Why you can't hit 60% winners (Fezzik) <hr style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Here's what 60% can do for you ( by Fezzik).
Do you know what a bettor could make hitting 60 percent of his plays? Let's assume you start with the $1,000 you were planning to buy a couch with. Instead, you decide to take a pot shot with it. You choose to play only one game per day and wager what would normally be an insane 10 percent of your bankroll on each play, laying minus-110.
A little over five years later you wind up with a record of 1,200 wins and 800 losses for a 60 percent record ATS. Guess how much money your $1,000 will have increased? It's not $10,000 and not $50,000. It's an incredible $550 billion. Yes, that’s BILLION. It sounds ridiculous, but believe me, the math completely supports it.
Now, the above analysis doesn’t prove that it cannot be done. However, it surely must place the burden of proof to those claiming they hit 60 percent of their plays. Given the above, how could they not have accumulated a large fortune? You hear the same tired excuses found below.
1) They can hit 60 percent, but are too streaky. In addition, the few bad runs wipe them out. Sorry, I'm not buying it. In the above example, all you need is a record of 1,200 wins and 800 losses. Any order of wins and losses will produce the same final results.
2) They have poor money management. Sorry, again I simply don't accept it. As my numbers show, having an ability to hit at 60 percent is akin to owning a printing press full of money. Even with some lousy money management, you should still make a small fortune (instead of a large fortune).
3) They are critical of my example since they doubt that anyone could bet millions on one game without the line moving. It's a good argument, and I concur. However, this only becomes a problem after one has clearly sailed into easy multimillionaire status.
So the next time a guy tells you he is a 60 percent handicapper, you might want to confirm he is a multimillionaire. If he isn’t, it is likely he either cannot hit 60 percent or is one horrific money manager.
It's interesting that several people offer proof of 60 percent-plus records by pointing at one-year performances in monitored contests. What they miss is that during any small sample size like this, routine variance will result in many contestants hitting 60 percent. Some will be good handicappers and some not so good. However, all will regress to the mean going forward in future years. Flip a coin 100 times and ‘heads’ will come up on 64 occasions, provided you flip enough coins along the way.
Hitting 60 percent is simply not obtainable on any large volume of bets against widely available lines. In fact, I personally feel that the better handicappers and bettors are only able to achieve a long-term win rate that is around 55 percent against market lines.
It sounds depressing, but I've got good news. With just a 53 percent win rate you can make a lot of money on your bets provided you utilize reduced vigorish, rogue lines, free half-point promotions and other betting methods.
I would LOVE to be proven wrong here and have any handicapper or bettor step to the plate and show how he is able to hit 58 to 60 percent over an extended period of time with a large volume of plays. I’m rooting for it to happen. I'm already planning my trip to the airport to pick out my personal Leer Jet!
<!-- / message --> <!-- sig --> __________________
"Mistakes are honest, excuses are lies ", Mofome
Do you know what a bettor could make hitting 60 percent of his plays? Let's assume you start with the $1,000 you were planning to buy a couch with. Instead, you decide to take a pot shot with it. You choose to play only one game per day and wager what would normally be an insane 10 percent of your bankroll on each play, laying minus-110.
A little over five years later you wind up with a record of 1,200 wins and 800 losses for a 60 percent record ATS. Guess how much money your $1,000 will have increased? It's not $10,000 and not $50,000. It's an incredible $550 billion. Yes, that’s BILLION. It sounds ridiculous, but believe me, the math completely supports it.
Now, the above analysis doesn’t prove that it cannot be done. However, it surely must place the burden of proof to those claiming they hit 60 percent of their plays. Given the above, how could they not have accumulated a large fortune? You hear the same tired excuses found below.
1) They can hit 60 percent, but are too streaky. In addition, the few bad runs wipe them out. Sorry, I'm not buying it. In the above example, all you need is a record of 1,200 wins and 800 losses. Any order of wins and losses will produce the same final results.
2) They have poor money management. Sorry, again I simply don't accept it. As my numbers show, having an ability to hit at 60 percent is akin to owning a printing press full of money. Even with some lousy money management, you should still make a small fortune (instead of a large fortune).
3) They are critical of my example since they doubt that anyone could bet millions on one game without the line moving. It's a good argument, and I concur. However, this only becomes a problem after one has clearly sailed into easy multimillionaire status.
So the next time a guy tells you he is a 60 percent handicapper, you might want to confirm he is a multimillionaire. If he isn’t, it is likely he either cannot hit 60 percent or is one horrific money manager.
It's interesting that several people offer proof of 60 percent-plus records by pointing at one-year performances in monitored contests. What they miss is that during any small sample size like this, routine variance will result in many contestants hitting 60 percent. Some will be good handicappers and some not so good. However, all will regress to the mean going forward in future years. Flip a coin 100 times and ‘heads’ will come up on 64 occasions, provided you flip enough coins along the way.
Hitting 60 percent is simply not obtainable on any large volume of bets against widely available lines. In fact, I personally feel that the better handicappers and bettors are only able to achieve a long-term win rate that is around 55 percent against market lines.
It sounds depressing, but I've got good news. With just a 53 percent win rate you can make a lot of money on your bets provided you utilize reduced vigorish, rogue lines, free half-point promotions and other betting methods.
I would LOVE to be proven wrong here and have any handicapper or bettor step to the plate and show how he is able to hit 58 to 60 percent over an extended period of time with a large volume of plays. I’m rooting for it to happen. I'm already planning my trip to the airport to pick out my personal Leer Jet!
<!-- / message --> <!-- sig --> __________________
"Mistakes are honest, excuses are lies ", Mofome
I agree 60% is tough to do, but I just disagree with 60% = 550 billion, which is pretty much the entire article.
There is no math to back it up. And it appears that they would be using a standard prgression with a guarantee of 60%.
If you could guarantee I will hit 60% , then I'm sure I can attain any dollar amount.
But ther is always the risk of a bad streak that keeps many of us in line with what our limits are.
If this is the case, and you are a 55% winner, then you should be a multi-millionaire as well. And there are many here that are 55% winners, and are they multi millionaires?
No.
I have no problem conceding that 60% may be hard to maintain, though I do believe it is possible. But I hate that every time this is talked about, this Fezzik artilce is referenced. This article does absolutely nothing to prove the point. It's just an exteme exagerration with no valid math to back it up.
320 units over 5 years would be 64 units per year. Which would be 5.33 units per month.
Is there no one here that has averaged 64 units a year. I would have to think there are. (though I am not one of them) (yet) And I highly doubt any of them are millionaiares.
There is no math to back it up. And it appears that they would be using a standard prgression with a guarantee of 60%.
If you could guarantee I will hit 60% , then I'm sure I can attain any dollar amount.
But ther is always the risk of a bad streak that keeps many of us in line with what our limits are.
If this is the case, and you are a 55% winner, then you should be a multi-millionaire as well. And there are many here that are 55% winners, and are they multi millionaires?
No.
I have no problem conceding that 60% may be hard to maintain, though I do believe it is possible. But I hate that every time this is talked about, this Fezzik artilce is referenced. This article does absolutely nothing to prove the point. It's just an exteme exagerration with no valid math to back it up.
320 units over 5 years would be 64 units per year. Which would be 5.33 units per month.
Is there no one here that has averaged 64 units a year. I would have to think there are. (though I am not one of them) (yet) And I highly doubt any of them are millionaiares.
Jeez, how hard is it to use Excel?
hno:I come up with ~260 billion after 1825 trials (precisely 60%/1095 winners, 1 bet a day for 5 years, starting bankroll $1000, each bet being 10% of bankroll). Obviously, your final figure will vary depending on the W/L patterns you encounter along the way.
