I love the guys that say you should only be betting one or two weks a game. Who thought that up?
How are you going to make money doing that? 3 games a week is about 55 games or so including play offs. So that would be a record of 33-22, at 60%. The more realistic percentage of 54% would be 30-25. Whch when people look at it isn't that impressive.
But percentages are also always relative. Would you rather hit 60% over 60 games or hit 54% over 200?
Betting is all about volume, the more games the better, assuming you hit more winners than losers. That is why people lose so much, they worry about some arbitrary number of games a week they should or should not bet, rather than worrying about how to actually make the most money they can. If you bet all year round there should be no limitations on how many games you should bet. The more games you play the lower your win percentage actually has to be to show a better return on your money. This is all of course assuming you are flat betting.
But even then in the long run (say 5 or 6 years) a person flat betting hitting 53-54% will make more money than a person who straddles their bets (plays differing unit sizes) no proof, but an educated guess. The reason being that everuone remember the winners, no one remembers the losers. The guys flat betting don't remmber any because they all mean the same, and none carries more weight than any other.
With NCAA football, NFL, sides and totals, bowls and play offs, guys could be getting close to 400 bets a season in football overall. I will take anyone's 54% in that many games over even 65% of 60 games.
At -107 you only need to hit 52% to make money. Say you bet 1500 games a year one way. Worrying nothing about capping or outside influences, Just looking at lines, and picking a side. If you hit 52% you would profit $897.20 per $100 bet. So a guy betting a buck a game would show an $897.20 profit for the year. A guy betting a nickle would show $4486 profit, and so on.
Definately not getting rich, but showing a profit. So it isn't hard showing a profit Basically a coin flip(actually a coin flip could hit one side more than 52% of the time in that few flips) But people get caught up in all the bullshit that surrounds sportsbetting and they follow some theories or some make believe "rules" that some tout or salemen made up as to how and bet.
You know who invented unit plays? Touts, why? So they could charge more. The more stars themore it costs. Guys that think they have a better chance at one game than another are fooling themselves. Unless they do know for a fact that there is a fix. And if that were the case they would bet everything they own on it at every book they could get down at. And show me a gambler that has ever done that. So those claiming they know the "fix" is in are full of shit too. If you know you CAN'T lose how much would you bet? Everything you have of course. Who wouldn't? As in poker if you have the stone cold nuts in a N/L game and a guy bets into you are you just going to call? Not hardly, you go all in and if you could you would put your car truck, house in the pot too. That is actually where the nuts got it name. They used to put the nuts off their wagon wheels in the pot, meaning they bet there wagon too, knowing they couldn't lose. (but I digress) There are no sure things in sports betting however, even when a fix is supposed to be in. I have heard of many fixes, and they are not 100%.
........G. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
