When can you be confident that you are a winner?

[jmillerdls]

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.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ 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

[BobJoeJim]

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.

[jmillerdls]

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.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ 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

[jmillerdls]

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.

[craig]

[ 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

[craig]

[ 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

[jmillerdls]

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.