Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

carcanaques

Good sports bettors make good traders?

Recommended Posts

After reading the sister thread to this "Good poker players make good traders?" I thought this make spark some dialogue. I am a professional sports bettor turned trader. The transition was not easy, or at least as easy as I originally thought.

 

There are many similarities and many differences among each activity as you can imagine. In this thread I will focus on the key aspects of sports betting and let the more experienced traders add to the discussion with analogies, differences and other tid bits that may be helpful to aspiring and seasoned traders or those of you who are seriously considering a career in sports betting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct money management is easy to explain. It is almost impossible to adhere to.

 

There have been about as many 'systems' for varying the bet size as there are systems to beat the craps table. None of them work and all of them do harm by giving false expectations. Double-up systems, star betting, the Kelly Criterion, etc. all have the same thing in common. They adversely affect the cash flow and they raise the breakeven percentage that must be acomplished.

 

Any time you vary your bet size by the slightest amount, you increase the breakeven percentage of 52.38. If you refigure your percentage after each bet, your breakeven jumps to over 55%. If you have 1 star and 5 star bets or bet twice as much on some plays, you should understand that only the large bets are meaningful to whether you will be a winner. You might as well not bet the smaller ones. In the end, they won't matter.

 

Some touts say you should increase your bet when you are on a winning streak and decrease it when you are on a losing streak. The key word is 'are'. If you won yesterday, you 'were' on a winning streak. But that was yesterday. If you know you will win today, why not bet it all? If you know you will lose today, you might consider not betting at all.

 

The problem with bet size is not the streaks, but the breakeven. If you have a 56% advantage on each bet, over 200 games you will win less than 50% about 17% of the time.You will win more than 60% about 17% of the time. Winning 100 and losing 100 with a 5% unit, you will lose 50% of your bankroll to the vigorish. (100 wins times $50 less 100 losses times $55 equals minus $500 on a $1,000 bankroll).You will lower your bet and never get even. I recommend playing no more than 2% of your bankroll. Anything over 2% is unacceptably risky, even for recreational bettors.

 

The reality is that each person may be trying to accomplish something different. If your goal is to afford entertainment and not go broke, that is entirely different than my goal of making a living. If you bet $100 a game on Monday night football to enjoy the game, it will cost you $5 a week if you can go 50-50. There is nothing wrong with that. It's cheaper than a movie. But that is entertainment expense, not an excellent investment vehicle.

 

To do sports betting in a serious way, you must treat it as you would any other business. In sports betting, your inventory is your cash. If you run out of cash, you are out of business. The old saying is that you should not use your rent money to bet with. That is true. But if you're betting for a living it is equally true that you must not use your gambling bankroll to pay the rent.

 

The amazing thing about sports betting is the return on investment (ROI) that is possible. And there is no magic. The return on investment is a function of the winning percentage and the amount that is invested. The amount invested is a function of how many games (investments) are bet and how much is bet on each game. It is the same as any business. How many widgets did you sell and how much did you gross per widget.

 

In my case, I averaged between 1,000 and 1,200 plays per year. Let's call it 1,000. My pain tolerance is a 1% unit. I will bet 1.1% of my bankroll on every bet. That means I will bet 1% of my money 1,000 times...1000% of my bankroll....That's 1000% of my bankroll. And again, I will bet 1000% of my bankroll. The same money 10 times in a year. That is why such a return is possible.

 

Now if I can win 56% of my plays, I will get a return on investment of nearly 100%. I will win 560 bets and lose 440 bets. I will pay a broker fee to the sportsbook of 44 bets. Therefore, I will win 76 units. (76 times 1% equals 76%). I will win $7.60 for every $100 that I bet. I will explain later how I end up with 100%.

 

A word here on that $7.60. I've seen many people try to make a living playing sports. Some of them think they can bet $100 a game and do it. Well, think about it. If they play 20 games a week, they will bet $2,000 and, if they are good, make $7.60 times 20=$152. At $200 a game, they can expect $308. That's pretty hard to live on. I think the minimum that must be bet is $500. That's only $760 a week and leaves no room for a bad streak. To bet $500 at 1%, you need $50,000. Like any business, you should continue to invest some of the profits to grow the business.

 

As soon as you can draw from the business, you should put yourself on a salary. That way you can know what to expect for an income and won't be bothered by the short term vagaries of Lady Luck.

 

You just need to know the number of bets, the amount per bet, and the win percentage, and you will know what to pay the IRS next year.

 

After 19 years, I know the number of plays I have each year. I know what my bet size is. And with 1,000 plays, the standard deviation for my win percentage is 2. So I know I will win between 55% and 57%. Sounds rather dull when I put it that way. And I guess it actually is. Bernard Baruch, the great financier, said he always looked for boring businesses. They were well run, without surprises and he knew what to expect.

 

I know what to expect. With a 56% expectation, your bankroll would reach a new high only 5% of the time. Nineteen out of 20 days you will be below your bankroll high. The novice thinks you should have more money each day. I also know that with a 56% win rate and 100 bets a month, I will lose money every 9th month. Good money management is aided by knowing what to expect.

 

As a final note on bet size, I should add that I used a plateau system.

 

I bet 1% of my bank and continue to flat bet until my bank grows by at least 25%. Then I recalculate the 1%. Thus if I started with $10,000, I would bet $100 a game until my bank grows to at least $12,500. At that point, I would refigure my unit to $125. It would stay there until I reached at least $15,625. That way my actual risk reward ratio doesn't get too high. The other thing that I do that is unique and rather arguable is that I never lowered my bet. Remember, if you vary the bet, your breakeven goes up. At a 1% unit and 19 year's experience, I'm comfortable that I can ride through a losing streak. If you lose 10 games at $200 a bet and lower the bet to $180, you must win 12.2 bets to get back to even. That is how I got my 100% annual ROI. My actual bet went up during the year as my bankroll reached higher plateaus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the key differences between sport betting (or any other betting) and trading is you have to 'actively participate' to get in and to get out too.

 

Dunno this may have been mentioned in the poker thread, I didn't read that one. I believe Douglas talks about it in one of his books. Tied to this is that with most forms of betting you know exactly how much you have at stake and what the payout will be ...not so trading (though on the whole using fixed stops and targets lets you choose those parameters). IMO exits are so very much more important than entries.

 

Another thing that springs to mind is that sport betting is far from zero sum with a bookie setting odds.

 

Interesting post - the thing you highlight (bet size) and what that leads on to (risk of ruin) is key in both.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience is that the best traders are math and computer science folks. Certainly it is they who are getting the jobs at GS and the hedge funds. Those are the guys managing my investment portfolio. The fantasy of sports betters or poker players making good traders is a pipe dream based on the fact that anybody can be a sports better or poker player, but few can be a stat/arb guy or first in your class at MIT or Harvard, and pass the interview with Goldman or Cerberus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  aiki14 said:
My experience is that the best traders are math and computer science folks. Certainly it is they who are getting the jobs at GS and the hedge funds. Those are the guys managing my investment portfolio. The fantasy of sports betters or poker players making good traders is a pipe dream based on the fact that anybody can be a sports better or poker player, but few can be a stat/arb guy or first in your class at MIT or Harvard, and pass the interview with Goldman or Cerberus.

The old elitism is better argument. Ever read "When Genius Failed?"

 

I think sports bettors, poker players or garbage collectors can be outstanding traders managing their own capital and make a very handsome living. Not everyone wants to work for GS or has a need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  BlowFish said:

Another thing that springs to mind is that sport betting is far from zero sum with a bookie setting odds.

Trading isn't a zero sum game after commission. It's a negative expectancy game. The bookmaker takes a vigorish (5% for online operators, 10% for Vegas sportsbooks) and brokers take a commission. In fact, the odds are better with a bookie, because only the winners (you read that right, it's not the losers) pay the vigorish, but in trading, both sides pay a commission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  carcanaques said:
The old elitism is better argument. Ever read "When Genius Failed?"

 

I think sports bettors, poker players or garbage collectors can be outstanding traders managing their own capital and make a very handsome living. Not everyone wants to work for GS or has a need to.

 

I guess the reason for a book like "When Genius Failed" is because it is much rarer than "When Average Failed", given the choice I'll bet on genius, the LTC debacle not withstanding. That's an argument for diversification not a shot at intellect.

I have no doubt that sports bettors,poker players, or garbage men can be good traders, but it would be because they followed a good trading strategy and had discipline in their methodology, not because they were good gamblers or garbage men. I trade full time and will take a gambler on the other side of the trade over the Goldman guy anytime.

 

As a total off topic is it better or bettor? I wrote both a bunch of times and couldn't decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's bettor, not better. The first is a noun, the second an adverb. :)

 

I would rather have almost anyone (including professional self-directed traders) on the opposite side of my trade than a GS or Cerebus trader et.al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  aiki14 said:
My experience is that the best traders are math and computer science folks. Certainly it is they who are getting the jobs at GS and the hedge funds. Those are the guys managing my investment portfolio. The fantasy of sports betters or poker players making good traders is a pipe dream based on the fact that anybody can be a sports better or poker player, but few can be a stat/arb guy or first in your class at MIT or Harvard, and pass the interview with Goldman or Cerberus.

 

These people are not traders, they are trading system develpers. Its like comparing a race car driver with an auto mechanic. Give me a break .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Price is either gonna go up....or it's gonna go down.

 

I am going to be right or wrong....not worried about who is on the other side. All the theory and degrees in the world isn't gonna change price either moving up or down. I make the most intelligent decision I can...and back it up with a few bucks. That's trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  OAC said:
These people are not traders, they are trading system develpers. Its like comparing a race car driver with an auto mechanic. Give me a break .

 

Sorry but I don't agree, and I believe your analogy doesn't hold up. In the first case we are all trading system developers in one form or another even if the system is throwing darts at a bunch of symbols, and I watch the guys who develop the system work the trade desk all the time. You may be thinking of the guys who design the black boxes. Maybe they are the "mechanics" and some other individual pulls the trigger, and at some hedge funds that might be the case, but the top traders develop their own systems and pull their own triggers. Trader Monthly puts out a list of the top 100 traders every year, take a look at their resumes, driver/mechanics all.

here's a link:

http://www.traderdaily.com/magazine/article/5584.html

 

The "give me a break" comment was unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  aiki14 said:
My experience is that the best traders are math and computer science folks. Certainly it is they who are getting the jobs at GS and the hedge funds. Those are the guys managing my investment portfolio. The fantasy of sports betters or poker players making good traders is a pipe dream based on the fact that anybody can be a sports better or poker player, but few can be a stat/arb guy or first in your class at MIT or Harvard, and pass the interview with Goldman or Cerberus.

 

Listen, I was a math and computer science major at one of top engineering college in the country.(Ranked higher than MIT by NY Times)

These guys walking around with differential equations in their heads and tripping over chairs in the cafeteria don't make good traders. You have to trust me on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  OAC said:
Listen, I was a math and computer science major at one of top engineering college in the country.(Ranked higher than MIT by NY Times)

These guys walking around with differential equations in their heads and tripping over chairs in the cafeteria don't make good traders. You have to trust me on that one.

 

The NY Times doesn't rank colleges, they use the US News and World Report rankings. Best engineering program MIT, been that way for years.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/topprogs_withphd_brief.php

 

The guys sitting at the trading desk at Goldman, Merrill, Cerberus and the like are stat/arb math guys from MIT and Harvard statistically overrepresented. You have to trust me on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  aiki14 said:
The NY Times doesn't rank colleges, they use the US News and World Report rankings. Best engineering program MIT, been that way for years.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/topprogs_withphd_brief.php

 

The guys sitting at the trading desk at Goldman, Merrill, Cerberus and the like are stat/arb math guys from MIT and Harvard statistically overrepresented. You have to trust me on that one.

 

May be your are on their side and happy to collect a secured paycheck.

I don't know how long you have been on this forum, most of us are entrepreneurs and Goldman, Harvard, Merril don't impress us.:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  OAC said:
May be your are on their side and happy to collect a secured paycheck.

I don't know how long you have been on this forum, most of us are entrepreneurs and Goldman, Harvard, Merril don't impress us.:o

 

I have been on the forum 2 weeks, I am an entrepreneur as well, people who make billions impress me. Especially in the arena where I choose currently to endeavor.

I am done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

By and large, the power IBs don't speculate in E-minis like many of us do. They use very complex trading systems, and hedges, to capture a small dollar profit that can be large because of the size they play with. Their objectives driving those trades differ from us self-directed folk and they employ very bright minds from all the best schools to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  aiki14 said:
I have been on the forum 2 weeks, I am an entrepreneur as well, people who make billions impress me. Especially in the arena where I choose currently to endeavor.

I am done.

 

Welcome to the club then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  OAC said:
May be your are on their side and happy to collect a secured paycheck.

I don't know how long you have been on this forum, most of us are entrepreneurs and Goldman, Harvard, Merril don't impress us.:o

 

 

:beer:AMEN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have seen, most traders whether quant or prop based come from a mathematical or programming background. (not all but most)

 

The fact is that automated strategies are the norm amongst instituions which ends up being the majority of the volume traded each day. All system developers I have encountered so far are all traders are well in some way or another. Each has their own way of approaching and trading the markets.

 

However, the best traders I have seen are those with a good balance of mechanical and discretionary. The ones who are able to understand when to trust the system and when not to are the ones that can avoid massive drawdowns. Controlling risk is perhaps one of the most important factors in trading successfully.

 

I think a discretionary trader with a non-math background can still find the edge in charts. Many hedge funds employ similar strategies so when they are wrong, you are likely to see a good sell-off or short covering. Hence a trend?

 

One of the main strategies I like to employ at the moment is countering the typical trading idea. In other words, strategies that are based on pattern failures, breakout failures, price rejection, etc... Many intraday strategies I am developing exploit the mistakes of others and knowing that either buy or sell orders will trigger. I do this over multiple timeframes.

 

I recently had a chance to read the Turtle System position sizing formula which I think is a good way to manage risk. Whether or not a retail trader uses this formula, I think it is important to have a position sizing system per strategy. Whether this is based on the size of your capital, volatility, winning % of your strategy, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  aiki14 said:
I have been on the forum 2 weeks, I am an entrepreneur as well, people who make billions impress me. Especially in the arena where I choose currently to endeavor.

 

I guess you are may be only abour 20, or 21 years old ?

Meet our long-time member James_gsx, he recently turned 20 and he thinks he is over the hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  OAC said:
I guess you are may be only abour 20, or 21 years old ?

Meet our long-time member James_gsx, he recently turned 20 and he thinks he is over the hill.

 

Is that supposed to make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.