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 our 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.

Monitoring services (who is monitoring the monitors?)

I am sometimes asked about "monitoring services" and my first logical response is to ask: who is monitoring the monitors? There are various kinds in the country and the problem we have with them is that most of them derive their revenue directly or indirectly from the sports services being monitored. This is a very clear conflict of interest that is simply not acceptable to us and should not be acceptable to you. There may be an economic incentive to fabricate track records to show those being monitored in a positive light. Since the database of records is maintained by the monitoring service, results can be easily manipulated to show anything they want. In addition, several monitoring sites limit the number of plays and/or units that they are willing to track on a daily basis. This is arbitrary and does not reflect the number of our Best Bets in the real world. We do not limit our Best Bets- we invest in all games where we have an edge. That may be one or twenty on any given day.

If a mutual fund monitoring service was in any way associated with the mutual fund being monitored-investors would immediately see the conflict of interest. Most sports investors fail to see this contradiction, and assume that being monitored adds legitimacy. Such is not the case. In fact, it may well be the exact opposite.

I work many hours a week doing research and preparing our sports plays for distribution to our clients. It is simply too easy for a sports monitoring service to favor a specific handicapper and create a competitive disadvantage for the rest of the services being monitored-including mine. There are just too many ways it can be dishonest, since no one can see the plays before the games start for all those being monitored. I am also of the opinion that some monitoring services have created a number of the sports services whose plays they allegedly monitor. 

Since at least 95% of all professional handicappers lose over the very long term, I am skeptical when I see a monitoring service that shows the majority of their handicappers with winning records. This is typical of monitoring services to show that their particular group of handicappers are profitable. However, from a statistical standpoint, this claim is clearly absurd. What you can reasonably conclude from all of this should be fairly obvious: the integrity and accountability of most monitoring services is questionable, and more than a few are outright scams.