Track

Track Record

Sports Betting As An Investment

Where can I find the track records of every single sports handicapper? Good question. Unlike others in this industry, I fully disclose the results of my plays on a daily and historical basis and I also calculate the P&L and ROI calculations for my daily plays. This process is called full disclosure.

Before you pay any handicapper, ask them for a complete track record (results for every season) in tabular form as we have provided below. I doubt they will provide it, because I have not seen a complete track record for any other handicapper on the internet. The absence of such disclosure tells you a lot about the ability of other handicappers to pick winners on a long term basis. They all hype their alleged short term winning streaks-that is all bs in my view. Where is the long term record? Have they won or lost on a long term basis?

I have consistently produced winners for eleven years and we have averaged 237 Net Units per year. There are many pretentious pretenders out there-I offer the real deal. I do not find it necessary to hype myself or brag about how great I am, etc. My track record speaks for itself with nothing added by me. All the plays I issue to clients have at least a 56% theoretical probability of winning which includes money line sports.

I provide my clients with the edge needed to be successful. However, less than 10% of all sports bettors have the proper psychological profile to be winners in my view. You must be totally disciplined and have a very high level of self esteem if you want to be a winner. This excludes at least 90% of all sports bettors, and is part of the reason for the high failure rate.

Successful sports handicapping is not easy. If you think otherwise, you do not understand gaming probability theory and realistic rates of return. I stated six years ago on this site that sports investing is always a marathon-never a sprint. I notice a few other handicappers have "borrowed" my phrase without giving me proper credit. That aside, it is more true than ever that winning in sports investing is a long term affair. I have found over the years that those with the shortest term investment views are the least likely to succeed. If you are short term oriented-you are a gambler-not a sports investor. Investors can win-gamblers always lose.

Sports books are taking a net position most of the time

Most sports investors accept the premise that sports books set a line to induce bettors to place equal amounts of money on both sides of a given game. This means that sports books are (in theory) "hedged" on a specific game and this fact enables them to make money regardless of the outcome. This is because they collect the "vigorish" or "juice" for their services. You will be surprised to learn as we will prove, that sports books are not good handicappers. In fact, they are fairly poor handicappers because the vast majority of sports books win less than 4.55%, which is the return that they would make if they were acting solely as a market maker. (Here we are talking point spread bets only-if we take exotic bets into account, sports books are very poor handicappers because their net take is far removed from the inherent profitability of teasers, parlays, proposition bets, etc.).

As I will show below, sports book betting lines are correct most of the time. But, sports books are poor handicappers because they have negative overall results from their elective handicapping. Hard to believe? Las Vegas sports books, offshore sports books, and your neighborhood bookie are not just collecting the juice on games as most people believe, but are actually taking a net position on games much of the time. This means they are speculating on game outcomes-just like everyone else. They do so because they are apparently not satisfied with the guaranteed profit if they just acted as a middleman. They are not willing to accept the income made available to them by simply collecting the vigorish inherent in the betting structure. The amount of risk they assume varies of course, and can range from a small risk position to a large risk position.

I have statistics from Las Vegas sports books, and their net take or winning percentage on all sports is only about 3%. This is 34% less than the intrinsic sports book vigorish percentage (4.55%) if they were hedged and just acting as a broker for both sides on point spread bets. We know therefore by deduction, that sports books are taking a side at least part of the time (and we suspect most of the time).

It is also clear to me that sports books are not betting against the majority of the public as most believe, but are in fact, really betting with the majority of the public most of the time. This is the only logical conclusion you can derive from the facts. The majority of the public loses more net units than they win-and so do most sports books. So when you read some report that sports books are allegedly claiming to be betting against the public majority, nothing could be further from the truth. Sports books are nearly as wrong in their betting as the majority of the public, whose perceptions they claim to be measuring. However, because of the inherent profitability of teasers, parlays, etc., most sports books still make a profit. Still, they are net losers on sides, totals, and money line bets, because they are poor handicappers.

Since sports betting is legal only in Nevada, Nevada sports books generally have significant corporate money behind them and are very stable financially. Non-Nevada sports books that go out of business generally have taken a large unhedged position on a game or series of games. When they lose big, they will often just go out of business. Going out of business is about their greed-not the inherent mathematics of bookmaking.

Winners bet against the majority of players much of the time

Did you know that you generally want to bet with the minority of players on any given game? We are certain you have probably not heard this anywhere else, that is why we know it is true. What everyone knows about sports betting is not worth very much. What few know, is often worth a lot. The reason you want to be in the minority of bettors most of the time, is that the minority of players have much larger average bets than the majority of players. The logic is clear once you think about it for a few minutes. What is the "line" after all? The "line" is established by sports books to have even amounts of money on either side-not even numbers of players (in theory-but not in practice as we discuss above). It is the number of players on each side of every game that is the critical factor in a proper grasp of what really goes on in sports investing.

It is incorrect if you think we just go against the public to win-we bet with the minority of the public. However, this minority of the public consists primarily of professional sports bettors. The losing side of most games is where you find the majority of bettors, and they lose consistently. Losers have small average bet sizes because they lose more than they win over long periods of time. If you win and win regularly, you obviously make large bets. Winning professional sports investors have large average bets because they win more than they lose, and are in the minority most of the time on any specific game. The majority of bettors have much smaller average bets- as you will see clearly from the example we provide below.

Assume that 20% of the players control 50% of the money and that 80% of the players control the other 50% of the money. By deduction, the average bet size for the minority of the players is .50/.20 = 2.5 Units versus .50/.80 = .625 Units for the majority of the players. The average bet size for the minority of players is at least 4 times larger than the average bet size for the majority of players (2.5/.625=4.0). Of course, the ratio can vary widely depending on the specific game situation.

If we assume that the winners are right between 54-58% of the time, then the losers are right between 46-42% of the time. Big money obviously got big by being right most of the time, and this is accomplished with larger average bets. This is contrary opinion at work. So if you have a small bankroll and are making small bets, it is because you have been wrong too frequently. You are losing because you have been with the majority of bettors on most games who are wrong more often than they are right. You need to know which side of a game the majority of bettors is on, and bet against them.

How do I know that this theory is true? I know it through many years of personal experience, careful observation and deduction. Contrary opinion works in every area of investment-and sports is no different. Out of favor investments typically outperform things that everyone wants. The same is true in sports. The majority of my wins come on plays that only the minority of players would want. The fact that the majority of handicappers who are losers are on the other side of most plays I issue, reaffirms the validity of my theory.

Bottom line: if you are betting small-you are a loser. That is right-you are a loser. Nothing personal-just hard, cold facts. If you are a winner, you are betting big and you are betting big because you win more than you lose on a consistent basis-it is that simple. If you have lost more than you have won, you need my research. I provide you with a significant edge.