Sportsbetting.

I have been intrigued by sports betting in the past, because it is another kind of betting which can be done with positive expectations, in theory.

The reason for this is that bookies have the incentive of creating their odds in a way that whatever the outcome will be, they will walk away with a profit. To give a good example of this, it is sometimes possible to bet on which team will win the coin toss at the start of a match, which is a 50% chance. A sportsbook may give decimal odds of perhaps 1.95 for both options, so a little less than even money. Therefore, people are expected to bet evenly on both outcomes, and the bookie will make money by not having to pay even money on an even odds bet. It is similar to how the red/black bet in roulette is profitable for the house by offering even money on a less than even odds bet.

For more "sophisticated" bets, such as who will actually win a sports match between two teams, the situation is obviously a little more complicated than a simple coinflip, but the same principle applies - punters are supposed to bet on all kinds of outcomes so that the bookie will make a profit based on the odds alone. However, the key part for successful sports bettors is: These odds do not necessarily reflect real-life odds, so if you are well-informed, you may be able to identify spots where the actual odds of a certain sports outcome may be better than the odds a bookie gives you, thus turning it into a positive expectation bet.

The big question about this is how you get this kind of information - and to be frank, I don't have an answer, which is why I said in the beginning that sports betting is beatable in theory. I have heard of people who can do it, but I don't personally know any. As for myself, I haven't had any luck with it yet. I suppose it can be done if you put a lot of effort into analyzing a certain competition, but I can't help with how to do that.

Even if you know what to look out for, there are certain difficulties:

1.) The odds don't add up to even money (the earlier coinflip example is a good illustration), so there is effectively a kind of "rake" to beat with your decisions.
2.) You have to work with the odds you are given, and certain sports books just may not give you very good odds, especially if you are limited by your location, or live in a country where every bet is automatically taxed. In some cases, you may have to spread your balance across various bookies to identify good odds.
3.) Even if all goes great, any sports book can ultimately exclude you from betting if they feel that they are losing money to you in the long run, and I have heard of cases like this happening. (again, I don't know anyone personally)

As far as I am concerned, sports betting is not something I plan to touch again in the near future, because I simply don't follow professional sports enough and because the available bookies in my location don't tend to offer good odds, as I found out when I compared what was available to me to picks from successful tipsters a few years ago. Nevertheless, if anyone does have any tips on how to identify +EV sports betting odds, I would be interested to hear it too, because the subject is still intriguing.

once when playing at 888 i sportsbetted $100 on Real Madrid soccer team with the odds of 1.4.. i got my $40 but boy was that scary ♦

I did sometimes sport betting on PokerStars, but since I can't do it there I don't sport bet anymore. I expect a lot of people betting on Euro 2024 matches right now.

Originally posted by taavi1337
once when playing at 888 i sportsbetted $100 on Real Madrid soccer team with the odds of 1.4.. i got my $40 but boy was that scary ♦

I had a similar situation as a student, when I was still brand new to gambling (including poker) and often liked to make bets on an impulse, so I bet a large sum (for a student) on Borussia Dortmund in their 2012 DFB-Pokal final against Bayern Munich. It may have been up to $100 too.

It started out fine, with Dortmund taking an early lead, then 1-1... and then their main goalkeeper got injured. They brought in some Australian guy that I had never heard of as a substitute, and I got really nervous. Just minutes later, I saw that guy messing around way outside his penalty area... and I was basically in full panic mode.

Meanwhile, I was at my parents' house for the weekend, having a pizza as we were watching the game together, and realizing that I couldn't show a hint of nervousness, as they were pretty anti-gambling in general and would have freaked out if they had known how much I bet on this game. Just like in your case, however, it all worked out, as Dortmund went on to score a convincing 5-2 victory after all.

lol I think i was alone and winning thousands from flhe, so this 1.4 bet was like, i have heard Real is a good team, let's gamble in this casino. i dont know anything about soccer and ofc i didnt watch the match. was lucky enough to scoop it but risking the whole $100 in case the other team wins... makes you think.

Free golden goal bet on Unibet today, had a lucky guess for the prediction of the Euro2024 match between
The Netherlands - England that took place earlier this evening.

And somehow, 34 other people had the same luck, kinda sick if you think about it, I mean, what are the odds of guessing the player and the time of him scoring the first goal, right? Has to be at least 1/22 (possible players scoring) * 1/90 (minutes playing time) * [a number that represents the odds of the individual players scoring, which varies widely] * [chance of scoring the first goal by an individual player]

edit: this is a free bet that you can place on a match that Unibet decides on, the pirzes vary. This had a prize of €50.000 shared upon the winners!

Positive thinking, positive thinking... ! :DD

Originally posted by taavi1337
Positive thinking, positive thinking... ! :DD

Haha, funny that you notice my pessimistic nature... (can be a pitfall in life tbh)

About sportsbetting, it's not that surprising that you might like this type of gambling, when you like playing poker.
Since this type of betting can also have a statistical approach to it, like in poker as a strategy.
It seems to me that the biggest player pool that places bets on matches are probably football fans, who rather place their bet based on emotions / feelings about a certain player or football team.

Variance is also a factor in sportsbetting, when you place a bet on the outcome of 10 matches with a average odds of 1.33 (75% chance of winning) that would give you a possible win of (1.33)^10=17,76 times your stake.
I would compare this with going all-in 10x in a mtt where your average is 75% chance of winning.
The chances of actually winning 10 times in a row are (0,75)^10=0,056%

I do place these kind of bets sometimes, in a way of high (calculated) risk / high reward kind of bet on football matches.
Betting on 1.33 odds avarage as a bet builder on multiple match outcomes seems smarter to me than betting on let's say 10.50 odds of a football team winning a single match.

The upside to this kind of sportsbetting compared to all-ins in a poker mtt is that there is a opportunity to cash out you winnings anytime (when the bet is still valid) when doing sportsbetting, which you can't do when playing a mtt. (Until maybe the deal making at a final table based on your chip EV, where all the players have to get to an agreement.)

Yes but the only bad thing is, you are not playing and betting against these emotional players at sportsbetting table, you are trying to beat the housegiven odds or something.. So you have to be smarter than the big company... In poker it is enought if you can be better than the other player in long run and house takes like what, 1-4%...

Originally posted by Harrier88
I had a similar situation as a student, when I was still brand new to gambling (including poker) and often liked to make bets on an impulse, so I bet a large sum (for a student) on Borussia Dortmund in their 2012 DFB-Pokal final against Bayern Munich. It may have been up to $100 too.

It started out fine, with Dortmund taking an early lead, then 1-1... and then their main goalkeeper got injured. They brought in some Australian guy that I had never heard of as a substitute, and I got really nervous. Just minutes later, I saw that guy messing around way outside his penalty area... and I was basically in full panic mode.

Meanwhile, I was at my parents' house for the weekend, having a pizza as we were watching the game together, and realizing that I couldn't show a hint of nervousness, as they were pretty anti-gambling in general and would have freaked out if they had known how much I bet on this game. Just like in your case, however, it all worked out, as Dortmund went on to score a convincing 5-2 victory after all.

I guess that what you are descibed here is exactly what gets people hooked to sports betting (in general). The extra excitement while watching a game.
Me, feeling like a boomer (actually being GEN Z ;), I like to enjoy the game normally and root for the team that deserves it the most / plays the best (in my opinion)
I have trouble with this internet generation, where everything seems to have become a casino game, with the need for MORE MORE MORE...
(More (fast) money, more exitement, more emotion, more drama, more (extreme) sex, etc.....)

I mean, I tend to treat playing poker differently than casino games (slots) or sports betting ( where sports betting is in between in degree of addictiveness for me)

Originally posted by taavi1337
Yes but the only bad thing is, you are not playing and betting against these emotional players at sportsbetting table, you are trying to beat the housegiven odds or something.. So you have to be smarter than the big company... In poker it is enought if you can be better than the other player in long run and house takes like what, 1-4%...

And yeah, in line of what I said above, the difference in the "gamble factor" (which I interpret as the "addictiveness factor"),
is playing poker against other players instead of playing any other game that you play against the house, where all you can do is pray that the outcomes goes in your favour...
The pittfall in poker for me comes when I start to tilt and my play becomes more that of a gambler, making bad descissions. But overall I can keep a clear balance in my descission making and thinking while playing poker. In contrary to playing slots, where I can lose myself and spend all my money (as all the casino games are created to be)

Make shorter sessions if youre playing online poker, allow yourself to relax. 1table and observe each decision of opponents carefully..

Originally posted by Timmaywin
I guess that what you are descibed here is exactly what gets people hooked to sports betting (in general). The extra excitement while watching a game.

Not sure about that, I expect the people who place a bet to add excitement to the games they watch are mostly casual bettors. The ones who truly get "hooked" are more drawn to the gambling aspect itself, I expect, and probably place bets on loads of games they don't even watch. Especially with the "internet generation" thing you described, where these kinds of people would probably just follow their big amount of games via some live updates on their smartphone or something.

My personal approach to sports betting was usually the same as my approach to poker, I guess. Back in 2012, when I got started, they both were a casual gamble to me. When I attempted to pick sports betting up again 6-7 years ago, I tried (unsuccessfully) to turn it into a +EV game like I had done with poker in the meantime.

Originally posted by Timmaywin
The pittfall in poker for me comes when I start to tilt and my play becomes more that of a gambler, making bad descissions. But overall I can keep a clear balance in my descission making and thinking while playing poker. In contrary to playing slots, where I can lose myself and spend all my money (as all the casino games are created to be)

As I have hinted at above, I have been in a similar situation in the past, and I got out of it with the opposite kind of thinking: Instead of approaching poker with the mindset of a gambler, I started approaching gambling with the mindset of a poker player - which means that you realize that every kind of casino game against the house is like knowingly putting your chips in with bad pot odds in poker. And this, in turn, should lead you to believe that you should basically never ever play casino games, unless you are on vacation and set aside a small balance of money to burn in a casino for fun, or something like that.

At least it worked for me, and it also made it easy to drop sports betting when I realized that I wasn't beating it.

Originally posted by taavi1337
Yes but the only bad thing is, you are not playing and betting against these emotional players at sportsbetting table, you are trying to beat the housegiven odds or something.. So you have to be smarter than the big company... In poker it is enought if you can be better than the other player in long run and house takes like what, 1-4%...

I think it is more accurate to say that you are trying to beat "the market". The odds from the sports book are ideally supposed to be in the bookie's favor no matter what the outcome of the bet is, by getting people to bet evenly. If the bets were too polarized, the house would end up taking a risk itself, in case the result won't be in their favor. So you are not directly trying to beat their predictions, but more like the general public opinion, if that makes sense. I guess it's a bit like forex trading in that regard.

Still, this doesn't change the fact that if you are doing well, the house is effectively losing money against you, which is not the case in poker. This means that there is no guarantee that you will keep your welcome mat if you are winning in the long run, as no sport book is under any obligation to keep any bettors. You know what casinos tend to do to blackjack players who are counting cards to tip the odds in their favor.
Then again, some poker sites seem to be increasingly prone to this too, if threads like this are any indication...

Nowadays it's almost impossible to beat overall betting markets in the long run. Those who bet professionally, look for valuebets. That is when a single booker has an error in their odds. As an example, consensus is that TEAM A is 50% favorite to win the game. Without comission the odds would be 2.0, with comission the odds might be 1.95. If the 50% estimation is accurate, most bookers set the line to 1.95-2.0. One booker might have an error in their estimations, giving TEAM A odds of 2.10. When that happens, there will be quite many bets on that 2.10 which alerts the booker. When a single selection has more than normal activity, booker is alerted (or the odds drop automatically to prevent damage). Selection is either closed or odds are lowered instantly. Pro bettors have automated systems that scan bookers, and they try to catch those valuebets before they are closed or corrected. Just like in poker, if you make +EV bets constantly, in the long run you should make money.

Another way to make +EV valuebetting is with promotions, where you get extra monetary value for betting.

But if someone thinks that their thought about a game can beat the whole market, that's quite absurd. It might be true if one has inside information about the rosters, players or game. But if the whole market sees the game with certain odds, it's pretty much always quite correct. Your feelings can't beat it.

Originally posted by Kyyberi
But if someone thinks that their thought about a game can beat the whole market, that's quite absurd. It might be true if one has inside information about the rosters, players or game. But if the whole market sees the game with certain odds, it's pretty much always quite correct. Your feelings can't beat it.

...and with popular sports having so many passionate followers who greatly over-estimate their own expertise, it is not hard to imagine how sports betting is profitable for the bookies.

I can still imagine, at least in theory, that it could be possible to beat the given odds if someone had an insane understanding of the underlying factors to estimate accurate winning chances. I highly doubt that it would be possible simply based on publicly available knowledge, though, especially since this kind of information should already be reflected by the bookie's odds. So yes, we are essentially talking about "inside knowledge" being required, more or less.

In the past there were bettors who used Xgoal type of calculations (Xgoal is kind of EVgoal. How many goals given team is expected to produce in the current situation) and could beat the bookers. But in modern era there is so much statistics and information, that bookers are really good in calculating it all.

If someone has really good understanding of a game, they could use that information in live betting. Usually in live betting the booker has bigger comission (and therefore margin of error) but the odds are automated via algorithms. One good example is Super Bowl few years ago. I told in stream about offense vs defense matchup, and how Kansas City has been really good against certain defensive setting, which is against all odds and logic. And I told to bet on Kansas City win, if opponent plays that defense in the beginning of the game. It was spot on, and that factor was not calculated in live betting odds.

Another example is that when watching a game you see a key player hurting himself on warmups. If it's even unsure whether that player could play, it changes the probabilities. That is not relfected on odds until the change is made to official rosters.

Originally posted by Harrier88

Originally posted by taavi1337
Yes but the only bad thing is, you are not playing and betting against these emotional players at sportsbetting table, you are trying to beat the housegiven odds or something.. So you have to be smarter than the big company... In poker it is enought if you can be better than the other player in long run and house takes like what, 1-4%...

I think it is more accurate to say that you are trying to beat "the market". The odds from the sports book are ideally supposed to be in the bookie's favor no matter what the outcome of the bet is, by getting people to bet evenly. If the bets were too polarized, the house would end up taking a risk itself, in case the result won't be in their favor. So you are not directly trying to beat their predictions, but more like the general public opinion, if that makes sense. I guess it's a bit like forex trading in that regard.

Still, this doesn't change the fact that if you are doing well, the house is effectively losing money against you, which is not the case in poker. This means that there is no guarantee that you will keep your welcome mat if you are winning in the long run, as no sport book is under any obligation to keep any bettors. You know what casinos tend to do to blackjack players who are counting cards to tip the odds in their favor.
Then again, some poker sites seem to be increasingly prone to this too, if threads like this are any indication...

Yeah, for first to win, you need to estimate the outcome of a sports event, a game, for example, better than the house (the casino). Let's say they say it is 25% the soccer team will win a certain match. Whoever bets $10 on the win of that team, gets $40 if that team wins. But let's say you know that team is better than 25% to win that game, you estimate, it is likely to win it 75% of the time. Then that bet on them would be a good bet. But how to get such good information to outwit the casino's analysis on the match?

Originally posted by taavi1337
But how to get such good information to outwit the casino's analysis on the match?

There is a site that gives additional statistics on the odds of winning (Sofascore), examples of this:

Sometimes there is a big difference between the given odds and the actual odds, which makes a good bet.
Sometimes a team actually has worse odds than the given odds and the opponent has better odds of winning than the given odds.

So that site has somehow hired a better analyst than the casino site? Who can predict results of sport games better?