Money Management

[dangerfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Please...you are all noobs. I'm betting all of the winners this year and i'm 100%

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you guys need to make your point it is EXTREMELY RARE to be wining above 60% but successfully beating certain sports is doable and beating them bad. I did it and I know others who have as well.

[DannyOcean_]

The key point is that 53-56% chances are like a bazillion times more common than true 60-70% bets, and so of course your average will tend towards 55%. If you arent betting the marginal ones, you are costing yourself money. Plus looooooooool at "one SEASON isnt a big enough sample size???"

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please...you are all noobs. I'm betting all of the winners this year and i'm 100%

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you guys need to make your point it is EXTREMELY RARE to be wining above 60% but successfully beating certain sports is doable and beating them bad. I did it and I know others who have as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you not realize you aren't beating them "bad" if you are winning >60%?

[dangerfish]

Yes I realize 60% is beating them bad. That is not how I meant it I was saying I know people beating the books badly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please...you are all noobs. I'm betting all of the winners this year and i'm 100%

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you guys need to make your point it is EXTREMELY RARE to be wining above 60% but successfully beating certain sports is doable and beating them bad. I did it and I know others who have as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you not realize you aren't beating them "bad" if you are winning >60%?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Thremp]

dangerfish,

You don't understand what I am saying. No one picking 60% is "beating the books badly". Is it hard to understand?

[dangerfish]

Thremp,

Let me elaborate for you. I did not beat the major sports football, basketball and baseball. I know it is extremely difficult if not impossible to sustain a win rate above 60%. However, in my prime I anihilated smaller sports to the tune of 25-35% roi over a reasonable amount of time. What I was suggesting to you is that there are sharp punters who have a huge edge in their specific fields. Whether you choose to believe that or not makes no difference to me I am simply suggesting that it is being done.

[Thremp]

Do you understand why a ROI that high wouldn't be beneficial to you?

Clearly not so I'll explain. You are taking the best subset of games: Say the top 50 games out of 1000. These provide a ROI of 30%. Do you see how the next additional segment of games which, for example, would return 20% would lower your ROI and increase your overall return?

This is why you aren't "beating the books bad". You're leaving more money on the table than you are taking off from the looks of it.

[dangerfish]

How can you possibly make that statement with the information I gave you? Why do you assume I am passing on small +ev edges? I don't want to turn this into a a big argument but you lack the information to be making the statements you do. If you want a more complete explanation of what I am talking about you can PM me. Also what is your defintion of "beating the books bad" ?

[Thremp]

dangerfish,

Umm... It should be obv, no?

Do a CI over a long term sample and it'll show that you are passing up on small +EV edges. I don't see whats so hard about this to understand. If you have a longterm absurdly high ROI, you are leaving money on the table.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you assume I am passing on small +ev edges?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if you're not, then some of the games you bet must have monstrously large edges that seem unlikely to exist barring other information.

This may be the case, but FWIW my default assumption is that sports bets with an edge of like 30% basically don't exist.