Wow. Your attacking me why? We were having a normal discussion about handicapping and you jump in and start name calling for no reason. This is the sort of BS you'd expect at other forums. And how do you know I'm not a legit handicapper?

Handicapped fa sho

you nail it !

not units or roi or whatever

/end thread

Not trying to be smart or anything, but you're the third person who has said "money won" is the main way to rate how good a handicapper is.

I'll ask again. How can you rate two different line betting handicappers the same when both have the same results but one is betting $100/game, the other $500? Both great cappers, way different ""total money won". And could we have a discussion about it without being dicks? This isn't Covers...

If you are good, you win money, then you have more and you bet more per game. So yes money won >>> everything else.

Basically everyone's point is handicapping a niche market where Pinnacle has $500 or lower limits is basically useless for anyone who bets at higher stakes. I personally ran at a double digit ROI in Rugby 7s last season over a decent sample but given Pinnacle limits are $500, the ability to handicap a niche sport is nowhere near as useful as a major sport like NFL because you can only get $500 down (or maybe a couple k tops across all sportsbooks) before the line moves

Let's say I have a 10% true ROI there, i'm making $50 EV by betting 500 on the spot I handicap (which only one person can get as my bet then moves the line).

Now let's say I have a 2% roi on an NFL spot with 30k Pinny limits - plus you can get down piles on exchanges/other books too. Despite having a 2% ROI instead of a 10% ROI, i'm making $600 there plus other people may be able to get action down at the same price I got or I may be able to get 100k+ down across multiple books myself.

That's why money won is more important than ROI and why nobody cares that I can crush Starcraft 2 or Rugby 7s handicapping or that random posters can crush Korean Volleyball or Finnish Ice Hockey or whatever because the markets aren't liquid enough to make large amounts of money - yes if you're the one moving the lines on a small market you personally may make a somewhat some money in the long term on niche markets, but no one else is going to be able to get volume down at the prices you got, so nobody really cares.

If you bet $20 per bet then yes, niche sports are just as useful as major sports for you personally, the problem is people who make $20 bets won't profit buying picks even if the picks win because their outlay to purchase the picks will generally surpass their expected winnings.

For the 7th time. The guy betting 100 does not have to work as hard as the guy betting 1000. Take it from someone who has made a living beating 100 dollar max bets. Im no math expert, believe me...the 100-500 dollar stuff is childs play. I used to beat them doing the numbers in my head.

Now, amassing a giant stable of accounts like these and keeping them in action and finding more and more of them so that youre actually betting more than 1000 on stuff youre only supposed to be getting 100 on, thats whole other skill entirely and something I have found myself to be quite excellent at. But again, thats different, and the bets themselves are a joke. For the purposes of this discussion, the guys that are betting into like 100k markets arent even in the same universe as the guys like me. If theyre eeking out 1% edge its still way better than my 9% edge. So now do you see why ROI isnt the end all be all?

Very interesting, and great post. Personally I love handicapping/sports betting and have become pretty obsessed with it over the past few years, even more so because I'm winning a little $. What you said about the 100k markets, I agree that's another ball park and something I know nothing about. Loving the discussion. Out if curiosity, apart from the fundamental percentages when it comes to results (winning %, units, ROI etc.) What else can be used to measure the success of a handicapper? All line bets, no ML.

Technically it's

money won with least amount of risk >> anything else

No one cares about the guy martingaling it who's going to bust eventually or the guy who went all in and hit that 17 team parlay

Define low risk betting?

Low volatility,
-lower avg odds
- more volume(number of bets)
-and optimal Br% allocation per bet recommended by the tout all contribute to that

yeh no **** and we need water to survive

stop pointing out stupid **** that's irrelevant

also odds don't matter

it's just volume and money won

Hey buddy the the jerkstore called. They're looking for you.

What's the difference? You're their all time best seller

Floyd Mayweather

because anyone who is an actual winning handicapper isnt betting 100/game, and if they are, they're an idiot, which is a huge obstacle to overcome to become a winning handicapper so they should genuinely be applauded for their efforts.

Low average odds actually have higher variance. Lets stop pretending edge is fixed and set for median BR growth.

Also, please stop pretending you have some sort of right to an explanation of whatever I deem to post. The fact I give enough of a **** to say anything is more than you deserve and more than what most people offer up.

Low average odds actually have higher variance. Lets stop pretending edge is fixed and set for median BR growth.

Also, please stop pretending you have some sort of right to an explanation of whatever I deem to post. The fact I give enough of a **** to say anything is more than you deserve and more than what most people offer up.

How is that possibly your next question

You're the only one.

Always a gentleman lol

boohoo

words on the internet hurt

Can't believe I just found this thread.

1) Money won > ROI. You can't eat ROI, even Warren Buffett would tell you that. Anyone who tells you otherwise is incredibly dense.

2) I've actually learned useful gambling things from Thremp. Darren from GSO says hi to you and Arby, btw. He's starting his own shop.

3) My biggest gambling regret is definitely not pulling way more money out of the markets and using it to bet online during the 2000-2010 era[s] and take bigger risks. I was so lazy and couldn't be bothered to keep funding/opening accounts much of the time, and still made lots of money, [relatively speaking to the big hitters]. Not to mention the amount of time wasted on poker.

Although I'd probably have just spent it all on an inferior wax museum.

Good stuff. Glad he's doing well.

FOr NFL totals. Me.

For real.