Is it possible to "work" as a gambler and live off the profits?

[drawingthesun]

Since I started investing on Just-Dice I was curious too about making money gambling, I gambled a little and watched in awe as Celeste cleaned us out.

So I wrote a simulator for dice strategy, and the results are you always loss.

In fact, even if there is no house edge, the fact that your bankroll is smaller than the house means you still lose. Yes thats right even with 0% house edge the casino still wins because they can recover more than you.

Poker is the only game gamblers have been playing long term that is winnable, but you need to be really good. Also most people I know that played poker for a living are miserable. My poker friend that used to make a living at the local casino is now far happier he's running his own business. He might play poker every now and then but its not putting food on the table so he is far happier.

[HollowIP]

The key I've found is knowing when to stop. What's good about gambling online or something is you don't need to travel to a casino or something every time you want to play. So for example on Just-Dice. Get ahead 1 bitcent, or so (depending on your funds) and then stop, cash out. Come back again at a different point and try the same. It's a much slower process, but I feel the 'odds' of coming out up are much greater than sitting there and continuing on the same run.

[Dabs]

Food for thought: If you bet zero (or some other low number, like 1 satoshi) and you lose, did you really lose?

[infested999]

Food for thought: If you bet zero (or some other low number, like 1 satoshi) and you lose, did you really lose?

That's a question left for the philosophers to answer.

[darkmule]

Poker is the only game gamblers have been playing long term that is winnable, but you need to be really good. Also most people I know that played poker for a living are miserable. My poker friend that used to make a living at the local casino is now far happier he's running his own business. He might play poker every now and then but its not putting food on the table so he is far happier.

Also note:  many "poker pros," even some "names" you see on TV, are more proficient at borrowing money and not paying it back than they are at playing poker.  There are also the ones who aren't outright degenerates are good at negotiating backing deals that are favorable to them.  (The former, of course, is degenerate while the latter is sharp dealing, an admirable trait for a poker player.)

But the variance being as insane for large-field high buy-in tournaments as it is, anyone who plays in them regularly who is not bankrolled for them (that is is not a multi-millionaire already) and who does not lower variance by a variety of means including backing deals, is a fool, not a professional.

There are a lot of smart or even semi-smart people who can find some mathematical edges here and there in casinos or in poker who would still be insane to be a "professional gambler."  While these kind of math chops are necessary to do it, there are much more important also necessary factors.  The proper temperament is of the utmost importance.  That is probably the single biggest leak for "professionals," whether actual or self-declared.  Many otherwise excellent players are brought down by substance abuse problems, getting scammed by degenerates, and not really ironically, gambling itself.

For instance, Stu Ungar, commonly regarded as one of the best if not the best no-limit holdem tournament players of all time, gambled away millions of his winnings on sports betting (where he was a terrible fish) and snorted up much of the rest, ending up dead young and broke.

[CasinoWinner]

2 weeks ago I had 0.5 btc. I got that up to 3 btc.

Heres me doing that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU4ikKcuh5g

Video I learnt to do that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEs7G3Vku-4

You cant really lose with this method, because if you use the referal link from the tutorial video, you get back whatever you lose.

[cp1]

The only reason that bitcoin minefield "strategy" is posted on youtube is to get people to click the referral links.  The only person who's going to profit is the person getting the money from the referrals.

[infested999]

The only reason that bitcoin minefield "strategy" is posted on youtube is to get people to click the referral links.  The only person who's going to profit is the person getting the money from the referrals.

I can't wait to hear the next "minefield strategy", it can't be dumber than this one!

[xetsr]

2 weeks ago I had 0.5 btc. I got that up to 3 btc.

Heres me doing that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU4ikKcuh5g

Video I learnt to do that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEs7G3Vku-4

You cant really lose with this method, because if you use the referal link from the tutorial video, you get back whatever you lose.

Nobody here is stupid enough to fall for that. Nice try though.

[Dabs]

I was on chat the other day. I said, "Hey, I'm a professional dice gambler. That doesn't mean I make money though, it only means that I gamble other people's money on dice. Therefore, I am a professional."

I'm just having fun ok.

[byronbb]

There are guys who beat sports. It is not a life of walking around in a big suit with a bunch of cash and betting games on a hunch. It's a life of doing computer programs and heavy statistics. Try looking at "Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting", "Conquering Risk: Attacking Vegas and Wall Street" for some information. You will be surprised to learn that a sharp who can beat spreads at 55% is very good (ie they lose almost as much as they win). And more so, with such an edge they should only every risk a maximum of $550 with a bankroll of $10,000.

[darkmule]

There are guys who beat sports. It is not a life of walking around in a big suit with a bunch of cash and betting games on a hunch. It's a life of doing computer programs and heavy statistics. Try looking at "Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting", "Conquering Risk: Attacking Vegas and Wall Street" for some information. You will be surprised to learn that a sharp who can beat spreads at 55% is very good (ie they lose almost as much as they win). And more so, with such an edge they should only every risk a maximum of $550 with a bankroll of $10,000.

Actually, you should bet less, or have a larger bankroll.  That bet looks to me like a Kelly Criterion bet, or more like a half-Kelly.  This bankroll maximizing strategy might be okay if you can replace that $10K if you lose it, but if you're actually a "professional," you have to make your monthly nut (rent food casino expenses) and if your bankroll takes too big a dent, you're going to have to go get a real job.

This is an okay strategy if you're starting out with $10K that you hope to turn into a real bankroll, and where it won't be a tragedy if you lose all of it or at least a large chunk of it.  Even with half-Kelly betting, you are going to run into runs of horrific luck from time to time.

[byronbb]

There are guys who beat sports. It is not a life of walking around in a big suit with a bunch of cash and betting games on a hunch. It's a life of doing computer programs and heavy statistics. Try looking at "Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting", "Conquering Risk: Attacking Vegas and Wall Street" for some information. You will be surprised to learn that a sharp who can beat spreads at 55% is very good (ie they lose almost as much as they win). And more so, with such an edge they should only every risk a maximum of $550 with a bankroll of $10,000.

Actually, you should bet less, or have a larger bankroll.  That bet looks to me like a Kelly Criterion bet, or more like a half-Kelly.  This bankroll maximizing strategy might be okay if you can replace that $10K if you lose it, but if you're actually a "professional," you have to make your monthly nut (rent food casino expenses) and if your bankroll takes too big a dent, you're going to have to go get a real job.

This is an okay strategy if you're starting out with $10K that you hope to turn into a real bankroll, and where it won't be a tragedy if you lose all of it or at least a large chunk of it.  Even with half-Kelly betting, you are going to run into runs of horrific luck from time to time.

You are correct.

[Mooshire]

Its easy with skill based games to feel like you're always making money, but you always lose eventually

[KingOfSports]

There are guys who beat sports. It is not a life of walking around in a big suit with a bunch of cash and betting games on a hunch. It's a life of doing computer programs and heavy statistics. Try looking at "Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting", "Conquering Risk: Attacking Vegas and Wall Street" for some information. You will be surprised to learn that a sharp who can beat spreads at 55% is very good (ie they lose almost as much as they win). And more so, with such an edge they should only every risk a maximum of $550 with a bankroll of $10,000.

Conquering Risk is a very good book, bought it on google play for $9.99, well worth the read. As he stated, most of your plays should only be 1-3% of your total bankroll, with top plays (like weekly or monthly plays) being 4 or 5%. I personally very rarely will go as high as 7% however last year in 2012 I made a total of four 7% plays and went 3-1 with them. Thats the highest I will go.

[darkmule]

Its easy with skill based games to feel like you're always making money, but you always lose eventually

Actually, it always feels like you're getting the short end of the stick, losing to ridiculous bad luck, and getting shafted by absolutely ludicrous horrific streaks.  Then usually you tally it up at the end of the month and it's about where it should be.  But yes, you lose eventually, and more often sooner than later. 

The issue is not whether you lose sometimes, because you will.  The issue is whether, on net, your gains exceed your losses.  If over the long run, they don't, you're doing it wrong.

[Micon]

1)  "I make x amount per day doing x -EV gamble"  - no, you are not a pro and you will most certainly lose

2) "poker is unbeatable" - wrong, it is extremely beatable.  Just play the main event each year - massive edge, huge variance.  Just play drunk ppl at 1-2NL all over Vegas - extremely beatable, relatively boring & repetitive, beatable by a medium-skilled player for $10-$20/hr in 2013 playing at major casinos on "drunk nights" aka Thurs-Sun each week.

3)  Beating sports - it is done by very few - and I mean very fucking few.  Google Billy Walters.  Google Haralobos Voulgarious Proly gotta spellcheck those.   These 2 kill it.  A handful of others beat it.  Millions claim to know their shit and lose each week.  

4) "beating poker knowing something no one else knows"  see:  Ben Lamb, Chance Kornuth, Jared Bleznick in PLO.  See Shaun Deeb in Open Face.  

[byronbb]

3)  Beating sports - it is done by very few - and I mean very fucking few.  Google Billy Walters.  Google Haralobos Voulgarious Proly gotta spellcheck those.   These 2 kill it.  A handful of others beat it.  Millions claim to know their shit and lose each week.  

No there are lots of guys grinding sports. Making a lot of money of course is hard. Guys making a 50k-200k a year are more common than you think.

[KingOfSports]

1)  "I make x amount per day doing x -EV gamble"  - no, you are not a pro and you will most certainly lose

2) "poker is unbeatable" - wrong, it is extremely beatable.  Just play the main event each year - massive edge, huge variance.  Just play drunk ppl at 1-2NL all over Vegas - extremely beatable, relatively boring & repetitive, beatable by a medium-skilled player for $10-$20/hr in 2013 playing at major casinos on "drunk nights" aka Thurs-Sun each week.

3)  Beating sports - it is done by very few - and I mean very fucking few.  Google Billy Walters.  Google Haralobos Voulgarious Proly gotta spellcheck those.   These 2 kill it.  A handful of others beat it.  Millions claim to know their shit and lose each week.  

4) "beating poker knowing something no one else knows"  see:  Ben Lamb, Chance Kornuth, Jared Bleznick in PLO.  See Shaun Deeb in Open Face.  

Sportsbetting cannot be a profession unless you live in Europe and have access to Pinnacle Sports, the only sportsbook that will accept all action and will never limit you. Otherwise, all vegas books and every US book will limit you. I advise no one to try and make a living off sports, you will get limited time and time again if you are actually good at handicapping. I've been limited already by one of the biggest US online books, Heritage Sports. I've made about $10,000 + a used Mustang I bought and still, I keep it a hobby nothing more. I am a full time finance college student working a part time job as well and do handicapping on the side. Some months it pays the bills sometimes it takes the bill money away, luckily my bank account has enough to cover losing months. Poker is the only option imo that you can make a living off of but it is VERY hard to do. Anyone thinking about trying to make a living off gambling? Well have you looked at a stock within the last year? Bet that stock has increased by 5% or more, say you invested $10k into it, well thats an easy $500. Trust me when I say there are better +EV alternatives than gambling.

[KingOfSports]

3)  Beating sports - it is done by very few - and I mean very fucking few.  Google Billy Walters.  Google Haralobos Voulgarious Proly gotta spellcheck those.   These 2 kill it.  A handful of others beat it.  Millions claim to know their shit and lose each week.  

No there are lots of guys grinding sports. Making a lot of money of course is hard. Guys making a 50k-200k a year are more common than you think.

The problem is when you make ~25k off a book they will limit you, Vegas books are slower to do so but will do it eventually again limiting your profit potential.