Excell your right, I was actually just copying and pasting pja's equation's and just changing the money amount. I don't think we will see this pja character again, he has shamed himself and his country, if he were in japan right now they would make him take a sword and thrust it into his stomach old school style.
As far as this discussions goes....
You have all left out the MOST important factor when dealing with touts.
A touts goal is to end up with ALL the money. or as mush as possible. Just like Vegas, Disney World, what have you. No difference at all.
The thing is, in almost every case you will NEVER win at a percentage such that you can afford to pay the tout and still overcome the vig. May not be what you want to hear... but balls on accurate!
Meanwhile the tout is paid regardless and always "wins" regardless. You see he is paid before hand in almost all cases.
I and most of you have heard every bullsh!t story in the book as to why a guy is selling his picks. Bottom line they all do it for the same, AND ONLY ONE, reason.
Because they get paid REGARDLESS. If they could win as big as they claim they would just shut the hell up and do it.
This is gospel of touts, like it or not!
You have all left out the MOST important factor when dealing with touts.
A touts goal is to end up with ALL the money. or as mush as possible. Just like Vegas, Disney World, what have you. No difference at all.
The thing is, in almost every case you will NEVER win at a percentage such that you can afford to pay the tout and still overcome the vig. May not be what you want to hear... but balls on accurate!
Meanwhile the tout is paid regardless and always "wins" regardless. You see he is paid before hand in almost all cases.
I and most of you have heard every bullsh!t story in the book as to why a guy is selling his picks. Bottom line they all do it for the same, AND ONLY ONE, reason.
Because they get paid REGARDLESS. If they could win as big as they claim they would just shut the hell up and do it.
This is gospel of touts, like it or not!
Well by posting in my thread one is likely to believe you are calling me a tout. I do not tout about having some gaudy record, my record is straight forward and my plays are posted on my site and in this forum win or lose. Last week we had a bad week but if you look on my site in the january records (must go through the feb records to get there) you will see all of our losses (we were 2-8 from Jan. 24-jan30), if we were a tout that wouldn't be posted
First delmo was right. 365*2 is 730, not 700. It was late at night, and I did make an error. Though, capp seemed to make the exact same error in his math also, showing he only copied and pasted from me and isn't intelligent enough to do it on his own.
OK, I'll try on more time capp. Like I said before, try reading slowly. If you come ac**** words that may be a bit too big for you, don't get frustrated. Sound them out.
First, in your equation, you charged standard vig(-110) to the 6 a day bettor, and NO vig to the 2 a day bettor. Good one, toutboy.
Secondly, as excell said, you are trying to compare apples to oranges. I'm not sure why you decided to pull the $300 out of you arse, but it's not relevant here. The point was, hitting 55% with 6 wagers per day is more profitable than 2 a day at 60%. We weren't comparing risking the same amount each day. By your thinking, wouldn't making only one play per day at $660 be the most profitable?
Anyway, you've proven yourself to be just another dumb tout. I know we talked about you saving up to move out of the basement, but you might not be ready yet. You may want to spend the money you make off your 5 clients towards GED classes.
Toutboy------>
<------PJA101
OK, I'll try on more time capp. Like I said before, try reading slowly. If you come ac**** words that may be a bit too big for you, don't get frustrated. Sound them out.
First, in your equation, you charged standard vig(-110) to the 6 a day bettor, and NO vig to the 2 a day bettor. Good one, toutboy.
Secondly, as excell said, you are trying to compare apples to oranges. I'm not sure why you decided to pull the $300 out of you arse, but it's not relevant here. The point was, hitting 55% with 6 wagers per day is more profitable than 2 a day at 60%. We weren't comparing risking the same amount each day. By your thinking, wouldn't making only one play per day at $660 be the most profitable?
Anyway, you've proven yourself to be just another dumb tout. I know we talked about you saving up to move out of the basement, but you might not be ready yet. You may want to spend the money you make off your 5 clients towards GED classes.
Toutboy------>
When you quoted me, I said in the quote that it would be more profitable to play the same amount of money on 2 games (i.e 600) as it would on 6 games (i.e. 600)
As for my error's in math, that's because I copied and pasted your errors, so your just calling yourself out on that.
It is not comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about money, it is the same currency, all we are doing is saying if you had to bet 600 dollars a day which would you rather bet at 55% or 60%? I think the answer is very simple to realize, 60%!
How can you not see that? Talking to you is like talking to a retarded monkey, the only exception is retarded monkey's have a better grasp of elementary concepts than you do. Run the math again, it's not apples and oranges we are talking about $600 dollars a day on either 2 or 6 bets, either way, 60% is going to win out over 55%.
As for my error's in math, that's because I copied and pasted your errors, so your just calling yourself out on that.
It is not comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about money, it is the same currency, all we are doing is saying if you had to bet 600 dollars a day which would you rather bet at 55% or 60%? I think the answer is very simple to realize, 60%!
How can you not see that? Talking to you is like talking to a retarded monkey, the only exception is retarded monkey's have a better grasp of elementary concepts than you do. Run the math again, it's not apples and oranges we are talking about $600 dollars a day on either 2 or 6 bets, either way, 60% is going to win out over 55%.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappthespread:
1-0-1 on premium plays
0-1 on Bonus Plays
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
=1-1-1 on total plays, down juice.
OK, this arguement is getting boring. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying 3 $110 plays is the same as 1 $330 play.
We're assuming the bettors in these examples have limited bankrolls, or in your case weekly allowance+5 clients. In your equation 1 "unit" would equal $110, and 3 would equal $330. Bettor "A" would have to lose 100 units before being bankrupt, while bettor "B" only needs to lose 33.3. Despite the fact bettor A will go through streaks much quicker, since he is wagering more games per day, bettor B has the best chance of going bankrupt first.
Go take a probability course. You are comparing apples and oranges. By your method of thinking, if 2 plays at $330 are better than 6 plays at $110, then 1 play at $660 is also better, .5 plays per day at $1320 is better, etc. YOUR thinking is flawed, not mine, toutboy.
1-0-1 on premium plays
0-1 on Bonus Plays
=1-1-1 on total plays, down juice.
OK, this arguement is getting boring. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying 3 $110 plays is the same as 1 $330 play.
We're assuming the bettors in these examples have limited bankrolls, or in your case weekly allowance+5 clients. In your equation 1 "unit" would equal $110, and 3 would equal $330. Bettor "A" would have to lose 100 units before being bankrupt, while bettor "B" only needs to lose 33.3. Despite the fact bettor A will go through streaks much quicker, since he is wagering more games per day, bettor B has the best chance of going bankrupt first.
Go take a probability course. You are comparing apples and oranges. By your method of thinking, if 2 plays at $330 are better than 6 plays at $110, then 1 play at $660 is also better, .5 plays per day at $1320 is better, etc. YOUR thinking is flawed, not mine, toutboy.
1. It doesn't matter how many games you play, your not going to go through winning and losing streaks faster, your still going to have overall winning and losing days.
2. Look at the math fag,
6*365 = 2190
2190*.55 = 1204.5 (give you the benefit of the doubt and push up) =1205
1205*100= 120500
985*110=108350
120500-108350= $12,150
2*365=730
730*.6=438
438*300=131400
292*330=96360
131400-96360=$35,040
It has nothing to do with games played per day dumbass, it has to do with percentage and playing the same amount of money. If you played one game a day wagering 600 per game you would make the same amount as you would on 2 per day at 300. How can you be this stupid? I know your getting tired of this argument because your losing. Your bankroll is going to be similar if your playing 6 games a day at that much anyway.
Look at the difference made? This is not a comparison of apples and oranges, this is pure and simple mathematics. How can you not see it, I just proved it to you above.
2. Look at the math fag,
6*365 = 2190
2190*.55 = 1204.5 (give you the benefit of the doubt and push up) =1205
1205*100= 120500
985*110=108350
120500-108350= $12,150
2*365=730
730*.6=438
438*300=131400
292*330=96360
131400-96360=$35,040
It has nothing to do with games played per day dumbass, it has to do with percentage and playing the same amount of money. If you played one game a day wagering 600 per game you would make the same amount as you would on 2 per day at 300. How can you be this stupid? I know your getting tired of this argument because your losing. Your bankroll is going to be similar if your playing 6 games a day at that much anyway.
Look at the difference made? This is not a comparison of apples and oranges, this is pure and simple mathematics. How can you not see it, I just proved it to you above.
Alrifgt,,eniugh is enough..I have the ENTIRE list from Thesportsmonitor.com in football this year. Honest numbers..too bad ruth does not post anyone under 50%..which is bullsh*t...but like i said, clients get the entire list. 137 services monitored this year. Guess how many "wise guy" monitored services went over
60 % for the whole year in college and pro? Come on guess....8...yep 8...2 hit exactly 60. ready for how many hit 52%....51 out 137 services. Just trying to show how hard it is to hit anywhere close to 70 for the year. 32 services out of 137 hit 55%...anyone that says they hit 70 should be very very wealthy after only 1 season of any sport. 70 is possible for ML maybe....just kidding.
gl to all...no hard feelings..just the true
rich...i do realize that these monitored services are competing against the toughest line though....that shou;d be taken into account
rich
60 % for the whole year in college and pro? Come on guess....8...yep 8...2 hit exactly 60. ready for how many hit 52%....51 out 137 services. Just trying to show how hard it is to hit anywhere close to 70 for the year. 32 services out of 137 hit 55%...anyone that says they hit 70 should be very very wealthy after only 1 season of any sport. 70 is possible for ML maybe....just kidding.
gl to all...no hard feelings..just the true
rich...i do realize that these monitored services are competing against the toughest line though....that shou;d be taken into account
rich
I agree, teamrichie. If this scum was a lifetime 60% winner, he would have no need to hound people on message boards hoping to sell his picks for a measley $10.
Toutboy, you still don't get it. Your math above is not incorrect, it just isn't relevant to this argument. If people were comparing facts about apples, and one man came and told facts of oranges, he would not be incorrect in his facts about oranges, they would just be irrelevant.
I'm done wasting my time trying to explain this to you. I remembered reading something along these lines somewhere else a while ago, and I found it for you.
Though I disagree with Miller on many things, this is one of the few things that I agree with him on:
(REMEMBER, READ S-L-O-W-L-Y)
There's always an awkward pause when a non-gambler or a beginner asks me, "What percentage of bets do professional bettors win?"
It's a less-than-simple question to answer because it can't be answered simply. That, of course, sounds like a cop-out, but the answer to that question really does demand an explanation.
Many people believe professional-level sports bettors win at least 60% of their bets. It's understandable that people think that, but it's just not true. The fact is, the difference between the percentage of bets won by successful sports bettors and the percentage of bets won by chronic losers is relatively very small.
We'll ignore money line bets here for the sake of clarity, and address only those bets wherein the player risks 11 to win 10; - pointspreads and over/under bets. Against this type of bet, anyone at all can expect to win 50 percent. After all, the only thing required is to flip a coin and pick a side. The bookmakers' profit comes from the difference between what a bettor must risk and what a bettor expects to win. Every time a player wins, the bookmaker withholds slightly more than 9 percent of the winnings ($1 for every $11 risked). Consequently, a bettor winning only half his bets will ultimately go broke.
Professional sports bettors, by comparison, rarely sustain a long term winning percentage higher than 57 or 58 percent, and it's often as low as 55 or 56 percent. People find that hard to believe, and they understandably get even more skeptical when told that, for a genuine professional-level sports bettor, a long term winning expectation of 60% or more is actually too high.
That last paragraph sounds crazy at first, but as crazy as it may seem there is a simple explanation: If a bettor has five bets on a given day, risking $110 to win $100 on each bet, and wins three of them, that's a great winning ratio of 60% and a net profit for the day of 80 dollars. (The bettor wins $300 and loses 220 dollars.) If another bettor has fourteen bets on that same day, risking $110 to win $100 on each one, and wins eight of them, that's a much poorer winning percentage of only 57%, - but almost twice as much profit for the day of 140 dollars. (The bettor wins $800 and loses 660 dollars.)
The second bettor was not necessarily less skilled at picking winners than the first bettor; the second bettor may simply have chosen to apply all his advantages - including those which had less than a 60% chance of winning in the first place. If the ultimate goal is to make money, it is obvious which of those two bettors was more successful. The real goal is, of course, to make money. The measure of success of a sports handicapper is not his percentage of winning bets, but the relative amount of profit he made over any given period of time.
Although there are, indeed, propositions that offer more than a 60% expectation of winning, such propositions are relatively few and far between, and are only a very small part of the overall picture. With the break-even point at about 53%, genuine professional bettors know there is no tenable excuse to pass up propositions offering expectations of higher than, say, 55 percent. A small advantage applied over and over is awesomely effective. Mathematicians will confirm that a profit is more assured from a group of 200 bets with a 55% expectation-per-bet than from a group of 50 bets with a 60% expectation-per-bet. In other words, the more bets placed, the more predictable the outcome. (See our article, Binomial Distribution.)
"The measure of success of a sports handicapper is not his percentage of winning bets, but the relative amount of profit he made over any given period of time."
That, too, is one of the facts of life of which successful bettors must be familiar. It's a basic principle of math: The more bets you are able to place, the more likely it is that your winning percentage will be close to your expectations. A pro bettor must be more concerned with profit than with establishing a great winning percentage, and those two conditions are not always compatible. A real pro applies all his advantages as often as possible, not only the best of his advantages when they occasionally arise.
To illustrate the point, consider casino craps. The house has less than a 51% winning expectation against a passline bet at craps, yet casinos advertise their craps games on signs a hundred feet tall. Casino executives know that if they can get enough players to make enough bets they will end the day with approximately the percentage of profit expected. They also know that the fewer bets placed, the less predictable the percentage of winning bets. Can you imagine a casino wanting to limit the number of times you throw the dice?
The accompanying illustration (below) shows the results of different winning percentages over different numbers of bets. Standard vigorish charges of 4.55 percent are figured into the numbers. (The bookies' net commission is 4.55 percent of all monies risked. See our article, A Crash Course in Vigorish.) Notice in the illustration that winning 55% of 250 bets is more profitable than winning 65% of only 50 bets, - and remember that a profit is more assured - that is, more dependable - because of the higher number of trials.
percent of winning
bets
Total number of bets
50
100
150
200
250
65.0%:
13.3
26.5
39.7
53.0
66.2
62.5%:
10.6
21.2
31.9
42.5
53.1
60.0%:
8
16
24
32
40
57.5%:
5.4
10.7
16.1
21.5
26.9
55.0%:
2.7
5.5
8.2
11
13.7
52.5%:
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
Net number of units profit
Graph shows effect of different win percentages over different numbers of bets. When risking 11 to win 10 it is best to use no more than 2% of your bankroll per bet - (Most pros use about 1 percent) - and 'pull the trigger' whenever you feel you have at least a 55% expectation of winning. Pro bettors tend to have a lot of bets compared to non-professionals. Note that winning 55% of 250 bets is actually more profitable than winning 65% of only 50 bets. More importantly, a bettor is more assured of achieving his expected win percentage over a larger total number of bets, and with more bets and smaller bet sizes, the 'ride' is much smoother, less risky, and more predictable. (Graph assumes all bets are same size.)
Generally speaking, non-professional gamblers go wrong by risking too much of their bankroll on individual bets. They don't spread their risk over enough bets. Professionals use smaller bet sizes in proportion to their bankroll over larger numbers of bets. As a matter of fact, one good way to spot a non-pro is that he invariably has less than a half-dozen bets per week, and he risks more than two or three percent of his bankroll on each bet. (Those sports touts peddling progressive betting schemes such as the "Kelly criterion" or "one-star, two-star, three star" systems aren't professional gamblers at all; they're hucksters selling 900-numbers. Big swings in the size of your bets will send you back to your job at the car wash a lot quicker than bad handicapping.)
If you're a part-timer with a wad of 'mad' money to risk, it may be okay to risk 4 or 5 percent of your bankroll on a single bet, but don't expect to play that way for long. Sooner or later, such mismanagement will annihilate you. To quote from my book, How Professional Gamblers Beat The Pro Football Pointspread, the population of bad handicappers in Tap City is dwarfed by the population of bad money managers. Of those genuine professional-level sports bettors I've known, most would never risk more than two percent of their working bankroll on any single bet, and all of them usually risk much less than that. The general consensus seems to be about one percent.
- J. R. Miller
Toutboy, you still don't get it. Your math above is not incorrect, it just isn't relevant to this argument. If people were comparing facts about apples, and one man came and told facts of oranges, he would not be incorrect in his facts about oranges, they would just be irrelevant.
I'm done wasting my time trying to explain this to you. I remembered reading something along these lines somewhere else a while ago, and I found it for you.
Though I disagree with Miller on many things, this is one of the few things that I agree with him on:
(REMEMBER, READ S-L-O-W-L-Y)
There's always an awkward pause when a non-gambler or a beginner asks me, "What percentage of bets do professional bettors win?"
It's a less-than-simple question to answer because it can't be answered simply. That, of course, sounds like a cop-out, but the answer to that question really does demand an explanation.
Many people believe professional-level sports bettors win at least 60% of their bets. It's understandable that people think that, but it's just not true. The fact is, the difference between the percentage of bets won by successful sports bettors and the percentage of bets won by chronic losers is relatively very small.
We'll ignore money line bets here for the sake of clarity, and address only those bets wherein the player risks 11 to win 10; - pointspreads and over/under bets. Against this type of bet, anyone at all can expect to win 50 percent. After all, the only thing required is to flip a coin and pick a side. The bookmakers' profit comes from the difference between what a bettor must risk and what a bettor expects to win. Every time a player wins, the bookmaker withholds slightly more than 9 percent of the winnings ($1 for every $11 risked). Consequently, a bettor winning only half his bets will ultimately go broke.
Professional sports bettors, by comparison, rarely sustain a long term winning percentage higher than 57 or 58 percent, and it's often as low as 55 or 56 percent. People find that hard to believe, and they understandably get even more skeptical when told that, for a genuine professional-level sports bettor, a long term winning expectation of 60% or more is actually too high.
That last paragraph sounds crazy at first, but as crazy as it may seem there is a simple explanation: If a bettor has five bets on a given day, risking $110 to win $100 on each bet, and wins three of them, that's a great winning ratio of 60% and a net profit for the day of 80 dollars. (The bettor wins $300 and loses 220 dollars.) If another bettor has fourteen bets on that same day, risking $110 to win $100 on each one, and wins eight of them, that's a much poorer winning percentage of only 57%, - but almost twice as much profit for the day of 140 dollars. (The bettor wins $800 and loses 660 dollars.)
The second bettor was not necessarily less skilled at picking winners than the first bettor; the second bettor may simply have chosen to apply all his advantages - including those which had less than a 60% chance of winning in the first place. If the ultimate goal is to make money, it is obvious which of those two bettors was more successful. The real goal is, of course, to make money. The measure of success of a sports handicapper is not his percentage of winning bets, but the relative amount of profit he made over any given period of time.
Although there are, indeed, propositions that offer more than a 60% expectation of winning, such propositions are relatively few and far between, and are only a very small part of the overall picture. With the break-even point at about 53%, genuine professional bettors know there is no tenable excuse to pass up propositions offering expectations of higher than, say, 55 percent. A small advantage applied over and over is awesomely effective. Mathematicians will confirm that a profit is more assured from a group of 200 bets with a 55% expectation-per-bet than from a group of 50 bets with a 60% expectation-per-bet. In other words, the more bets placed, the more predictable the outcome. (See our article, Binomial Distribution.)
"The measure of success of a sports handicapper is not his percentage of winning bets, but the relative amount of profit he made over any given period of time."
That, too, is one of the facts of life of which successful bettors must be familiar. It's a basic principle of math: The more bets you are able to place, the more likely it is that your winning percentage will be close to your expectations. A pro bettor must be more concerned with profit than with establishing a great winning percentage, and those two conditions are not always compatible. A real pro applies all his advantages as often as possible, not only the best of his advantages when they occasionally arise.
To illustrate the point, consider casino craps. The house has less than a 51% winning expectation against a passline bet at craps, yet casinos advertise their craps games on signs a hundred feet tall. Casino executives know that if they can get enough players to make enough bets they will end the day with approximately the percentage of profit expected. They also know that the fewer bets placed, the less predictable the percentage of winning bets. Can you imagine a casino wanting to limit the number of times you throw the dice?
The accompanying illustration (below) shows the results of different winning percentages over different numbers of bets. Standard vigorish charges of 4.55 percent are figured into the numbers. (The bookies' net commission is 4.55 percent of all monies risked. See our article, A Crash Course in Vigorish.) Notice in the illustration that winning 55% of 250 bets is more profitable than winning 65% of only 50 bets, - and remember that a profit is more assured - that is, more dependable - because of the higher number of trials.
percent of winning
bets
Total number of bets
50
100
150
200
250
65.0%:
13.3
26.5
39.7
53.0
66.2
62.5%:
10.6
21.2
31.9
42.5
53.1
60.0%:
8
16
24
32
40
57.5%:
5.4
10.7
16.1
21.5
26.9
55.0%:
2.7
5.5
8.2
11
13.7
52.5%:
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
Net number of units profit
Graph shows effect of different win percentages over different numbers of bets. When risking 11 to win 10 it is best to use no more than 2% of your bankroll per bet - (Most pros use about 1 percent) - and 'pull the trigger' whenever you feel you have at least a 55% expectation of winning. Pro bettors tend to have a lot of bets compared to non-professionals. Note that winning 55% of 250 bets is actually more profitable than winning 65% of only 50 bets. More importantly, a bettor is more assured of achieving his expected win percentage over a larger total number of bets, and with more bets and smaller bet sizes, the 'ride' is much smoother, less risky, and more predictable. (Graph assumes all bets are same size.)
Generally speaking, non-professional gamblers go wrong by risking too much of their bankroll on individual bets. They don't spread their risk over enough bets. Professionals use smaller bet sizes in proportion to their bankroll over larger numbers of bets. As a matter of fact, one good way to spot a non-pro is that he invariably has less than a half-dozen bets per week, and he risks more than two or three percent of his bankroll on each bet. (Those sports touts peddling progressive betting schemes such as the "Kelly criterion" or "one-star, two-star, three star" systems aren't professional gamblers at all; they're hucksters selling 900-numbers. Big swings in the size of your bets will send you back to your job at the car wash a lot quicker than bad handicapping.)
If you're a part-timer with a wad of 'mad' money to risk, it may be okay to risk 4 or 5 percent of your bankroll on a single bet, but don't expect to play that way for long. Sooner or later, such mismanagement will annihilate you. To quote from my book, How Professional Gamblers Beat The Pro Football Pointspread, the population of bad handicappers in Tap City is dwarfed by the population of bad money managers. Of those genuine professional-level sports bettors I've known, most would never risk more than two percent of their working bankroll on any single bet, and all of them usually risk much less than that. The general consensus seems to be about one percent.
- J. R. Miller
