|
|
|
|
#1
10-01-2007, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Full time sports betting?
I didn't really think too much about the ROI%, I agree you should be looking for >>> 2-3%, but maybe that is a good starting point for people, as if they cannot make that number than they should pretty much forget about it w/o very large bankroll.
I agree, and have said repeatedly, that line moves and shopping and arbs are far easier and more profitable, all things considered. 
|
|
#3
10-01-2007, 09:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: on ROI
Without a time frame, I'm not sure how to evaluate 2-3% ROI. For a week, it's obviously high. For a year, it's very low.
|
|
#4
10-01-2007, 09:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: on ROI
let me rephrase because I think we are thinking different things, and its a confusion due to semantics. When I say 3% ROI, I mean over the total amount of money bet. The total money bet is churned over and over every week. Say you put 10K into action (on average) every week and have a 20K bankroll. Over a 20-week season, you'd be betting 200K (on average) while using a 20K bankroll. So 3% of 200K = 6K ... but 6K of a 20K bankroll is 30%.
|
|
#5
10-01-2007, 11:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: on ROI
[ QUOTE ]
Without a time frame, I'm not sure how to evaluate 2-3% ROI. For a week, it's obviously high. For a year, it's very low. [/ QUOTE ] ROI is clearly per dollar bet. Not for a time period.
|
|
#7
10-02-2007, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: on ROI
[ QUOTE ]
how many bets is considered significant? What is the equivalent of say 100k hands of poker? [/ QUOTE ] It depends... First of all, you don't really need to play 100K hands of poker to know if you are a winning poker player. Let's say you have 50K hands in a certain online NLHE game (same site, same stakes) and you have a 14 PTBB (28 big blinds) win rate. The question is not if you are a winning player, but what your true winrate is. Many people on 2+2 don't seem to understand this distinction, which is why you see people making all kinds of absurd claims as to how many hands you have to play in order to "prove" you are a winning player. It is the same with sportsbetting. It depends what kind of winrate you are putting up. If you've placed 5K straight bets against a dimeline, and won 2900 of them (a incredible win pct of 58%), you are a winning bettor. The chance that you are just getting lucky is infintesmal. If you've won 2750 of them (a very good win pct of 55%), the chances you are just running good is just 0.012%. If you've won 2700 of these bets (win pct of 54%), the chances you are just running good is up to 1.2%. In these examples, running good means that your true winrate is somehow known as being 52.4% (which would be breakeven on a dimeline). If you wanted to know if you are bettor than a 50/50 handicapper (as opposed to wanting to know if you can beat a dimeline), then you would need much less bets in your sample. For example, if you win 1100 out of 2000 bets, you are definitely better than a 50/50 picker. Most 2+2 nits seem to think you need to play 1M hands of poker (regardless of winrate), win 5800 out of 10K bets, or run a MLB Monte Carlo simulation 1M times to get a significant sample size. None of that is close to being true. Ignore most of what you see on here with regards to sample sizes, unless you don't see the humor in the following exchange (from Dumb and Dumber): Lloyd Christmas: What are the chances of you and me getting together? Woman: 1 in a million. Lloyd: So you're saying there's a chance!
|
|
#9
10-01-2007, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: on ROI
[ QUOTE ]
3% ROI is on the high end IMO. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, you're very wrong on this and so is your book. You can bet line movements for this and higher. This is for normal sides/ML/totals etc. Your futures etc can and should push >50% if not higher before you start hedging etc.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
