Congrats Hollywood CG, Stay Humble small plays ok . Get JOB.Ticket Writer be Great.To Willie99.Your Idiot.Calling Hollywood CG. A p?!,.€& word. That he didnt Bet ML on Houston. Why didnt you, that means you are a BIG P. You didnt even Bet the Game CG showed his ticket. Your not Going to make it Big in Vegas or Anywhere else if you Bet thousands on +500 ML. Now go back Inside your Moms you know What Loser. God Instead saying Good play .You come out your Moms hole to be vile. Notice Mods i got Class i dont Repea What this Idiot Said.
Thought Willie was serious?Could be wrong. Wander Bread , Sorry if I tell Hollywood CG, tone it down. Get a JOB. To all my critics out there keep it coming.I can take it. I will still bet small& do 2 team 7 point teasers. Good luck to all.Especially gamblers that use real $, not monopoly $. Love reading your input on the games. Good night to all.
The Oregon play I did like, but not the Baylor one.
A large bet on an unproven QB was just wrong, and against a hot Sooner team.
You would never do that in the NFL....
I had the Seattle/Arizona game marked as a game that could go either way, but Sea. lean.
If you don't like the spread Sea. -2.5, buying a half, which would have been cheap on Sunday,
then it should never be a Huge bet on the moneyline imho.
A nickel should be your largest bet size with a 9 dime bank, and thats really being too aggressive.
Think investing-wise and not just gambling on football.
BOL this week HW!
:toast:
A large bet on an unproven QB was just wrong, and against a hot Sooner team.
You would never do that in the NFL....
I had the Seattle/Arizona game marked as a game that could go either way, but Sea. lean.
If you don't like the spread Sea. -2.5, buying a half, which would have been cheap on Sunday,
then it should never be a Huge bet on the moneyline imho.
A nickel should be your largest bet size with a 9 dime bank, and thats really being too aggressive.
Think investing-wise and not just gambling on football.
BOL this week HW!
:toast:
Way too aggressive is an understatement especially if you're even attempting to play for a living. There isn't a lot written on sports betting variance vs. poker variance but if I had to take a shot at it, I'd say variance in betting sports is probably higher depending on your betting style (betting dogs vs. betting favorites, more variance with dogs). With poker at least, the minimum I'd ever want to risk playing for a living is 30 buy-ins and that's extremely aggressive. I play with 50+ and sleep comfortably at night not to mention a better quality of life and less stress. Especially when you have bills/living expenses that you are using cash-outs to pay (without a side job). Playing with 20-30 buyins if you're willing to move down will work if you're not playing full time.
I bring up poker because in a lot of ways the variance is similar to betting sports. If you're risking too much it's just a matter of time before you bust given the high variance of the game. You can bet 100 games and look like a winner when you just ran hot and all your bets had negative expectation. On the same token you can bet 100 bets and lose in sports when your system was a winner but you ended up on the wrong side of variance. This is also what makes both poker and sports betting so profitable. Fish do not realize the variance and they are duped into thinking they are winning players when they are not.
Going on a streak of winning 5 or 10 bets in a row literally means next to nothing. It's hard to grasp but if you run your system through a trial of say 100,000+ times you will realize that it's very easy to win or lose 10-20 bets in a row.
Either way, he's right. Betting $500 with a $9k bankroll is an extremely aggressive approach and you better be willing to start toning down your bet size when you encounter rough streaks. BOL CG!
