View Full Version : Wallstreet, Bettorschat

09-08-2004, 02:34 AM
I have a question for you two guys and anyone else who wishes to respond. I have about $10,000 that I want to invest, but my question is which is better sports betting or the investment market for the long run. I have done so much better betting on sports than I ever have in the market. I appreciate any comments.


09-08-2004, 06:39 AM
By your own admission you have done better with sports, but that does not mean that is the case for everyone. It is more than likely an individual thing.

If you haven't already done it, you might consider tracking the results of your sporting wagers over about 300 wagers. Track your total risk and total won/lost.

Divide your net result by your total risk including pushes to get an R.O.I. That will give you a fair assessment, and then you can make your decision from there.

With winning information and even more importantly proper money management you should show a higher R.O.I in sports wagering, even over the long haul.

But even at that, a really good broker might be able to match a good cappers r.o.i.

A world class capper should show about a 10-14% return, although some would argue that 5 or 6% is world class. I suppose if you're beating it, that's all that matters...


09-08-2004, 12:36 PM
Investing if done correctly isnt even in the same ball park as sports betting.

Even at the aggressive pace I buy and sell it isnt even in the same arena.

Maybe I say that because I never win in sports betting, but have done extrordinarily well in investing (especially as I have learned and experienced)

If you want to compare the two, you would have to say that investing would be buying options or penny stocks. That is the ultimate in excess regarding investing.

If you want to invest, ask me anything you want. If you want to sports bet..I am a horrible person to ask.


09-08-2004, 12:56 PM
Wallstreet, Warrior thanks for the responses.


09-08-2004, 01:01 PM
A world class capper should show about a 10-14% return, although some would argue that 5 or 6% is world class. I suppose if you're beating it, that's all that matters...

is that per month or per year, or ???


09-08-2004, 01:43 PM

That's over the long haul. A minimum sample size, in my opinion, would be 300 bets.

You might hit a high R.O.I. over 30 or 40 games, or over a week or a month, but it's how you do consistently over the span of hundreds and even thousands of plays.

This is were a majority of players often fail to understand. I can go 33-30 in College Football Picks one year or 40-50 in Pro Picks, but that does not represent the whole of my 24-year handicapping career.

Or like my formulas. My Yardage formula went 23-22 last season and some people where critical of that. But the formula is over 63% after nearly 200 plays and that is what counts.

Same on the other side of they coin also. Just because my Blowout Formula went 28-5-1 last year does not mean it can be expected to do that every year.

But if a formula is grounded with a solid foundation of rationale, it will hold the test of time. Same with cappers.

Picking winners simply cannot be limited to to a single system or formula. It is a comprehensive effort of all the knowledge you can acquire; systems, technical aspects, stats, formulas, contrare considerations, accurate lines, emotional considerations, etc.

A seasoned handicapper will be able to weigh these things out, knowing when to zig and when to zag. And over the course of many plays should show a positive expectation.

I remember in 1984 the Bucs were leading the Jets by 4 touchdowns late in the game. Tampa scored again with less than a minute to go to go up 49-14, or something like that.

Bucs HC John Mckay ordered his kickoff team to allow the Jets to return the kickoff for a TD on purpose. His intent was to get the ball back so that Ricky Bell could carry it one more time for a NFL record.

Well the stunt leaked and the NFL fined Mckay. But the real story was the insult to the Jets organization.

The following year the Bucs were scheduled to play the Jets again late in the Season, only this time it would be played in the big apple. I circled that game.

That is a classic example of where you throw everything out the window except the knowledge of that one fact. I was all over the Jets -10 in that one. The Jets led 48-7 at halftime and went on to win the game 62-14.

That's what handicapping is about. Information. No formula, or stat, or system, or soft line, or anything could've outweighed the slap in the face that the Bucs had given the Jets the prior year.

The one thing about capping is that you have to maintain that positive expectation continuously over time, because when you're not winning, you're not just NOT MAKING MONEY, you're LOSING IT BACK.