I've been kicking this idea around for a while, and only started taking my approach super seriously around February of this year, specifically when I decided Kansas was one of the best teams ever and bought a huge stake in KU National Championship futures. Things really, finally clicked in the Final Four when I saw the KU/UNC line and thought, "Oh my god, that line is bad and I know exactly why."

I showed a small-medium sized profit on NCAA football last season, and made 3 NFL bets (all of which lost).

I spent the entire baseball season refining my approach, which will -- obviously -- be different from sport to sport. I've been preparing for NFL and NCAA football season since mid-June, and am super excited for it to get going.

A unit is whatever you want it to be. It's simply a way for a player to keep an accurate account of his bankroll, and for players who play at different amounts to compare records. Obviously a guy who's up 1,000 dollars betting 200/game is less impressive than the player who is up 200 dollars betting 10/game. As for me, my units are 1% of my bankroll. I adjusted my baseball bankroll at the All-Star break, folding my profits into my bankroll.

A standard baseball play for me is 1x (though I believe this is very, very conservative, and will likely change next year to 2x). Football (NFL and NCAA) will probably be 3x for a normal play, 4.5x for a big play, and 1x for an action play ("I am going to be at the bar, and I need something to do, but I don't see much of an edge here..."). I will be adjusting my unit size -- adjusting unit size based on CURRENT bankroll, not starting bankroll -- either weekly or bi-weekly during football season.

Chalk is simply points or money being laid. For example, today I had Colorado -149, D'backs - 151, and Orioles -130 on my baseball card. In all three of those instances, I was "laying chalk." That is an atypically "chalky card" for me. If you took the US -21.5 in the gold medal hoops game tonight, you'd be laying a LOT of chalk: 21.5 points worth.







My unit is 4.75 inches long fully erect. The smallest unit I've ever heard of is, like, 3 inches.


Seriously, though: I bet enough. Would you not take my analysis seriously if I were betting 25 dollars a game? Bragging about how much you wager is not only unseemly, it's stupid. I might get furious and let it slip at some point, but I try to keep it to myself. Everything I won on the KU National Title game I used to start my bankroll. I'm up 50 units since then, and also infused some of my own cash.

I am not a professional. This is an ulcer-inducing hobby that I hope to parlay into an early retirement. I have never spent a penny of my gambling earnings since I began taking shit seriously.


EDIT- **** it. I don't even like this country. Spain + 21.5 -102.5 (4x) Start jackin' Kobe!

I guess I'm ignorant. I don't think it's an insult to ask a poker player what stakes he frequents. He obviously knows more than I do, I was just wondering what someone's return was that made it a serious hobby.

Thanks for answering the questions Wang. What is a proper bankroll then, 100 units? Also, what do you mean when you say you've been preparing for the football season since June? What goes into planning? The only sports bettor that I "know" that I've heard talk briefly about sportsbetting is Haralabos Voulgaris on Big Poker Sundays, but he seems to think he can (and it seems he can) outplay the bookies. This is something you are completely against though, right?

Edit: What is the smallest a sportsbetting place allows one to bet? Like $10? Just wondering in case I degen with like $200 this NFL season.

Poppy Hills was making a joke about you asking about the size of my unit. Unit is a synonym for penis.

Yeah, a proper bankroll would be 100x, but during football season my standard play will be 3x, so (shrug), it's pretty much a 33 unit bankroll.

And, yes, you'll never hear me straight handicapping an NFL game. I'll give you some analysis, but it'll mostly be ex-post justification to make the play look more reasonable when it just looks/feels/smells like a total shitbomb. I'll allow that it might be possible, but I know I can't, and I know it takes more than "Oh my god Tampa Bay is a dog BET ENTIRE BANKROLL." (shrug) I'm just doing my economic analysis and leaving the handicapping to smarter men than me. I'd wager that a lot of the NBA totals Haralabos ends up on are strong contrarian plays.

At matchbook -- the only real site for serious players -- the minimum play is as small as you want. Like, I just went to check and see how small I could play, so I bet one penny on Spain +21.5 +105. (I then went back and bet another 19 pennies so I'd get full value on my 1.01-1 odds.) At bodog -- not a good shop by any means -- you can bet a dollar a game, I think. You don't need a big roll to learn what you are doing.

Wang, it's a retrospect thing now, but what did you think of the Nationals at +245 at the Cubs on Friday (Lannan versus Marquis)? Seemed like good value to me.

I played it, as you can see by the Friday afternoon post from another thread. The Cubs were getting like 75% of the action at Wagerline. I debated for a good long while, since I really WANTED to make that play -- like you said, it looked like great value, didn't it? -- but in the end I saw like 30 straight posts on Covers declaring the Cubs a stone lock, making it a pretty easy play.

Lannan was undervalued a few weeks ago, and might be overvalued now. Jason Marquis (and Dempster and all those retards) still sucks

I dont know how wang has been preparing but we have had some talk in the other sports betting thread about the upcoming NCAA football season and by preparing he might be doing the same thing i am which is basically finding out everything about everyteam i can get my hands on and taking "notes" i guess you could say. This is the first year where im taking it seriously as well. Not meaning i bet a lot on each game b/c frankly i dont. I dont have enough cash to win money that makes a big differece. Like wang said 1% per play is the conservative yet smart way to bet on sports. I usually risk 2% on each play, and will adjust when my bankroll profits 50%.

There will be a lot of discussion and analysis about football this year, and i say turn into a degen and put 200 online, bet like 5.50 a game, its reasonable for that bankroll size and you should get a lot of play out of it. Also if you hit a losing streak (inevitable), you will have enough to work your way out of it.

My "research" tends to be focused on answering the questions:

- Who does everybody expect to be very good this year?
- Who does everybody expect to be very bad this year?
- Which teams are improperly valued by the public-at-large?


This very generally involves watching Sportscenter, reading magazines, and readings the Covers Forums. After this, I try to decide which teams were very fortunate last year (winning close games, outgained by teams they beat, fluky turnover margin), and which were unlucky. I'll have a picture in my head of which teams are going to have value early in the year, and which are going to be overpriced. This gives me a basic framework to work from before I even see any consensus data.

Makes sense, good luck this year, i think were both going to need it lol

How much do injuries from last yr and new recruits for this yr come into effect to change the stats you look at? I know 0 about college football (I'd have trouble naming 10 players) but I'm really using those questions in an NFL sense (rookies/injuries).

I'm one of those people that irrationally make you feel uncomfortable, I hate college sports (even moreso that I'm like 3 years older than all those young, in shape pricks) but I love NBA/NFL.

Edit: Also, degenning with like $200 might be fun, any suggestions on where to Sportsbet? Even more to my question, does anyone want to transfer $200 to an account on that place and want $200 on Absolute? I actually could prob ship $200 on your site of choice, but I have money on AP.

I would think Norte Dame is a bad example of that, as they are a team with a huge national fan base, that will be betting on ND, if they are favorites or dogs.

ok so ive just stumbled onto this forum and hence this thread. ive mainly used fcp for poker and didnt no ppl took sportsbetting seriously here.

first of all great writing wang. really good reading.

ive been taking my sports betting fairly serious for about 3 years now. when making my selections i generally just do some research on both teams/players involved in a match and then place a bet on whoever i think will win. some of my selections are at fairly short odds e.g. $1.20 to $1.50( im from australia so this is how we describe odds). how do the pro's gamble?(when i say pro i mean someone that makes a living from sports betting). do they look for value in games/matches such as the contrarian approach or is it research based. if it is researched based is there a minimum that the odds have to be. for example they wont bet on anything less than $1.20. when makin my bets i dont really look at odds as long as i strongly believe that the team will win. an exception to this for me is when betting tennis. i will not bet nadal or federer if they are at 1.01, 1.02, etc...

the reason i ask is because i dont want to become a pro but my aim is to supplement my income with sport betting. atm i have a profit margin of 5.6% with a strike rate of 64.71%. these figures are over 3 years for about 1400 bets.

keep up the good work wang and i look forward to reading more of ur posts.

cheers

Thank you for the kind words. I'll respond, in haphazard list form:

1) I have great love for the Australian people. I had a friend named Dane in college who had more fun than anybody I'd ever met. He was awesome.

2) Your approach seems very flawed. You say you don't look at odds if you strongly believe a team will win. Already I have deduced that you're approaching the market incorrectly, and with some serious misconceptions.

3) I am not even close to a professional (as my week one NCAA football record will show, when I finally swallow the shame and post it), but I imagine professionals don't make hard-and-fast rules. Personally, I've been one some heavy favorites in baseball this year (-200, or 1-2, or $1.5), but not because I LIKE favorites or because I LIKE underdogs (actually, I like underdogs), but only because I think public perception and wagering has led to value in that spot.



If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer them. Listen at your own risk, though. I am probably going to be stuck like a billion dollars after Sunday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2008...tory?id=3654004

Hey Wang, you making a bet on the WS? You finding value in the Phils for the series?

I had a Tampa future, and I saw enough value in the Phillies to hedge the entire thing out. Looking like a good decision. I should be rooting for Philly now, so my hedge won't haunt me or anything, but I love this Tampa team. It's breaking my heart to see them lose. Reminds me of the Tigers in 06.


Seems like everybody here is still square as a ************. I had to stop posting analysis here because I couldn't handle reading the writeups some of the regulars post. No matter how many times I screamed "IT'S BUILT INTO THE LINE," people didn't listen, and continued capping away, like the books didn't notice that injury to North Carolina's return/renaissance man.

I recovered from my start, and all things considered, am up about 13x on the year. College has been a battle all year, but the NFL has been very good to me. If I'd entered the Hilton Superpicks contest I'd probably be top 10 right now.

I talked to a guy who ran a small/mid sized sportsbook in Vegas, and gave him the basic rundown of my approach, and he said something to the effect of, "Players like you were our worst nightmare. If we're taking a stand, we don't want big time players fucking up our profit margin by steaming our side. You'll win in the longrun, and we would have shut your action down after a month if you played large enough." But he also said there's nothing they can do about the basic strategy in the long run. They're not about to set reverse traps for for contrarians, because they they'd intentionally be giving thousands of squares good value.

He also said that the books are getting spanked on NCAA football this year, or are at least having a down year by house standards, which confirms what I've heard from most of my locals and offshore contacts. 2 of the 5 locals I keep in my service told me they just got out of the hole on NCAA football last week. All the big time stands the books have taken -- especially on some of the high-volume SEC games -- have gone poory for the house. Public sides have been showing up with unlikely covers all year, and it's taking its toll.


Good luck guys. Stay away from public sides. You don't know more than the books do.

I've been doing very well in an NFL picks league I've been going head to head against a friend of mine using contrariism. This is the first sport bet I've made since trying this philosophy ( we do it week to week, who ever wins the most weeks wins the bet) so far, I'm up 3-0, and I'm really killing him this week, he has 4 right I have 8 right, going into monday night.

I for one wish you'd post more, I can't stand most people's gambling posts, and I usually just skip them.

Not much else I can really offer anyone. I gave you guys the basic framework of the method, and if you apply it diligently you'll probably be very successful in the long run. Either you believe your eyes (OMG Buffalo is only a PK?!) or your brain (Wow, that line looks like somebody left off a zero; give me the short end of that stick, thank you very much). No matter how many times I repeat the mantras it's really not going to help you. The rest of the lessons you can learn on your own, I think. I'm always available to answer questions.

I know, but I enjoy reading you talk about games, and gripe about bad beats. That buffalo game is a great example. If I had been doing this thing last year, I would have been " Buffalo only is laying 1.5? Are they nuts? Sign me up!" But this year, I picked miami, to my friend's amazement and dismay.

Easy year for hanidcapping

Been following the public thing for years. Last year in the NFL very bad theory heavy favs were covering every spread so were the so called public teams Dallas and Green Bay. This year been much better last 2 weeks the anti-public plays were Oak +3 against the Jets and Mia +1.5.

I find every once in a while there will be years where the public wins consistently I say it weeds out the weaker books. Its almost like a cleansing in the bookie world.

Yea, I miss the little comments like, Seattle +7 no way the Hawks stay within 3 touchdowns. Book me for 8 units.

You should have heard me giggling/crying as I played this Titans/Manning under. Should have just lit that wad of cash on fire...

Manning under what? 2 1/2 sour faces made in the game?

Well since you already had a bet on Tampa, hedging made sense to ensure some kind of profit I guess.

I really meant more if you felt that so many people were favoring the Rays over the Phils that the price given on the Phils would have been the way to go. If that's a misunderstanding of your theory, by the way, please let me know.

If I didn't think the Phillies had value at the series price, I would have hedged only a portion of the future out, but since I really liked the Phillies's series price, I hedged the entire position out, leaving me monetarily ambivalent as to the result. Absent the future, I may have played the Phillies, but I am not sure.

Hedging is almost always a bad idea, though.

What price did you get on the Phils? The best I saw on a site (didn't check too many places) was +130 I think. And I guess Vegas wasn't even offering that good, according to this article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2008...tory?id=3654004

I got most of my Philly action picked up at matchbook at +138, and some of it at +136. I ended up having about 30x on the Phillies.

Guess hedging was the right call. Congrats.

Thanks Wang. Took the Knicks tonight. I expected them to be like 5 point dogs, instead they gave 3 and covered.

Yeah, I had that game. Every square I know was lining up to take the Heat and the points, and backing the Knicks felt particularly sick, there. The NBA is soooo painful.

As for tonight, the under 195.5 in the New Orleans/Phoenix tilt is a pretty good look. I don't really like New Orleans+2 as a side, but my hand might be forced with Charlotte +9.5 at Cleveland.

I don't bet on the NBA at all, in fact don't even look at lines, but I came across that one and had to do it. I would think there might be value playing all the unders blind involving the Suns for the first couple weeks. Most people still associate the Suns with how they played the last 4 years, so maybe the books will set the total a bit higher than they should?

I took the under at 199 (-105) and 200 (-115). Lets go!

How does the Nuggets Clippers game not go over 200.5 tomorrow night?

Better question: how does the Knicks/76ers game not stay under 217.5?


Nuggets/Clippers under 199.5 -101 (3x)

Knicks/76ers over 217.5 +105 (3x)

woops

I have a college football wagering question. In the NFL, contrarian theory is pretty easy. If a line looks too good to be true, it is, and you should go the other way. But in the NCAA, there can be another factor, IE The BCS vs the Non-BCS factor. For example, the Tulsa-arkansas game. Tulsa is favored by 7 points. It seems to me, that this is a joke, and the spread should be Tulsa -20. So take Arkansas. Right? But... what if the line is that small, because Tulsa is a mid major, and Arkansas is SEC, so there's going to be a huge betting bias for Arkansas no matter what. If Arkansas was named El Paso, I think this spread would be Tulsa -20.. so how do I reconcile this? When I look at the "picks" website, Tulsa is picked more, but not dramatically, like 56-44. So that leads me to like Tulsa even more.

Im not sure if this will help, but my advice would be to find the depth chart for each team. Record the weights of each teams starting offensive and defensive lines. Mid majors can get skill position talent, but they usually suffer up front. If Tulsa has a small o-line, maybe Arkansas can get pressure and disrupt that high powered offense. I dont know, just a thought.

The sizes are built into the line. I don't have a helpful answer for Mac though.

Wang? Help?

In this specific instance, Tulsa has been VERY popular with bettors this year, and Arkansas has easily been one of the few SEC teams that people have looked to fade on a regular basis. Tulsa has been getting plenty of love and attention from the casual gambler this year, so the books aren't going to be taking a big stand with them, hoping to pull one over on the public; they'd be more likely to do the opposite. Tulsa has to be overvalued at this point. They've been blowing teams out all year, and people have noticed. Arkansas, on the other hand, has been pretty crappy. Tulsa's ranked, Arkansas has a losing record (etc.). If anything, I lean Arkansas here. If the books have a lean, they lean Arkansas, too.


On a more general level: you have the right idea. When non-BCS teams are surprisingly short dogs against BCS teams, you're probably going to have to give it a look. It's hard to know HOW popular a smaller school is, unless you're making book I guess, so you should check the consensus numbers to make sure. In this case, you're considering trying to back a ranked, well-publicized BCS-Buster mid-major against one of the two worst teams in the SEC.

This could be why the line is "only" Tulsa by 7, and it staying Tulsa -7 despite Tulsa getting most of the action all week.

New Contrarian Rule:

If you weren't on at least two of: Nevada, Nebraska, and Iowa this week, you are not a Contrarian. You're a faggot. Doesn't matter that they'll go 1-2. Your job is to help cover the book's potential losses, and these are the games they need you for.

Not so fast, my friend. They are going 3-0. Well, at least 2-1, if Iowa can hold on here.

So, I just had a "Contrarian moment". I was doing my picks league, and I see " Giants +2.5" and I looked again.. and I looked again, and I'm like "The Giants are DOGS?!?! What the FCK!!! SEND IT!!!!" and then I think to myself... "no.... what would Wang do" a and it's physically making me ill to pick the eagles here, it seems so counter intuitive. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I was actually wagering units on this pick.

I made a decent amount of money last night betting on the Cavs/Bulls game.

Can one of you sports betting gurus tell me why Cleveland was only -1?

I figured betting it was a steal when I saw the line about a minute before gametime.

I got it at Chicago +1.5 +108 and +2 +100. But Cleveland was only a short favorite because the game was in Chicago, both teams had played on Friday night, and the Bulls aren't terrible. My handle on the NBA isn't that great yet since I'm still pretty football-centric, so I'm not totally sure if the books wanted a side there, but if they were going to have a lean at that number, it'd definitely be Chicago.

(Says the guy who lost 4x on Chicago.)

Fucking Golf. Eat a dick, Davis Love III.

what NFL games are you on this week?

I put $40 on the Giants at +3.

I have three games right so far, and I had two games I left blank ( one, the thursday game, I didn't know was on thursday, the other, Pitt-Indy, was just incompetence on my part).

Trainwreck. Horrible Sunday for contrarians. I ended up losing boatloads on the Vikings, Texans, Chargers and Iggles. I'm going to chase with the under 47.5 tonight even though 'Rizo will probably cover that number themselves, and I'll probably end up on San Fran +9.5, too. I don't really see how San Francisco stops Arizona, or keeps this within 3 scores. 41-20 Rizo sounds about right.

Lucky for me I added an extra zero to my Steve Marino top 5 bet, so even though he choked away the lead, I had a pretty big score, there. That was a nice little surprise when I signed into TheGreek this morning. Finally my stupidity pays off.


Wang