Sports Betting
 

I don't do it and I don't want to. I don't think theres anything wrong with it if you really do your research, know what your doing, and are specific what game you will bet (like penguin for sure, and maybe others I dn).

If you aren't doing alot of research I just kind of see it as a form of degenerate gambling (do you guys agree or disagree?)

I mean do any of you guys make good money betting sports overall? (you don't have to answer, I'm really just wondering)

I am roughly a break even sports bettor -- but that is due to nasty streaks and partially due to Tilt.

I track my Sports bets just as I do my poker sessions (although not in detail). This year I've been up as much as $5800 overall and down as much as 2700 overall (there's a swing for ya! that happened over an ICE COLD 2-2.5 months between the end of April and the beginning of July). Right now, Im in the middle of a decent streak, and am up $960 for the year (9.6 Units) after the Suns loss tonight.

I think if I had bet with my head 100% of the time, instead of taking a beat and chasing my losses by taking games just bc they were there, not bc I liked them, I'd be up FAR more. (I've easily lost 25+ Units betting on Tilt). In the past 2 months, I've been betting smart, not making dumb bets if I lose etc and I've won 6 out of the last 8 weeks, with both losing weeks being only (approx) 2 Unit losses.

Sports is just a recreational thing for me, which I'd like to win a few hundred each week if possible. Im certaintly not as knowledgable as Penguin, but I do try and look into my picks.

Absolutly, in it's purest sense. The only thing worse would be betting on horses or greyhounds.

You are betting on something you have absolutly no control over, none. You can only handicap the past, which is never certain to predict the future.

Having said that I still think it's something that can be beat long term, just like poker, if you continue to make the right decision time after time then eventually the odds will bear you out and you will make money.

Think about it, every sports bet is actually a 50/50 proposition, either the favorite will win by XX number of points or they won't, it really is that simple. I don't doubt people could honestly flip a coin, heads they take the favorite, tails they take the dog, and be close to 50% correct, losing the juice in the long run. If by handicapping the games and doing your homework can you swing that number by 10%? I think so. If you can win 60% over the long run you would not need to work a regular job ever again and live a very nice lifestyle.

I'll give you NHL handicapping as a good example. Do you know how to handicap an NHL game? Do you know what to look for or do you just know Ottawa is better than Pittsburgh? What should you be looking at to actually handicap the game? Losts of things actually that should lead you to an intelligent decision on who to bet on, maybe neither side.

You do all of that work and find that you think Ottawa is worth the -140 they are laying on the road. Then you find out Emery was fighting off a flu bug and lets the Pens score 7 times and you lose the bet.

Did you do anything wrong? No, if you place that same bet several times will you come out ahead, probably.

Too many people are in it for the short term, in which case the game is unbeatable and simply for degenerates like you said. Long term I know I can beat the game.

Think of it like this JD take any average to below average team you want, one who will be a small favorite or most likely an underdog most nights on the moneyline. Bet $50 on them to win, if you lose bet $100 on them the next night, lose again, bet $200 the next night. If they are always a dog your not losing any juice in the deal and are actually making out when they finally win, and they will win. With the ecxeption of really awful teams nodoby loses more than 5 or 6 in a row in baseball, or hockey.

All you need is the bankroll to do it and you can't possibly lose over the long run, sure,your record may be 1-3, but if you bet right you will still be ahead after 4 games and you did no handicapping at all.

People use this same logic for blackjack, roulette, etc. Take roulette and assume you use this same strategy and always bet on black. Will you PROBABLY end up winning (a small amount of money) after a lot of bets? Sure. While unlikely, it is POSSIBLE that red and green WILL come up 10 times in a row, so you had better have a pretty big bankroll. Here is how much you'd lose with each bet - yout total losses would be calculated by adding all of this up:

50
100
200
400
800
1600
3200
6400
12800
25600

And good luck finding a table that's going to let you bet $25k on black. Oh, and lose just one more time, and you're down $100k total.

In other words: It's a bad, bad, bad idea.

Of course it's a bad idea, I had a hidden adgenda with that logic, thanks for blowing it.

i bet in $50 units. So far since ive started ive made 54 bets. Im 30-24.

I find the term "degenerate gambler" to be somewhat arrogant on a board focused on a gambling activity.

Behavior only becomes "degenrate" if it damages ones quality of life, or hurts ones family, and the person who does it refuses to stop.

Thus I find JD's comment If you aren't doing alot of research I just kind of see it as a form of degenerate gambling to be not well thought out.

I mean, if a guy with a $50K annual income wants to bet $50 per week on the NFL based upon whim and not research, and goes 7-10 (losing $200) for the season, he's hardly a "degenerate gambler." He just spent $200 on a form of entertainment.

There are two ways to approach gambling. 1) as a job (whether as a primary or seconday source of income), or 2) as entertainment. If #2 is someone's goal, as long as they don't bankrupt their family, if they get entertained and are a long-term loser, isn't that the kind of person you want in your games?

I know people who spend over $10K per year skiing or playing golf. They're not gambling, but if they ski rather than pay the bills, they're just as "degenerate" as a gambler who ignores his responsibilities.

<rant off>

Whew. So, I guess a guy with a $100K + annual income that bets in $10 units is clearly not a "degenerate gambler" but should probably be more appropriately labeled as a serious tight-wad?!! :D

Probably not expessed well before, but my point was that playing a -EV game or playing a potentially +EV game sub-optimally does not automatically make a person a "degenerate gambler."

I thought it was very well expressed.

There is a ton of wisdom in that statement, more than most will ever understand.

i watch NFL on sunday/monday nights. We get 2 games a week. Ill watch the team i follow, the falcons, if they are on, and the Pats cos they play some good stuff.

But if i make a bet on a game like Redskins vs Chargers, or similar, itll give me more to do for the 4 hours while its on.

It makes the game more interesting for me