7 Year Old Thread Bumped: The great debate , Does anyone win longterm at gambling (Slim vs Fishhead)

Journeyman · Apr 18, 2004

SLIMMY, who has worked in the offshore bookmaking business for quite some time now, basically insists NO ONe WINS AT GAMBLING over the course of a lifetime (if you`re a regular player)

FISHHEAD, who has done it all , he`s been behind the counter , he`s a forum contest whore, he`s a scalper, he`s a middler, he`s a forum moderator, he`s an ex-tout, he`s been a sports talkshow guest host, he`s a regular everyday player for many many years, he claims YOU CAN WIN LONG TERM AND HE DOES IT! Oh, and Fish is one helluva nice guy too!

Both these guys have much experience in the gambling business, WHO IS RIGHT?

Boys, go to your corners and come out debating!

sickgambler · Apr 18, 2004

this is the stupidest question of all time Journeyman. The answer is sooooooooo easy. It's a no brainer at all. One of these 2 guys here (slim or Fish) have NO idea what they are talking about, but in order to protect myself, and not hurt anyone of their feelings, I won't say.. But this is so stupid because it's such a no brainer.. One of these guys are right and one of them is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off..

Journeyman · Apr 18, 2004

I am just the host...I have my strong opinion as well...you may say I am trying to 'rally the troops' so to speak!

Fezzik · Apr 18, 2004

Slimmy is clueless, Fishhead is right.

Proof? How about the Schedule C I and others have had to file each year with my gambling winnings year after year after year after year........

More proof? Why do the better offshores profile certain players, and go crazy when they call in big bets. 'ZPLAY WANTS 20 DIMES ON THE GIANTS!'". 'Give him 10 DIMES AND MOVE THE LINE 15 CENTS', vs. 'Give this loser the 20 dimes, and move it a nickel'.

Better proof? AS I TYPE THIS, I could play Lakers under 178, -110 and over 177 +101. If slightly profitable winning middles like this "grow on trees" it would truly take a 'world is flat' thinker to deny the existence of huge winners. Guys that see, "Who would have the discipline to go after only plays like this" are totally inept. They think garbage middles like this are 'the nuts' when they are total garbage that the best advantage players would play, but know that they are frying hamburgers with plays like these.

........I'm off to pick up some Lobster myself.

Fishhead · Aug 8, 2005

Thanks Fezzik, looking forward to shooting the breeze again at this years bash...........sure were going to have a few good laughs over an array of topics this year.

:>Grin> :>Grin>

-Fishhead-

PanchoSanza · Aug 8, 2005

If he's talking about playing into concensus lines at -110 juice, full game sides only, its not impossible but very few will turn a profit long term.

But throw in reduced vig, props, halftimes, middling etc then its impossible NOT to be up lifetime.:drink: :digit: :howdy:

cincy_ · Aug 8, 2005

Fezzik said:
Slimmy is clueless, Fishhead is right.

Better proof? AS I TYPE THIS, I could play Lakers under 178, -110 and over 177 +101. If slightly profitable winning middles like this "grow on trees" it would truly take a 'world is flat' thinker to deny the existence of huge winners. Guys that see, "Who would have the discipline to go after only plays like this" are totally inept. They think garbage middles like this are 'the nuts' when they are total garbage that the best advantage players would play, but know that they are frying hamburgers with plays like these.

........I'm off to pick up some Lobster myself.

It is VERY easy to win at gambling - it just depends on HOW MUCH you want to win.

With 10 and 14 cent lines all it takes is discipline and time. With my limited bankroll, I can make $20 per day at Mansion and Pinny betting baseball. It's just that I don't take the $20 and put it in the piggy bank - I use it to reduce the juice on my wagers. If I had a bigger bankroll, I could easily pocket $100/day by simply middling, scalping and hedging. It wouldn't be fun, and it would require work - but I don't gamble to WORK and that is why I can't win.

If you want to work and not have fun, you can win - but why the hell would I want to do that?

If I ever told myself that I wanted to gamble for a living, I would make a profit, and I am sure of that.

PokerKingJim · Aug 8, 2005

Absolutely hilarious that somebody that knowledgeable about sports gambling would make such an ignorant comment. Hard to even believe that he said it.

PanchoSanza · Aug 8, 2005

If you watch who his players are on, they're a bunch of square chalk eating, favorite and over type players.

I agree that none of THOSE players will ever win in the long term but he has to know that not everyone is like his clients.:howdy:

Rainbow · Aug 8, 2005

I cant count on both of my hands the people that win year after year after year and laying -110 for so many years, if no betters win why do books have limits? if I owned a book and I thought nobody could beat me, I would tell them all the SKY is the limit. nobody has to SWEAT getting paid like they did years ago, so if you think nobody wins betting, why have limits?

ElmerTLee · Aug 8, 2005

While I my thoughts on winning/losing gamblers agrees with you. IMO The fact that books have limits, has more to do with the fact that any one gambler, (even a losing one) can go on a run, and take a book for their bankroll. I mean, if you ran a book, and Bill Gates (who knows nothing about sports for theory sake) says I want to bet 200,000 a game. He could easily clear out a book with no problem after a luck streak. Let me know if/where Im wrong.

Journeyman · Aug 8, 2005

This is an old thread...the spirit of the thread has been lost since the time it came out...

I was not taking a shot at Slim...this was more good natured ribbing than anything else..

Rainbow · Aug 8, 2005

ElmerTLee said:
While I my thoughts on winning/losing gamblers agrees with you. IMO The fact that books have limits, has more to do with the fact that any one gambler, (even a losing one) can go on a run, and take a book for their bankroll. I mean, if you ran a book, and Bill Gates (who knows nothing about sports for theory sake) says I want to bet 200,000 a game. He could easily clear out a book with no problem after a luck streak. Let me know if/where Im wrong.

Lets just say 500 units a game if nobody wins.

ElmerTLee · Aug 8, 2005

Im not sure what you are saying? Is that a guideline for what a books bankroll should be? 500 units, if no player is a winner? Im really confused, because there is no way thats possible.

randyrohm · Aug 8, 2005

Plenty of people win Elmer, some folks just don't want to admit it.

Rainbow · Aug 8, 2005

ElmerTLee said:
Im not sure what you are saying? Is that a guideline for what a books bankroll should be? 500 units, if no player is a winner? Im really confused, because there is no way thats possible.

No I'm just busting CHOPS, my whole point is there are alot of successful betters out there and they been doing it for years.

ElmerTLee · Aug 8, 2005

ElmerTLee said:
While I my thoughts on winning/losing gamblers agrees with you. IMO The fact that books have limits, has more to do with the fact that any one gambler, (even a losing one) can go on a run, and take a book for their bankroll. I mean, if you ran a book, and Bill Gates (who knows nothing about sports for theory sake) says I want to bet 200,000 a game. He could easily clear out a book with no problem after a luck streak. Let me know if/where Im wrong.

I get that plenty of people win, I agree with that. Im talking more from the bankroll v betting limit perspectives. I can see limiting individuals that win (why not just kick them off entirely though?). But what about safegaurds against getting cleaned out on a bad weekend (from a books point of view). I thought that was the main reason for limits.

-Slim- · Aug 8, 2005

As you know Jay, you like to put things in my mouth or kind of tweak them....

For sakes of this thread Ill comment the following, if you want to go back and find the thread to read my initial comment, please do so, but what I basically said is,

If you play long enough, you lose. You only "win" if you walk away from gambling when youre up. If you do so, props to you. If you keep gambling, its merely a matter of time.

I see sick gambler has joined the thread so I want to make the following disclaimer, Im not referring to scalping, bonus whoring or other techniques.

Having said this, you may proceed

randyrohm · Aug 8, 2005

Elmer I only know from the "player" side. The limits mean a book only has to take a certain amount at that number. If you max bet and they respect your action you will get a line move.