Quote:
Originally Posted by BetDaddy
I agree, you should be skeptical as most people lose money at sports betting. But there are those who have worked in the trenches for years to get better at this craft.
Absolutely, but the reality is that it doesn't make sense for a winning handicapper to sell picks in the long run. Let's say a handicapper is consistently finding events that win 50% of the time, but pay out at +110 giving him a 5% ROI.
Now let $X be the amount of the money needed to move a market from +110 to +100. In the NFL, X might be $500,000. In golf matchups, it might be $5,000. Some prop bets might only be $500.
So if it's a golf matchup, he can bet $5,000 himself and make $250 in EV. Or he can e-mail his pick out to his subscribers.
If he has 250 subscribers that pay $1 per pick, he's done great, he gets his EV without taking any risk. Now the first few people to read the e-mail go bet it and the line starts moving. How much did that group get down at good prices? How many of the people logged in and saw +100 instead of +110. They either bet it anyway and take the worst of it, or they paid $1 for a pick they didn't get to use. So all the subscribers start quitting, and now he's down to 1 subscriber. How much can he possibly charge the 1 subscriber for the pick? He could charge $250, but that leaves no profit for the subscriber so he would quit as well.
So given that markets tend to move as money comes in on one side, what's a scenario where a handicapper with a 5% edge is selling his picks and subscribers are paying for them and everyone is better off such that it can last for a long time?