Do you know"many" or "any" successful pro bettors that bet nothing but BIG FAVORITES?

[gynecologist]

Do you?

What are your thoughts of a guy who bets nothing but big favorites?
Could he possibly know what he is doing??

Isn't that the kind of guy the sportsbooks are welcoming with arms
wide open?

Do you know any professional bettors that have had any LONG TERM
success betting BIG ML favs?

Bettor yet

Do you know any pro bettors that bet BIG ML favs?

Someone who bets Big ML favs could never be considered a
pro right???

Seems like all the long term successful people on here and at
other places mix in dogs and never bet odds of -200 ever!!!

Agree???

What are your thoughts

 

[Fighting_Irishman]

God Bless a man that bets big money lines and parlays them together..... If you had 100 of those bettors playing into you, you could retire at the end of this football season......:toast:

FI

 

[gynecologist]

God Bless a man that bets big money lines and parlays them together..... If you had 100 of those bettors playing into you, you could retire at the end of this football season......:toast:

FI

Exactly!!! A Sportsbooks dream!!

 

[onemwtheone]

Casual players tend towards the heavy favs (high chance of winning) and overs (never out of it until the last pitch). My experience is that you make money off the dogs and unders as a result.

 

[MrJ]

There is plenty of +ev in tennis favourites.

 

[sean1]

Yes, Nadal -1000 to -2000 every day on clay is a great bet... Over and over and over..

-Sean

 

[SkinsRaj28]

To me, it's quite simple:

a sharp is someone who wins consistently.
a square is someone who doesn't.

I don't care if you bet -200 favs exclusively. If you're successful, that's all that matters. This sharp/square BS is just that: BS.

 

[gynecologist]

I don't care if you bet -200 favs exclusively. If you're successful, that's all that matters. This sharp/square BS is just that: BS.

Where are those people that are successful? You might find one
guy that has done good based on a limited amount of plays, but good luck finding two uppy:

 

[The_Man]

Know pro's and people who aren't afraid to hit a heavy favorite hard in spot betting type situations and are succssesful in doing so long term.

Betting absolutely nothing but heavy chalk, no.

Agree with what skinrash posted.

 

[WildBill]

Dumb question IMO. I know plenty of successful bettors who bet many ML favorites and make money doing it, but if you are smart why would you limit yourself to such a narrow focus? I can't imagine anyone claiming they were making big money doing such a thing. They surely would bet some dogs and smaller favorites at times.

 

[gynecologist]

Dumb question IMO. I know plenty of successful bettors who bet many ML favorites and make money doing it, but if you are smart why would you limit yourself to such a narrow focus? I can't imagine anyone claiming they were making big money doing such a thing. They surely would bet some dogs and smaller favorites at times.

Your post said it all!!!

 

[Journeyman]

Yes plenty of pro's bet big chalk, especially on props, the super bowl props especially.

 

[levistep]

Anyone remember nightmare, the guy who only bet -300 games? He was up like 100 units and now he's down 10 units overall. http://nightmaresports.com/members/records.asp

 

[whalewager]

most people dont know many pro bettors.

much less winners.

 

[Journeyman]

most people dont know many pro bettors.

much less winners.

are you a winner?:howdy:

 

[whalewager]

in life...sure.

 

[Journeyman]

in life...sure.

thought so

 

[Mr.Jones]

For experimental purposes only and just for fun, last season, on a whim I tried to bet some moneylines in College Baskets on teams which I figured could not lose. This was in conjunction with my normal wagering which was for much higher amounts.

This, as I say was only an experiment. The risk amounts were rather horrific, so I only bet the big risk amounts to win $10 or $20 dollars. Lo and behold it seemed like a sure thing and I was still risking relatively very little---none of them lost, the experiment was working and I won 9 or 10 in a row...few were even close. It was fun just to easily win beer and pizza amounts.

Finally, there was a Connecticut game [can't quite remember off hand, I think it was against the 'Cuse]. I upped the ante a bit and you know the rest of the story.

So much for the experiment. Lost the $160 or so I had grinded away for plus a bit more. End of stupid experiment. Truly an idiotic thing to do. Never again.

 

[da1prophet]

Like I discussed in another thread, it all comes down to finding the value. In *most* cases, the value is on the dog/UNDER because the public bets up the favorite/OVER more than they're "worth".

In the other thread I gave the example of a big chalk play that was a good value. If the Ultimate Fighting Championship booked a fight between their heavyweight champion, Tim Sylvia and limp wristed fitness guru Richard Simmons and I could bet Sylvia at -300--or even higher--that would be a good value. The name of the game is finding value, not betting chalk or dogs...

Another reason most of the sharp players I know gravitate toward dogs is that if you're betting moneyline dogs you're lowering your theoretical breakeven percentage. If you bet a -200 favorite, you need to win 60% of the time to break even. Bet a +200 dog, and you only need to win 33.3% of the time to break even. Even if you're not chasing big dogs, any time you bet at +100 or better you lower your breakeven point to 50% or less--and that gives you a much more generous margin of error than having to 60% just to stay at the Mendoza line...

Having said all that, I'll answer the specific question posted. I know very few sharp or professional bettors that bet nothing but big favorites. I honestly don't think I know any--the reason for this is simple: the sharp and pro players understand the concept of value: if the value is there on a big favorite, they'll bet it and if its not they won't.

I have seen a few squares that *thought* they were sharp have phenomenal single season runs just betting big favorites. I've never seen anyone that regularly bets big favorites have anything but red ink over the longterm.

There *are* people who pick their spots to bet on big favorites and do very well--like betting a boxer in a fight at -250 when they know he should be -500 or higher--but, again, this is all predicated on understanding the concept of value and when to play. Spot players like this aren't just betting blindly on the favorite.....

 

[Arodd]

For experimental purposes only and just for fun, last season, on a whim I tried to bet some moneylines in College Baskets on teams which I figured could not lose. This was in conjunction with my normal wagering which was for much higher amounts.

This, as I say was only an experiment. The risk amounts were rather horrific, so I only bet the big risk amounts to win $10 or $20 dollars. Lo and behold it seemed like a sure thing and I was still risking relatively very little---none of them lost, the experiment was working and I won 9 or 10 in a row...few were even close. It was fun just to easily win beer and pizza amounts.

Finally, there was a Connecticut game [can't quite remember off hand, I think it was against the 'Cuse]. I upped the ante a bit and you know the rest of the story.

So much for the experiment. Lost the $160 or so I had grinded away for plus a bit more. End of stupid experiment. Truly an idiotic thing to do. Never again.

so not neccessarily the fault of betting the money line, but the money management issue...MLs did work out for you though it sounds like.