samplesize on sports betting
 

So, in poker there is a samplesize, i mean after 100k hands played you can be really sure that you are a winning player on that lvl.

I was wondering if there is anything similar to that in sports betting.
After how many bets can you say that you are able to beat the market and not just have been very lucky?

Re: samplesize on sports betting
 

Don't take this post as sarcastic, I mean it.

If 100K hands is the # for poker, then why should it be any different for sports betting?

Re: samplesize on sports betting
 

u mean after 100k bets im + EV if i made money so far?

or are u just guessing?

Re: samplesize on sports betting
 

[ QUOTE ]

If 100K hands is the # for poker, then why should it be any different for sports betting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's sports betting, not poker. 100,000 bets is way too much for sports imo. You can play 5-10 thousand hands of poker in a month, are you telling me you can make 5-10 thousand sports bets in a month? I don't think so.

Re: samplesize on sports betting
 

lol at basing it off of the number of bets you can make in a month

Re: samplesize on sports betting
 

there are formulae that determine, using your win rate and roi, the confidence which you can assume in placing bets. of course, each increase in confidence (90,95,99) requires a correspondingly larger sample size. these equations will tell you what that number of trials must be. i have those formulae somewhere, but i'm too lazy to dig them out. let me know if you can't obtain them elsewhere, and i'll look them up.

ask over in the probability link for the info, first; major contributors there usually have these things memorized.

Re: samplesize on sports betting
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol at basing it off of the number of bets you can make in a month

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Why would the number of hands you can play in a month have anything to do with determining if you're a winning player?

Re: samplesize on sports betting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol at basing it off of the number of bets you can make in a month

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Why would the number of hands you can play in a month have anything to do with determining if you're a winning player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

Regardless, we've had this discussion many times in this forum. The answer is, it takes a long, long time to know due to variance and types of bets you make.

For NFL, depending on your win rate%, I'd say btw 2k-10k bets to approach the 'long-run.' The closer you are to 50%, the more bets you'll need, if you're hitting 60% [i.e. impossible] then 1500 is probably more than enough.

Run a Monte Carlo sim on excel/wherever and use 48 or 52% as your winrate [after-vig] and see how huge the final results are -- up and down, and how much the swing with each simulation.

Re: samplesize on sports betting
 

the word formulae [censored] pisses me off

Re: samplesize on sports betting
 

[ QUOTE ]
see how huge the final results are -- up and down, and how much the swing with each simulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Swongs.