Sports betting chatter
Quote: lilredrooster.
a couple of fools imo
Maybe. Or maybe the Dominican mobsters setting it up had some leverage over the player’s families.
Quote: JimRockfordQuote: lilredrooster.
a couple of fools imo
Maybe. Or maybe the Dominican mobsters setting it up had some leverage over the player’s families.
link to original post
This sounds reasonable. Clase especially. He was already making 8 figures, and likely would have gotten to 9 figures in his next multi year contract. How much is he alleged to have been paid, $30k? Less? Tip money for him.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: JimRockfordQuote: lilredrooster.
a couple of fools imo
Maybe. Or maybe the Dominican mobsters setting it up had some leverage over the player’s families.
link to original post
This sounds reasonable. Clase especially. He was already making 8 figures, and likely would have gotten to 9 figures in his next multi year contract. How much is he alleged to have been paid, $30k? Less? Tip money for him.
link to original post
On the other hand, if they're going to threaten his family, $30K to a Dominican police chief is likely to get mobsters collected, processed, and their bodies dumped on the Haiti side of the border.
Today saw Pistons -6 over the Thunder at +103. The line seemed high, until, I went to the injury report.
Gilgeous Alexander
(The good) J Williams
Hartenstein
Mitchell
All out
Holmgren
Caruso
Doubtful
Who is left? Seems like ‘regular -110’ line is 11 points. So getting + odds, and 5 points to boot.
‘Don’t count your money, while you are sitting at the table’….
One thing that bothered me recently was the switch many sites have made for initial offers. I see now frequently the offer will be to bet $5 and get 150 to 200 in bonus bets if your bet wins only… previously we saw such to be if it loses only [or even win or lose]. I couldn’t understand why they were being so crappy about it now, but I was just thinking they were forcing you to make an initial bet where you’d win next to nothing on a win except the bonus money. Even so there’s risk, what do they tell players who get stung?
Recently I looked into one where you had to pick a bet that was -500, -505 and higher in absolute value being a no-go. Then it dawned on me. Anyone with half a brain is going to hedge the bet by betting on the other side, guaranteeing coming out ahead looking at that kind of risk. It’s strictly against the rules to do that with the same site, so you’re going to use a different site to do that.
They know this, so they are happy to be making you bet more even though it’s not with them. You basically are giving up some of your expected value of that offer. Smugly, I guess, they know sometimes they benefit if other sites are doing the same thing.
I am no longer mystified.
pretty interesting - to me anyway
Phil Jackson devised what he believes is a way to pick the NBA Championship winner after 60 games or fewer
from the link:
"History indicates that if an NBA team reaches 40 wins during the regular season before 20 losses, that team has a credible chance at an NBA championship. A STAGGERING 18 OF THE LAST 19 CHAMPIONS fit the 40-before-20 criteria, with even deeper roots the further back you go.
With the Boston Celtics losing to the Denver Nuggets on Wednesday night — and falling out of 40-20 consideration with a 38-20 record — the 2025-26 season officially offers three candidates. The Oklahoma City Thunder, San Antonio Spurs and Detroit Pistons are the newest members of the exclusive regular-season club with strong potential ties to the championship."
per my google search you could bet all 3 in ways that if one of them won the bet would be profitable
odds to win NBA Championship
odds on Pistons - +1200 to +1300
odds on Spurs - +950 to +1,000
odds on Thunder +125 to +145
so, for example:
$100 on Thunder
$25 on Spurs
$25 on Pistons
using the smallest payout quoted -
a win by Thunder would net $75
a win by Spurs would net $112.50
a win by Pistons would net $175
no guarantees of course, but a very good bet imho
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7073089/2026/02/26/40-20-rule-nba-thunder-spurs-pistons/
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
pretty interesting - to me anyway
Phil Jackson devised what he believes is a way to pick the NBA Championship winner after 60 games or fewer
from the link:
"History indicates that if an NBA team reaches 40 wins during the regular season before 20 losses, that team has a credible chance at an NBA championship. A STAGGERING 18 OF THE LAST 19 CHAMPIONS fit the 40-before-20 criteria, with even deeper roots the further back you go.
With the Boston Celtics losing to the Denver Nuggets on Wednesday night — and falling out of 40-20 consideration with a 38-20 record — the 2025-26 season officially offers three candidates. The Oklahoma City Thunder, San Antonio Spurs and Detroit Pistons are the newest members of the exclusive regular-season club with strong potential ties to the championship."
per my google search you could bet all 3 in ways that if one of them won the bet would be profitable
odds to win NBA Championship
odds on Pistons - +1200 to +1300
odds on Spurs - +950 to +1,000
odds on Thunder +125 to +145
so, for example:
$100 on Thunder
$25 on Spurs
$25 on Pistons
using the smallest payout quoted -
a win by Thunder would net $75
a win by Spurs would net $112.50
a win by Pistons would net $175
no guarantees of course, but a very good bet imho
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7073089/2026/02/26/40-20-rule-nba-thunder-spurs-pistons/
.
link to original post
If I follow this, you are betting $150 that might win you between $75 and $175. For it to pay off, one of three teams must win.
There are twenty teams that qualify for postseason play, depending on how you count the play-in tournaments. At some point, at least two of the teams must play each other, so while you have three teams, only two can possibly pay off. The Pistons have the easiest path to the finals as they don't play the other two.
I'd assume all that is either meaningless or baked into the odds. I'm trying to learn about sports betting, although the more I read, the more it seems the only way to make money is bonus hunting.
It's late February, and the soonest you'll get paid is June 11th. Assuming you paid up front, how does that affect your cash flow?
If you waited until June 2nd and bet $100 on whichever of the three teams is still playing, what prices could you get?
Any thoughts on this would be welcome
Quote: billryan
It's late February, and the soonest you'll get paid is June 11th. Assuming you paid up front, how does that affect your cash flow?
If you waited until June 2nd and bet $100 on whichever of the three teams is still playing, what prices could you get?
Any thoughts on this would be welcome
link to original post
professional bettors bet only a smallish % of their total bankroll on any one bet (even thought it's actually 3 bets it could be considered as just one bet)
so the effect on the total bankroll it it's done that way would not be large
If you waited until June 2 what prices would you get-?
nobody can know that
the edge is there if you believe (as Phil Jackson apparently does) that one of the top 3 by this method winning 18 of the last 19 was not just a freak thing -
if you believe instead that it is a meaningful thing indicating a strong probability of if happening again
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
pretty interesting - to me anyway
Phil Jackson devised what he believes is a way to pick the NBA Championship winner after 60 games or fewer
from the link:
"History indicates that if an NBA team reaches 40 wins during the regular season before 20 losses, that team has a credible chance at an NBA championship. A STAGGERING 18 OF THE LAST 19 CHAMPIONS fit the 40-before-20 criteria, with even deeper roots the further back you go.
With the Boston Celtics losing to the Denver Nuggets on Wednesday night — and falling out of 40-20 consideration with a 38-20 record — the 2025-26 season officially offers three candidates. The Oklahoma City Thunder, San Antonio Spurs and Detroit Pistons are the newest members of the exclusive regular-season club with strong potential ties to the championship."
per my google search you could bet all 3 in ways that if one of them won the bet would be profitable
odds to win NBA Championship
odds on Pistons - +1200 to +1300
odds on Spurs - +950 to +1,000
odds on Thunder +125 to +145
so, for example:
$100 on Thunder
$25 on Spurs
$25 on Pistons
using the smallest payout quoted -
a win by Thunder would net $75
a win by Spurs would net $112.50
a win by Pistons would net $175
no guarantees of course, but a very good bet imho
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7073089/2026/02/26/40-20-rule-nba-thunder-spurs-pistons/
.
link to original post
Try this thought experiment. One team is 40-19. Another is 39-20. Do you truly believe that the 40 win team has more than just a slightly better chance at winning the Championship than the 39 win team?
And OF COURSE teams that have won more games have a better chance at winning the championship than teams that have not. But that’s why the odds are what they are. The Thunder are the clearly best team (when healthy) but are only +140 for that reason.
Another thought experiment. Out of the 3 bets you propose, do you actually believe they are ALL +EV? Do you actually believe EVEN ONE of them is +EV? Why?
Quote: lilredrooster.
odds to win NBA Championship
odds on Pistons - +1200 to +1300
odds on Spurs - +950 to +1,000
odds on Thunder +125 to +145
so, for example:
$100 on Thunder
$25 on Spurs
$25 on Pistons
using the smallest payout quoted -
a win by Thunder would net $75
a win by Spurs would net $112.50
a win by Pistons would net $175
link to original post
If you want to spread the bets out so that your profit would be the same if any of the three won, then, using the lowest odds on each, your bets need to be in the proportions:
Thunder (+125): 100 / 225, or 364 / 819
Spurs (+950): 100 / 1050, or 78 / 819
Pistons (+1200): 100 / 1300, or 63 / 819
Bet 364 on the Thunder, 78 on the Spurs, and 63 on the Pistons
Thunder win: 364 x 1.25 - (78 + 63) = 314 profit
Spurs win: 78 x 9.5 - (364 + 63) = 314 profit
Pistons win: 63 x 12 - (364 + 78) = 314 profit
The problem is, you are betting 364 + 78 + 63 = 505 to win 314, which is about -160.
Quote: SOOPOOOut of the 3 bets you propose, do you actually believe they are ALL +EV? Do you actually believe EVEN ONE of them is +EV? Why?
I thought I explained that
I'm not analyzing those teams to determine their ev
and by the way - that is all but impossible - just as your statements of how much + EV you are getting on your bets is nothing but an opinion - it's not rooted in fact
as I indicated, I believe what Phil Jackson does - that teams having won 40 games before losing 20 having won Championships 18 times in the last 19 years is not a freakish meaningless thing
it is something meaningful imo
you don't think so, obviously
good for you
time to move on
from the link:
"One Jackson statute that’s gained traction with common NBA fans over the last several years is the “40 before 20” rule. History indicates that if an NBA team reaches 40 wins during the regular season before 20 losses, that team has a credible chance at an NBA championship. A staggering 18 of the last 19 NBA champions fit the 40-before-20 criteria, with even deeper roots the further back you go."
.
.
Quote: ThatDonGuyQuote: lilredrooster.
odds to win NBA Championship
odds on Pistons - +1200 to +1300
odds on Spurs - +950 to +1,000
odds on Thunder +125 to +145
so, for example:
$100 on Thunder
$25 on Spurs
$25 on Pistons
using the smallest payout quoted -
a win by Thunder would net $75
a win by Spurs would net $112.50
a win by Pistons would net $175
link to original post
If you want to spread the bets out so that your profit would be the same if any of the three won, then, using the lowest odds on each, your bets need to be in the proportions:
Thunder (+125): 100 / 225, or 364 / 819
Spurs (+950): 100 / 1050, or 78 / 819
Pistons (+1200): 100 / 1300, or 63 / 819
Bet 364 on the Thunder, 78 on the Spurs, and 63 on the Pistons
Thunder win: 364 x 1.25 - (78 + 63) = 314 profit
Spurs win: 78 x 9.5 - (364 + 63) = 314 profit
Pistons win: 63 x 12 - (364 + 78) = 314 profit
The problem is, you are betting 364 + 78 + 63 = 505 to win 314, which is about -160.
link to original post
true, but if the 18 out of 19 is meaningful, if it indicated the true probability or even close to it, - 160 would still mean a very nice edge -
also, as I indicated better odds are available per google with line shopping -
+145 on the Thunder, +1300 on the Pistons, + 1,000 on the Spurs
if possible to get the better lines the payback would be a fair amount better than -160
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: SOOPOOOut of the 3 bets you propose, do you actually believe they are ALL +EV? Do you actually believe EVEN ONE of them is +EV? Why?
I thought I explained that
I'm not analyzing those teams to determine their ev
and by the way - that is all but impossible - just as your statements of how much + EV you are getting on your bets is nothing but an opinion - it's not rooted in fact
as I indicated, I believe what Phil Jackson does - that teams having won 40 games before losing 20 having won Championships 18 times in the last 19 years is not a freakish meaningless thing
it is something meaningful
you don't think so, obviously
good for you
time to move on
.
link to original post
In your advancing years you just miss my point TOTALLY! I ABSOLUTELY believe teams that win like you state are more likely to win a championship than those that don’t. Duh
But ANY team’s winning record is factored in to the odds you will be able to get.
Another thought experiment. If you think the 18 out of 19 is something likely to continue, just give me a measly 10-1 on the rest of the teams. I think that’s good odds for me on the Nuggets, Cavs, Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, Rockets, Magic, 76ers, Twolves, et al.
And as to your ABJECTLY stupid comment about my EV being an opinion…. If I am stating an EXACT +EV I’d agree with you. But giving a very accurate approximation is not difficult in many cases.
Easy example for you. All 5 sites I use have a money line -110 for both sides. And I can get +150 because of a boost. It’s not my fault you can’t figure out my EV is 25%. I win $150 half the time. Lose $100 half the time. Win $50 for every $200 bet.
So for all REAL WORLD purposes, it IS rooted in fact.
Quote: SOOPOO
Easy example for you. All 5 sites I use have a money line -110 for both sides. And I can get +150 because of a boost. It’s not my fault you can’t figure out my EV is 25%
you're assuming that because 5 sites have a money line of -110 for both sides that that line accurately indicates the true probability
that's BS
the books are not able to determine the true probability of a win on either side any more than you are
it's just a speculation - nothing more - maybe right, maybe wrong
and at the beginning of the season, when very few games have been played, the lines they put out are even more speculative, almost just guesses
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: SOOPOO
Easy example for you. All 5 sites I use have a money line -110 for both sides. And I can get +150 because of a boost. It’s not my fault you can’t figure out my EV is 25%
you're assuming that because 5 sites have a money line of -110 for both sides that that line accurately indicates the true probability
that's BS
the books are not able to determine the true probability of a win on either side any more than you are
it's just a speculation - nothing more - maybe right, maybe wrong
and at the beginning of the season, when very few games have been played, the lines they put out are even more speculative, almost just guesses
.
link to original post
Sorry. You are wrong as far as THE REAL WORLD implication. When both sides are -110 everywhere the ‘real’ fair line is +100. Is it possible it should be +102 or -102? ABSOLUTELY. But as far as the EV of my bet, it is unchanged because there is NO WAY to know if the correct line is + 102 or -102. So I will be on the wrong side of the 102’s as often as the right side! Thus NO CHANGE IN OVERALL EV.
To repeat for clarity, in these types of bets I can figure out the EV not perfectly, but EASILY well enough to identify significantly + EV bets.
Maybe, since we see a lot of speculation about whether the oddsmakers have got it right. But of course if a guy doesn't actually bet money in a sportsbook, he might just think being better than the oddsmaker is how you do it
Quote: odiousgambitDoes the rooster not believe stories of online sportsbetting being something you can make money at?
Maybe, since we see a lot of speculation about whether the oddsmakers have got it right. But of course if a guy doesn't actually bet money in a sportsbook, he might just think being better than the oddsmaker is how you do it
link to original post
yes, I believe Soopoo and others make $ betting sports by wisely using bonuses and boosts
I no longer bet sports - I did for a few years a while back and iirc I about broke even or was a tiny bit ahead - I didn't at that time use any bonuses that may have been available - my experience was not memorable or something to brag about
I probably foolishly avoided bonuses (iirc) back then thinking it was some kind of trick
I don't bet sports anymore - I'm not willing to bet large enough to make a difference in my finances - I'm good shape because of investments and don't have need of funds
I do enjoy analyzing some bets but not nearly as much as before - I'm losing interest in it
I don't think I'm better than oddsmakers - but I believe if a person is willing to spend much time and effort he can find a few, very few, advantageous bets
.
An amazing story is at the link of 2 gamblers who may well have been the greatest gamblers in the history of the world
Bill Benter and Alan Woods formed a partnership (which later dissolved) using statistics to crush Hong Kong horse racing
they both ended up ahead hundreds of millions of dollars (unreal)
.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-03/the-gambler-who-cracked-the-horse-racing-code
.
If you can show me I’m all wet on that due to error, I’d be relieved in a way, because the chances of winning are so low that multiple seasons could go by without a win. I’m not the type of gambler who likes extremely long shots and, for example, won’t play the lottery even if in +EV phase. As a result I am in very comfortable Kelly condition on the bet.
The bets to choose from make the parlay go to +5000 and easily more, so for an example I’ll use +6400. I have had trouble in the past with figuring out the overall edge of bets that give you a second chance if you lose, as opposed to win or lose which is easy. [see blog for what I figured out] After adjusting it I get a resulting player advantage of 31.5%
If I’m right could you pass up this bet? I’m showing my work at my blog.
* apparent because no method of betting can affect edge. Every writer out there just uses 'edge'
Each team must submit an "initial report" by 9 PM local time the night before each game, indicating which players will be "available" (at least a 75% chance of playing), "questionable" (1-74% chance), and "out" (not playing). Updates will be expected up to two hours before the game begins.
Violations will be fined up to $10,000 for the first offense, up to $25,000 for the second, and up to $30,000 for the school plus up to $10,000 for the head coach for each subequent offense.
usually it's the +xxx side being higher than the -xxx side in absolute value, not both sides +xxx
the above thread massive +EV bet with massive outside chance of winning did not return this week. Too few took them up on it, or with thousands of bets made they got killed?
WBC logo too much like a swastika? maybe it's just me
Quote: odiousgambitrarity today for me, with offer, +105 on one side and +104 on the other , world baseball classic
usually it's the +xxx side being higher than the -xxx side in absolute value, not both sides +xxx
the above thread massive +EV bet with massive outside chance of winning did not return this week. Too few took them up on it, or with thousands of bets made they got killed?
WBC logo too much like a swastika? maybe it's just me
link to original post
I’m getting on average 5 a day like your +105/ +104 opportunity. But just recently have been throttled to $25 from $50 on most of them. Oh well.
I’ll post today’s specifics this evening.
Quote: lilredrooster.
An amazing story is at the link of 2 gamblers who may well have been the greatest gamblers in the history of the world
Bill Benter and Alan Woods formed a partnership (which later dissolved) using statistics to crush Hong Kong horse racing
they both ended up ahead hundreds of millions of dollars (unreal)
.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-03/the-gambler-who-cracked-the-horse-racing-code
.
link to original post
If you haven't read it, read the book Gambling Wizards. A very good book.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: odiousgambitrarity today for me, with offer, +105 on one side and +104 on the other , world baseball classic
usually it's the +xxx side being higher than the -xxx side in absolute value, not both sides +xxx
the above thread massive +EV bet with massive outside chance of winning did not return this week. Too few took them up on it, or with thousands of bets made they got killed?
WBC logo too much like a swastika? maybe it's just me
link to original post
I’m getting on average 5 a day like your +105/ +104 opportunity. But just recently have been throttled to $25 from $50 on most of them. Oh well.
I’ll post today’s specifics this evening.
link to original post
I am jealous, I get zero bonusses from Hard Rock. I have lost five figures to them over the last two college football seasons, the least they could do is throw me some $25 Bonus bets.
I have given this outfit next to nothing in total action compared to that, and have made money instead of losing money. They can tell I cherry pick so they limit me in what i can bet, but from what I can tell I always get the offers that go to everyone except those on a %^&$#-listQuote: DRich... I get zero bonusses from Hard Rock. I have lost five figures to them over the last two college football seasons, the least they could do is throw me some $25 Bonus bets.
link to original post
Which would seem to be you LOL. Is it a case of just recognizing your name as a person in the gambling industry?
Quote: odiousgambitIs it a case of just recognizing your name as a person in the gambling industry?
I doubt that is the case. I think it stems from previously having a few winning years in a row in college football.
Anyway, great anecdote last night! 50% profit boost used on Avalanche/Stars/Sabres. All were down in the third period. Sabres down 2 with 8 minutes to go. My AI assistant informs me teams down 2 with 8 minutes to go in the NHL win 1% of the time. The combined probability from the worst chance of each team was around 1 in 2,500. But, CHA CHING.
8-7. I don’t even think it was bad goaltending. More bad defense by both teams.
