[Data]

Originally Posted by DukeJohn

Currently Sports Betting is my sole means of income.

I tried the touts

Congratulations, you were not a pro by you own account just less than a year ago and now you are a pro with an apparent expertise in bonuses. You made it, pal.

but I will not ever really post my picks.

Final 2008-'09 NBA & NHL: +48.27 Units
Final 2008 MLB: +46.24 Units
Final 2007-'08 NBA & NHL: +48.10 Units

Once again, you made it. I am looking forward to more posts from you. Oh, I forgot, you cannot say no more. Sorry, I take that back.

[DukeJohn]

Originally Posted by Data

Congratulations, you were not a pro by you own account just less than a year ago and now you are a pro with an apparent expertise in bonuses. You made it, pal.

Once again, you made it. I am looking forward to more posts from you. Oh, I forgot, you cannot say no more. Sorry, I take that back.

lol... poor Data... man, tough crowd...

Yes, I do like the bonuses, why not... It is free money... I mean after-all you get one good shot at it, with sign on bonuses, you might as well use it to your advantage. Sure once I run the gambit of online books I will go back and start maxing out online books until I move to Vegas... I am not a high roller by any means, but I do make enough to pay my bills and live comfortably for now.

Perhaps only having a winning record for a year and a half is not considered professional to you... That is fine, I mean I lost for a few years before that and paid my dues. Due to my bankroll being so depleted, I really didn't move to totally relying on Sportsbetting as my sole income till this NBA season, so perhaps you feel I have not put in enough time to say I use Sportbetting as my sole income, but it is what I do... I have my set up and am happy with it.

However, I believe I was trying to answer bobbydrake's questions, but apparently you did not find I had the qualifications or maybe you wanted to clarify that I have only been using Sportsbetting for a little while as my income source and you wanted to make sure that was clear...

Well whatever the reason now I will be clear and answer his questions directly:

Can you win long term?
There are several who have been on this site and say they have for a while now and you have heard from them already...

Do any one of you in this forum make a living through sports betting?
Yes, I do...

If so, are you your own handicapper or do you pay for a service?
Handicap myself

Do you use a software program that gives you winning probabilities?
No, only spreadsheet for money management.

Do you fluctuate your units or do you just flat bet?
Fluctuate

Now Data, perhaps you will answer his questions...

Good Luck and much success out there...

[Data]

DukeJohn, I want to expand on my two points from the previous post.

First, people who use(d) touts are long term losers, they do not have it in them to make it as pro's. Their only niche is bonus whoring which is, at best, just a mean to get by nowadays. Nevertheless, there are losing players who are career winners, just like there are lottery winners. You are not a pro and will never be one, stop kidding yourself and others.

Second, people who never post picks do not post their records in their signatures.

[DukeJohn]

Originally Posted by Data

DukeJohn, I want to expand on my two points from the previous post.

First, people who use(d) touts are long term losers, they do not have it in them to make it as pro's. Their only niche is bonus whoring which is, at best, just a mean to get by nowadays. Nevertheless, there are losing players who are career winners, just like there are lottery winners. You are not a pro and will never be one, stop kidding yourself and others.

Second, people who never post picks do not post their records in their signatures.

Thank you for clarifying Data.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily call people who used a touts as long term losers, maybe misguided and wished for an easy way... I believe your statement is 100% correct in that in the long run you will always lose with a tout. I might add I actually followed and watched over 20 touts that I thought were legit only to be suckered in and lose my money to them. I think when everyone starts out they look at a tout and through experience or other information they come to realize a tout is only a losing proposition, but to say everyone that has ever used a tout is now destined to never be able to handicap themselves is a bit narrowminded. People have a way of learning from their mistakes. Ah, wait you did say they can get by, but only through Bonus Whoring and no other way. So no one can be successful in your eyes unless they never used a tout or never received a bonus...

I hate to be the one to tell you, well, not really, but I do post my record, but not my picks. So, that means you second statement is false. I will probably continue to do so for at least another year. You can believe it or not, it doesn't matter, but it allows me to see and is a quick reference to the past for myself.

I wonder why it upsets you so... I guess you feel I am misleading by posting my experience and situation. I apologize if I am not a professional in your eyes, but I will continue to use Sportbetting as my sole source of income until the day comes when that is not the case.

So, are you ever going to answer any of Bobbydrake's questions or are you just content to sit on the sidelines and bitch...

[Data]

Originally Posted by DukeJohn

I do post my record, but not my picks. So, that means you second statement is false.

When I said "people who never post picks do not post their records in their signatures" that implied that what you are doing is wrong and that is why people do not do that. The reasons are obvious.

I guess you feel I am misleading by posting my experience and situation.

Yes.

I apologize if I am not a professional in your eyes, but I will continue to use Sportbetting as my sole source of income until the day comes when that is not the case..

I would have no problem with this and would never posted in this thread if it was timely moved to Players Talk. It was not. Since the thread stayed in TT I feel that the fact and opinions expressed in this thread must go through the same scrutiny as the posts in TT usualy do. You are not a regular in this forum and may felt offended. Please do not take it personally. It is just a neverending quest for truth.

I do think that you success is temporary. I never answered to OP because I have nothing positive to tell him directly. Nonetheless, due to this conversation you both know my opinion. I do wish I am wrong I do not want you to lose. I just say what I think is right.

[TLD]

I don’t know if you two have a history, but what a weird, nasty response to an apparently well-intentioned post.

And factually absurd on top of it:

First, people who use(d) touts are long term losers, they do not have it in them to make it as pro's.

Does this even need refutation? Just in case, I’ll state the obvious: If a person is using an unwise approach to handicapping, they are not condemned for life to lose. They can instead change their approach.

Virtually every “pro” was doing something wrong at some point before they started winning. They didn’t emerge from the womb with “it in them to make it as pros.”

[durito]

Originally Posted by Data

First, people who use(d) touts are long term losers, they do not have it in them to make it as pro's.

Not true.

[Data]

Originally Posted by TLD

I don’t know if you two have a history, but what a weird, nasty response to an apparently well-intentioned post.

I believe this is not a forum for well-intentioned posts full of encouragement and no critics. These types of nice conversations have their place in educating kids, not in the research environment that should have heated debates between parties in search of the truth.

And factually absurd on top of it:

First, people who use(d) touts are long term losers, they do not have it in them to make it as pro's.

Does this even need refutation?

Go ahead and try refuting it if you feel up to the task.

Just in case, I’ll state the obvious:

Please sell the obvious someplace else, we're all stocked up here.

If a person is using an unwise approach to handicapping, they are not condemned for life to lose. They can instead change their approach.

Virtually every “pro” was doing something wrong at some point before they started winning. They didn’t emerge from the womb with “it in them to make it as pros.”

Yes, it is obvious and I am not arguing with that. It does not address my point that I will explain further.

There are certain professions that require certain aptitudes. For example, the singers should not be tone deaf and should have a voice that people like listening to. I know that the must be a few smartasses around ready to make another pointless remark about the exceptions to this. Well, yes, there are exceptions but they do not refute the point itself.

Professional sports bettor is one of those professions. The people who earn a decent income from sportsbetting must have a certain aptitude and that aptitude is a high level of intelligence, which is highly correlated with math aptitudes. The rarity of winning sports bettors is due to rarity of high intelligence. While such people can make mistakes just like anybody else, what they do NOT do is doing something stupid for a prolonged periods of time. Going through a number of touts and losing along the way is something that proves a lack of the high level of intelligence. To clarify, the latter does not mean that those people are stupid or unintelligent. It means precisely what it says, they do not posses a high level of intelligence which is, again, a must to make it as a pro.

This all reminds me of an American Idol. During the auditions, there are many people who try to make it through, most of them do not have enough talent. The contestants who lack the talent but likely who have been encouraged the most by their families make for the most embarrassing cases.

To sum up. If you were very good at Math in school, that is the best proxy to use while assessing if you can make it as a pro in sportsbetting. If you were not, you chances are very slim something like winning a lottery, yet again, it is not like nobody wins a lottery.

Going back to American Idol, the only guy who tells it how it really is gets all the boos. He does not mind and neither do I.

[TLD]

Telling someone they’re a liar or deluded if they claim they bet sports for a living, because that cannot be true if they followed touts at some time in the past, has nothing to do with constructive criticism and being willing to “tell it like it is.” It’s a mean-spirited put-down.

I have known many people in my life that have made a living at sportsbetting. It is certainly not the case that all of them were in some tiny intellectual elite. Some were decidedly average in that regard. Nor have they all had unusually high mathematical aptitude. Different winning approaches require different amounts of mathematical abilities. Some don’t require a great deal at all.

Furthermore, it is not inconsistent with high intelligence (nor with high mathematical aptitude) to have followed touts when you first started sportsbetting, realized that wasn’t a winning approach as you gained experience and learned more, and eventually found another approach and brought your skills up to where you can do this for a living.

“Well if you were dumb enough to have tried that in the first place then there’s no chance you ever got it right later” is both a gratuitous insult and just plain false, not an honest attempt to keep the discourse in the Think Tank at some appropriately elite level.

[Data]

To avoid confusions, I define a pro as an advantage gambler, not as a person who's been winning.

Originally Posted by TLD

Telling someone they’re a liar or deluded if they claim they bet sports for a living, because that cannot be true if they followed touts at some time in the past, has nothing to do with constructive criticism and being willing to “tell it like it is.” It’s a mean-spirited put-down.

Reading miscomprehension case 1. I never questioned his claim that he bets for a living. I said he was not a pro. If somebody lives off sportsbetting for a less than year then that does not make him a pro.

I have known many people in my life that have made a living at sportsbetting.

And that does not make them pro's either.

It is certainly not the case that all of them were in some tiny intellectual elite. Some were decidedly average in that regard. Nor have they all had unusually high mathematical aptitude.

I explain this by the effects of betting results distribution among non-advantage gamblers. Due to the high number of those gamblers, it is expected for some of them to be lifetime winners.

Different winning approaches require different amounts of mathematical abilities. Some don’t require a great deal at all.

Besides getting inside info, name at least one of those approaches. Also, please provide you assessment of the chances of a regular person acquiring any of the approaches that you will list.

Furthermore, it is not inconsistent with high intelligence (nor with high mathematical aptitude) to have followed touts when you first started sportsbetting, realized that wasn’t a winning approach as you gained experience and learned more, and eventually found another approach and brought your skills up to where you can do this for a living.

It is consistent with average and below average intelligence. It is not inconsistent with the above average intelligence. People with high intelligence operate differently.

“Well if you were dumb enough to have tried that in the first place then there’s no chance you ever got it right later” is both a gratuitous insult and just plain false, not an honest attempt to keep the discourse in the Think Tank at some appropriately elite level.

Reading miscomprehension case 2. Where did I say "dumb"? In contrary, I even addressed the opposite in detail.

[Heartman2]

Duke, posting a winning record without posting picks is bullshit, in my opinion, and you should be criticized for doing that. So, we're supposed to take your word for it that those numbers are accurate?

Data, you don't have to be a genious to be a pro. I'm not the smartest guy in the world. I made it because of my work ethic. I consistently, day after day, worked hard on film study, note taking and computer work. It was my work ethic, not my brains that helped me most.

[Heartman2]

Data, your definition of a pro is rediculous!!!

I'm not an advantage gambler, but I lived completely from my bankroll for 35 months. That's as pro as it gets!!!

[bobbydrake]

I don't mind the constructive criticism from data. Some people are more blunt than others in their teaching ways (An AI comparison: most people are like Paula and some are like Simon **Data**). He also weeds out the pre-moddona's that think they know it all. Creating a thick skin within those players that really truely want to become pros someday.

To my knowledge, there are no schools to become a pro sportsbetter (and I live in Vegas). So the only way of learning is self taught through books, experiences, and the SBR Forums. We surely have some dumb guys and some smart guys in this forum, its indicative to the bell curve. Who doesn't have those in any community or society. I can say this much, the quality of expertise and intelligence in SBR is better than any other sports betting forums on the net.

Perhaps you said it best on your blog, Data. You stated that "blogging is a better option... the forum is getting bigger and it seems that the amount of intelligence stays constant."

I'll difinetly check up on your blog from time to time to learn from a pro like yourself.

Peace

[TLD]

Originally Posted by Data

To avoid confusions, I define a pro as an advantage gambler, not as a person who's been winning.



Reading miscomprehension case 1. I never questioned his claim that he bets for a living. I said he was not a pro. If somebody lives off sportsbetting for a less than year then that does not make him a pro.



And that does not make them pro's either.



I explain this by the effects of betting results distribution among non-advantage gamblers. Due to the high number of those gamblers, it is expected for some of them to be lifetime winners.



Besides getting inside info, name at least one of those approaches. Also, please provide you assessment of the chances of a regular person acquiring any of the approaches that you will list.



It is consistent with average and below average intelligence. It is not inconsistent with the above average intelligence. People with high intelligence operate differently.



Reading miscomprehension case 2. Where did I say "dumb"? In contrary, I even addressed the opposite in detail.

Jesus, you're still pretending your statement that anyone who eventually becomes a pro sportsbettor must be so smart that they never made a mistake like following touts was something other than a gratuitous insult?

[reno cool]

Data's got issues. Hopefully he'll work to resolve some of them. I'll give him credit for taking the discourse to another level, however out of line it may seem.

[Data]

Originally Posted by TLD

Jesus, you're still pretending your statement that anyone who eventually becomes a pro sportsbettor must be so smart that they never made a mistake like following touts was something other than a gratuitous insult?

I believe that my previous post was on topic. Discussing your opinion on what is "a gratuitous insult" and what is not is completely irrelevant to this forum. I am reporting your post and my reply as off-topic posts to be removed from this thread.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Data

I explain this by the effects of betting results distribution among non-advantage gamblers. Due to the high number of those gamblers, it is expected for some of them to be lifetime winners.

"Mr. Data. Are you talking about the entire quadrant, or can we keep things down to earth?"

Such faith in the perfection of math, yet nevertheless leave the door wide open to a lifetime of luck and, I suppose, bad luck? How convenient.

Understanding of math does not make one a good gambler. The ability to identify a mathematical edge does not make one a good investor. The ability to pick winners does. This is where the math mind could easily miss the boat. As TLD posted:

Different winning approaches require different amounts of mathematical abilities. Some don’t require a great deal at all.

To which you replied:

Originally Posted by Data

Besides getting inside info, name at least one of those approaches. Also, please provide you assessment of the chances of a regular person acquiring any of the approaches that you will list.

"Mr. Data! Have you forgotten your emotion chip?"
There are easily detectable motivational angles that require zero math ability.

This forum is heavy on math, and low on capping skills. There is nothing wrong with that, but it could be confusing to newcomers who may leave behind what they know in favor of something that is presented here with absolute certainty; by specialists in one field, who fail to see that their expertise is also a form of isolation.

I sometimes wish that people could back up their views with their own long term winning percentage, to allow others a reliable measuring scale for the value of the opinions presented.

[reno cool]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

"Mr. Data. Are you talking about the entire quadrant, or can we keep things down to earth?"

Such faith in the perfection of math, yet nevertheless leave the door wide open to a lifetime of luck and, I suppose, bad luck? How convenient.

Understanding of math does not make one a good gambler. The ability to identify a mathematical edge does not make one a good investor. The ability to pick winners does. This is where the math mind could easily miss the boat. As TLD posted:



To which you replied:

"Mr. Data! Have you forgotten your emotion chip?"
There are easily detectable motivational angles that require zero math ability.

This forum is heavy on math, and low on capping skills. There is nothing wrong with that, but it could be confusing to newcomers who may leave behind what they know in favor of something that is presented here with absolute certainty; by specialists in one field, who fail to see that their expertise is also a form of isolation.

I sometimes wish that people could back up their views with their own long term winning percentage, to allow others a reliable measuring scale for the value of the opinions presented.

Some very good points here.
Also,the world of advantage gambling is vast. In fact some of the best bets in a casino are made by pretty unimpressive individuals. The great majority often piggy back on the discoveries of a select few. Yet, they're still making value bets.

[AgainstAllOdds]

I love it when these think tank guys fight.

They are ruthless.

[Chi_archie]

hide the protractors and slide rulers