the bonuses you can earn as a new bettor will help negate a good portion of your risk, if it turns out you aren't a winner. Just make sure you start with a bankroll that you can afford to lose, if the risk of ruin catches up with you, since that is always a possibility. But start betting.

I think that given the OP's stats, refusing to risk real money would be the equivalent of passing up a bet at -110 on a game you KNEW was a 60% shot. Obviously you don't bet everything on it, you stick to what you can afford to loese, but if you aren't willing to risk money on that game, you won't ever be a winning sports bettor, your outlook is more suited to a savings account.

My two cents.

Re: Monte Carlo simulations
 

Heh, well I'm back and forth. I think I will probably end up passing up this year, and just keeping all my stats. At the very least, if things go the way I like, I will enter next year with more confidence. Not to mention, I can continue to build my bankroll with poker winnings, which can't be a bad thing.

Re: Monte Carlo simulations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent points, Najdorf. Although I think it depends on how confident you want to be. To say that someone IS a long term winner, based off of 500, or even 5000, or even 65k sample sets is stupid, because you can never be sure.
500 picks IS enough to determine that your ODDS are significantly better than 50% that you are a long term winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 500 picks is laughable to proclaim yourself a 'long-term winner'. Give me what you think your winning % is, and I"ll run a monte carlo based on a normal curve.

I'll save you the trouble - say you are at 55% win rate, and do a monte carlo after 500 games. The first one I did you won 266 games, or +1.56% ROI with significant variance.
Next 500 you won 282, so better than average, the next was only 271, so again below average.

And 55% is a HUGE win rate. That's a 9.09% ROI at -110 odds. Every few hundred bets or so you'd double your capital. How many handicappers do you know who have done this, year-in and year-out?
Most pro handicappers do a lot more bets than that every year. In a few years or so they'd have 64x their original bankroll [before taxes.] Again, is this something that any of us have ever seen in real life? No.

Naj

Update
 

Ok, 500 picks in now. Things are still looking solid. I'll probably update every 500 picks till I decide to actually put my money at risk.
My last 5 days have been insane (included on the left), and have me hoping this kind of rush isn't a once a year thing. I'm feeling very confident about baseball season coming up, as its usually my best sport.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1...titled3zc1.jpg

Re: Update
 

[ QUOTE ]
My last 5 days have been insane (included on the left), and have me hoping this kind of rush isn't a once a year thing. I'm feeling very confident about baseball season coming up, as its usually my best sport.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not trying to burst your bubble, but it is different with real money. If you don't care about the money then there will be no pressure.

Are you betting on NBA and NCAA. If it is just NBA it seems you have too many bets a day. Of course, I can't tell if you are betting half times, etc... If so, then you aren't placing too many bets. But, if it is all NBA then 14 bets (without arbs or middles) is a lot.

Don't assume that if you do good in one sport you will do good in another. Baseball should be easier to beat since there is less juice, but there is no guarantee.

As far as 500 bets at 55% ATS and lines of -110, there is no way we can say you are a definite winner. In fact, if you are laying -110 (fake money or not) and not getting the best line, the chance is that you are at best break-even. Once again, the fact that it is fake money also skews your numbers a bit. If you are betting 1% of your bankroll will you feel comfortable having 14% on the line for one day? You won't know until then.

I think it is great that your record is 55% (if you did that over 3 seasons I would pay you for picks [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ), but put some money on the line over the next 500. It doesn't have to be the full $110. But, even $22 would give you some idea of betting real money. Also, you can practice line shopping and clear some bonuses slowly. Those last two things should increase your ROI by a significant amount.

craig

Re: When can you be confident that you are a winner?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I were actually placeing the bets, I probably would have just parlayed that one though.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Was the parlay correlated? If not, don't parlay. If you insist on parlaying when there is no correlation you will not win in the long run. You will definitely lose if you are truly picking at 55% and parlaying non-correlated events. 13:5 is not good and it only gets worse the more games you add.

I am not trying to give you a hard time, but I just want to give you something to think about.

Also, if you buy Wong's book he has a page that shows the chance that your system is a winner based on total bets placed and your record. Either way, it is a must read book [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] .

craig

Re: Update
 

Actually I do the professional sports, so its NBA and Hockey.
The 681 day was all Hockey, the 901 was half hockey, half b-ball, and the 732 was about 2/3 hockey.

Also, I'm not just randomly picking games that I think look good, on a whim. In fact, I don't make any "choices" at all. There is no emotion. The database does the work. I keep it up to date, make sure that everything in it is still viable every once in awhile...and find the best lines (this is the absolute most important, however right now I'm only using 3 books...might be better out there that could help me improve even more). It determines what I bet, not me.

About the 55%, I'm definately a grinder. I will make approximately 2k picks a year. I wager 1.1 units per bet, to win 1 unit. After 2k picks, that's 110 units. However, when I am up 20 units, I re-adjust my unit, so the compounding effects can make for a good year.


So, agreed...I'm no world-beater. I'm not even confident enough that I'm a winner to lay down my own money yet. But, the truth is, the picks won't be any different when I do. We'll see how the next 500 picks go though.