Can selecting high odds bets at random possibly yield more profit than a system?

[TheRealAwesome31312]

This is part of a month long experiment I'm running.

Basically, it will answer the following question: Can selecting sports bets with high odds (I'm talking 2.0+) randomly possibly be more profitable in a month than following an online betting system?

In this experiment, I will tail an online tipster's "Free picks". This particular tipster sells "premium tips" at expensive rates of $30 per tip per day. Basically, I hypothesize that selecting bets by random chance will yield better rates. This is because on reddit, there are many people who have made the claim that because this guy advertises sportsbooks on his site, it means that the books he advertises offer him a percentage of your losses if you bet there. On the contrary, I could have also faded this tipster.

I will also include a group that tails bets from reddit, mimicking this experiment . I will use this as a control group. It will tail the most popular tips, that have the least disagreements.

What do you guys think, can I beat online tipsters by selecting random tips?

[bitgolden]

Now, what you are trying to achieve is not exactly the same as what the medium article is talking about. He is talking about winners and you are talking about winning in sportsbetting which is about the same and if you put the same amount of money into each bet that you will most likely come out on top but the sportsbooks give those odds because of a reason and they have the right to do so because they need to have a house edge to win. If you win 173 and lose 64 (can't remember the number right now) like the article there is a chance you will not make as much on your winners as lose on your losers because of the odds.

The once in a while 2.0+ may not be enough to actually make it worthwhile and profitable. However if you want to test this out I would be watching it close.

[bitmover]

You will never beat the house.
You can increase your odds, but I doubt it will be profitable.

Gambling is about having fun, not making money, imo

[AjithBtc]

Selecting high odds will get you winning, and the earning made out of selecting high odds will be big than what we earn out of the odd suggestion from system. One cannot expect winning to happen continuously on selecting higher odds, while the same happens with the system suggested odds. For anyone with plans of picking the higher odds it is always good to go with the live betting, because we can predict better and bet even between the games.

[Oilacris]

What do you guys think, can I beat online tipsters by selecting random tips?

You can beat him up if you do select or make bets which do have corresponding analysis rather than making a random one.

Also,you can beat him up if you wont charge any fee and what the hell with $30 per day when it comes to tips.No matter where you
go even if its high odds,random or having a system it wont still guarantee you to win at the end of the day.

[TheRealAwesome31312]

I didn't necessarily say beating the house or getting a net positive profit. Just talking about which methods yield more profit (which could just as well be less loss, in terms of negative numbers)

[Cacingkemi]

In the world of sportsbook must be more careful, if you take random bets from someone tipsters it usually wins but you also must be to examine the extent of the team's at sport. Sometimes it can lose but IMO it doesn't depend on the high or low odds of the house, I often did it a year ago.

I didn't necessarily say beating the house or getting a net positive profit. Just talking about which methods yield more profit (which could just as well be less loss, in terms of negative numbers)

Methods for making a profit depends on you, if you take high odds you must be to use martingale strategy to make a profit.

[actmyname]

If you compile the data from the peak odds on any particular bet from as many sportsbooks as you're willing to use and aggregate the payouts against the empirical % of winning, you can create a model to determine if there's any edge. However marginal it may be.

The bottleneck would be to scrape that data. Or, if you want less precision for less work, you could just scrape "best odds" from some source online rather than the individual sportsbooks, but the queries would not yield the peak odds unless you're running it constantly. (even then, some sites are not monitored)

[TheRealAwesome31312]

If you compile the data from the peak odds on any particular bet from as many sportsbooks as you're willing to use and aggregate the payouts against the empirical % of winning, you can create a model to determine if there's any edge. However marginal it may be.

The bottleneck would be to scrape that data. Or, if you want less precision for less work, you could just scrape "best odds" from some source online rather than the individual sportsbooks, but the queries would not yield the peak odds unless you're running it constantly. (even then, some sites are not monitored)

Thank you, this is the kind of response I was seeking

[nakamura12]

You will never beat the house.
You can increase your odds, but I doubt it will be profitable.

Gambling is about having fun, not making money, imo

Yes it's difinitely true that it's about having fun. The only thing that can beat the house is luck. If, there is a lucky person then he'll surely beat the house but we all know that no one had a great chance of getting lucky when it comes to gambling or other stuff that also base on luck when winning huge amount for example.