ccon8181 said:
The question of betting into one book is worth a response as a few of my investors have asked the same thing. Truth is I'm in talks with two other books to get on board with entity wagering, we are still in talks... CG has come out in various articles saying they welcome, and always have, sharp action. Limits will never be reduced only raised. My lines will reflect those posted at all 8 of their Las Vegas sportsbooks. With these limits I've capped out my funds maximum holding at 2 million until another book comes on board.
The truth is Shay, you know just enough about sportsbtting to be dangerous, as they say. Meaning your knowledge is at the level to get you and your followers in trouble. You dont think I've gone over every scenario? LOL Cmon man, look at the bet slips I've posted on my site, look at my historical performance.. We both know I'm smarter then you... I've never cheated or lied or tried to charge for picks. Everything is very transparent. The difference is I'm successful at sportsbetting and your not. That's why you cant comprehend someone making these strides or a new venture because your so used to losing that your jaded and believe the odds are stacked against sportsbettors. Your right they are, except for a few.
Yes, all of the successful sports bettors have the writing ability of a 2nd grader. I know nothing makes me more confident in one's investment ability than seeing a company is run by a buffoon who cannot differentiate between "your" and "you're."
Of course CG will say "they welcome sharp action and will only raise limits," but the reality is different. How many books come out and openly admit "We do not take sharp action?" Very few, because there's no value to the book in saying as such. Winning bettors have bets rejected all the time at CG. The reality is that most every Vegas book other than perhaps the Westgate is intolerant of sharp action. Notice in this profile of pro sports bettor "Dink":
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/how-a-las-vegas-sports-betting-legend-spends-horse-racings-biggest-weekend
That the Wynn openly admits that they will only give him $1000 of action, and Jimmy Vacarro implies that accepting $1000 is generous. "I will always give them a bet." For a whopping $1000. When Matthew Holt of CG appeared on the Sloan panel, he mentioned Haralabos Voulgaris is limited to $5000 in NBA. That is my limit and I would say about 30% of my bets get rejected when sent for approval. Once in a while they counter with a smaller offer, but more commonly they move the line. They will only take larger bets from a small number of hand-picked squares.
So you are saying that you have a $2 million fund and are betting 5% per game, so they are allowing you to bet $100,000 a game when sharps are limited to $5000? That is a crystal clear indicator that they do not expect you to win going forward.
Winning over a small sample of picks is no big deal. Anybody can have a hot streak. Simple binomial probability will show you that a coin flipper has about a 26% chance of winning over a 200 pick sample, a 15% chance of winning over a 500 pick sample, a 7% chance of winning over a 1000 pick sample, and a 2% chance of winning over a 2000 pick sample. I have seen plenty of square bettors go on a hot streak.
A more useful indicator of success going forward over a small sample is how your picks perform versus the closing line, and whether you are getting the best of the market.