[Trunte]

What do you reckon - is 58% hitrate (or better) over 1000 plays possible?

Has anyone ever achieved this? (reliable source and serious independent recording).

Cheers.

[Dark Horse]

Yes. That's my hit rate. Can only give you a sampling of recorded plays (about 100) at wagerline survivor under DarkHorse21. Also had a recorded 64% over NFL 2005 season, picking 7 games ATS per week; didn't come close this year. This year my approach was to up the number of games, because it's not about winning percentage, but about units won. But I got worn out and lost my edge for about a month. All about balance, and many ways to lose balance in this field. More interested in the nature of streaks these days than in exact winning percentages.

[Trunte]

So you have a made over 1000 plays - and your overall hitrate is +58%?

I am not talking about just one season - because that is certainly possible. 7 plays a week in nfl is less than 200 plays.

Thanx for the reply :-).

[Trunte]

A very brief check of wagerline survivor, indicates, that everyone above 1000 plays, is below 56%, if not even 55%. (which is remarkable as well, but not 58 - that might not be possible?).

[Dark Horse]

Yes.

Instead of using a 1000 play standard, which is somewhat arbitrary, you could use the Z-factor to determine the role of luck versus skill. Take the difference between wins and losses and divide by the square root of the sample size (wins plus losses). A Z-factor of 2 has a 5% chance of being result of luck. A Z-factor of 3 has only a 1% chance of being result of luck.

The question isn't really if it (58%) can be done, but if you can maintain the discipline over a lifetime. Many obstacles and challenges along the way. Ask me on my death bed. '

For the record, I couldn't care less about hitting 58%, and would much rather have more profit at 56%.

[Trunte]

Several things:

"The question isn't really if it (58%) can be done, but if you
can maintain the discipline over a lifetime"

Yes and no - the question is (it is my question :-)) if 58% can be done - not necessarily over a life-time, just 1000 plays (well, 2000).

A z-factor of 3 is only barely enough for me. If 1000 players (like on Wagerline) make 1000 plays - then such a z-factor is not adequate - someone is bound to be lucky. The distribution actually implies, that somone is bound to cross the "boundaries".

Therefore, 1000 plays is actually not enough - 2000 plays would be more significant. And I ask about numer of plays because I do not expect everyone to know what a z-factor is :-).

And of course - profits is the main item. But again, I am inquiring into hitrate, not profits.

And - not that I want to doubt you - but I need an independent recording, of 58% hitrate over 1000 plays, to have you convince me.

[Dark Horse]

I'm not interested in convincing you (or anyone else), and you have nothing to gain from believing me. Probably shouldn't have shared this in the first place, but your question if it was possible seemed straight enough. (would you believe it if I told you I hit 39% last month over several hundred plays? - lol)

Winning percentage gives a player confidence to keep going after a bad year. It may also have some value in determining bet size, but beyond that it's an empty number. The key to gambling, at least to me, lies in understanding streaks. *twilight zone music* GL

[Trunte]

I certainly appreciate your comments! :-).

Winning percentage is an empty number? I am not sure I understand.
Of course yield (not profit!) is the! most important term. But winning percentage is certainly crucial - I know if I were to choose between, 51, 53, 55, 57 percentage cappers, the choice would be easy!
Winning percentage is the crucial tool to know whether you are any good at what you are doing (and of course percentages over a very large amount of plays).

Understanding streaks? Teams streaks or players streaks?

[Ganchrow]

Is 58% possible over 2,000 picks? Yes. Obviously it's possible.

Do I personally know of any handicapper that I could say with certainty has achieved this betting live lines? No, I personally don't.

Realize of course, that a 'true' 56% handicapper would still have a hefty 10.7% probability of hitting 58% or more over 1,000 trials, and a 3.7% probability over 2,000 trials. Not terribly likely, but certainly well within the realm of possibility for a 56% capper to achieve.

[Dark Horse]

If you want publicly posted plays, there's a guy posting as oskeim at statfox forum who's been hitting around 60% over the past year. Haven't looked recently, but he must be getting close to 1000 plays. (I tailed him a few times, and lost every time. lol).

[BuddyBear]

It's hard...real hard.

[Art Vandeleigh]

One time I walked past a roulette game at a Vegas casino and I saw on the board 16 straight times the ball landed on black. If I were a glass is half full kind of person I would have said wow wouldn't it have been great to be on black I would have made a mint.

But since I'm a glass is half empty kind of guy I said to myself, wow, even if that roulette table was paying 6/5 every time red hit, you still had to endure unbelievable bad streaks like that at times to make a profit in the end that's when I realized I wasn't cut out for -110 to make 100, not in this lifetime, those inevitable losing streaks would throw me way off my handicapping. I think you'd have to be Superman to be able to endure the bad streaks and survive, but even Superman ducks after the bad guys empty their guns and throw the the guns at him. So to the Supermen out there who hit at these % levels I salute you.

[BuddyBear]

Originally Posted by Art Vandeleigh

One time I walked past a roulette game at a Vegas casino and I saw on the board 16 straight times the ball landed on black. If I were a glass is half full kind of person I would have said wow wouldn't it have been great to be on black I would have made a mint.

But since I'm a glass is half empty kind of guy I said to myself, wow, even if that roulette table was paying 6/5 every time red hit, you still had to endure unbelievable bad streaks like that at times to make a profit in the end that's when I realized I wasn't cut out for -110 to make 100, not in this lifetime, those inevitable losing streaks would throw me way off my handicapping. I think you'd have to be Superman to be able to endure the bad streaks and survive, but even Superman ducks after the bad guys empty their guns and throw the the guns at him. So to the Supermen out there who hit at these % levels I salute you.

Nice post Art....very well said. Sportsbetting is not for the faint of heart.

[LT Profits]

58% is very possible over 1000 plays, and my goal is to reach it in CBB this year.

For the record, I am currently at 56.8% since the 1999-2000 season.

Which brings up another point: It is probably earier to find a long term 58% handicapper in a specific sport than it is to find one spread over all the 11/10 sports.

[Trunte]

Well, another site related me to someone who actually was 60% documented over 1000 plays.

Relating to atsbets.com my next questino would be - is it possible for one person to have 1000 plays and 60% in one season (covering all US Sports). I still have serious doubts...but these sites have at least 20 different cappers who claim to be between 58 and 61.

[Dark Horse]

It's really not that special over 1000 plays.

[Trunte]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

It's really not that special over 1000 plays.

Why is it that none on Wagerline was even remotely close? None over 56%, as I could see. 28.000 (maybe not all serious) users.

And I have still not seen one independent documented stats, 1000 plays one seaons 60% hitrate (at least 10/11).

[jjgold]

Most everyone that bets sports gets buried, like Ganch said betting live and looking at wagerline picks is two different animals.

Betting live lines you are luck to hit 54% if your good