Gambling as a profession: there's people who live out of gambling?

[TimeTeller]

Gambling as a profession I thought about this too , I some would he must have lot of experience and a lot of money for backup gambling as uncertain results so cant depend on gambling money for living , I know some who do gambling along with other incomes , like trading and gambling or a freelancer and gambling

Well there are people who make a living through gambling, they treated it as their main source of income. They not rely mostly on luck but by their skills and strategy. This is not easy and only few people can do this and for normal gambler that is having a hard time to win its impossible to earn through gambling only.

Just by searching in google, you will find out that there are several professional gamblers that live this kind of lifestyle.
But I believe, most are into sports betting as the chance of winning is higher on this game.
If you have the experience, knowledge of the particular sport you are betting on, this one will give you the most advantage in gambling.

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12280555/how-billy-walters-became-sports-most-successful-controversial-bettor

https://www.thatericalper.com/2019/09/26/6-tips-to-make-a-living-betting-on-sports-in-2019/

https://globalextramoney.com/special-reports/make-a-living-sports-betting

[1714765916]

1714765916

[1714765916]

1714765916

[maydna]

Gambling as a profession I thought about this too , I some would he must have lot of experience and a lot of money for backup gambling as uncertain results so cant depend on gambling money for living , I know some who do gambling along with other incomes , like trading and gambling or a freelancer and gambling

We don't know if the professional gamblers can have much money for living. We can search the news about them, but I don't think that many professional gamblers will tell about their life and how they use gambling as a profession. They will keep that secret for themselves and not saying to the stranger. I guess that they are a master in poker or sports betting because that gambling games can be learned although it is difficult. But I am sure that they have much experience in gambling and of course, they have a high-skill in gambling. And they are living with us without anybody knows that they are professional gamblers.

[Debonaire217]

Based on my understanding of the technical definition of profession, gambling cannot be considered as part of it. In the first place, having a profession is becoming reliable to malpractice, and having a license. In this case, having a license in gambling isn't needed, you can gamble anytime and nothing would stop you. Also, you are not reliable to malpractice, whenever you lose, you win, you aren't need to be responsible to something because what you just need to care about is yourself and your funds. So, there's no one having a profession as gambling but a passion as gambling could it could be.

[Betwrong]

So you set your increase on loss as well as multiplier pretty high, and start small, the bare minimum. Given fast enough autobet, you wait for an outlier which will come sooner or later and bring you dough, like a couple percent at once. Then you increase your safety margin. Indeed, you may still bust but you must be extremely unlucky to end like that

I'm starting to understand your point, but still it's hard without real examples. I mean, the bankroll, the initial bet, the increase on loss, what are they? What do you mean by being "extremely unlucky", 10 losses in a row with 50% win chance, or 20 losses in a row? Because both cases can be called extremely unlucky ones, but there is a huge difference between them. I personally encountered 16 losses/wins in a row, so I know it's possible, but I would call 20 losses in a row with 50% win chance a really unlikely event (it is expected to happen once every 1,048,576 bets on a site with 1% house edge)

10 and 20 losses in a row on the same multiplier (aka win chance) are not the same (pardon the pun). Hitting 10 losses with a 50% win chance is not something that I would seriously consider "extremely unlucky" as you will likely see it within an hour or, if you are extremely lucky (sorry), in a day at best. Extremely unlucky to me is more like hitting the killing streak in a year or so (given the particular betting speed). Remember, you earn through variance, not by grinding along and collecting dust per hour, per day, or whatever

Within that timeframe, you will see enough outliers to increase your deposit sufficiently (actually, like many times, as this thread clearly proves, unless you hit the max bet limit). That will allow you to survive ever longer and longer losing streaks by changing your autobet settings accordingly in the process (let's call it escape adjustment). Indeed, everything said holds true only if the casino doesn't put piles of roadblocks on your way to success like disabling small bets, limiting bet speed, etc (and remains provably fair or just fair beyond the house edge at all times, of course)

That's technically all you need to know

Alright, I've read through that thread, and can say that I had similar thoughts at some point, but consider the following. When thinking that your winnings are constantly being added to your balance thus extending your survival times, calculate what percentage of your balance should be added to survive just one more loss. It appears that it is a shockingly big amount, equal to 100% of your initial balance. Now, to double your balance with a safe martingale setting you should make so many bets that hitting a longer losing streak that will kill you becomes very probable.

In short, if you can initially survive n losses, the likelihood of hitting an (n+1) losing streak is increasing faster than your balance is doubling.

[Triffin]

I can't really say if there are people who are gamblers by profession but i know there are people who live soley on gambling.  Funds they used from their day to day runnings and activities comes from gambling,  to some extent they are good at what they do, since they know that their livelihood depends on gambling they take out time to study the system of any offline or online casino they use thrn see if they can exploit any loopholes and for quite sometimes now it has been working for them

I don't think too that there are people who are being born to gamble. Sounds funny but if there are then it is destined to them to live for the sake of gambling .

Those professional gamblers can call gambling their profession but aside from gambling, for sure they have other sources of income and they are just gambling for either fun or to take more profit and that is why their are some who doesn't care if they lose on gambling because they have multiple sources of income that can cover their losses.

If some people were born to be gambler then others had a different role to play, a more productive one most probably and these people should not try to switch it with gamblers.  They can enjoy the game but riding a train that a person does not hold a ticket for or not even leads to his destination, is indeed meaningless and dangerous. Gambling is not a profession but just a game and long time players become old gamblers not professional.

[p3ppymon]

A question.
Do you think that professional poker players can be categorised as gamblers when they put some actual math into the game? Of course the gambling component is there when you need to play a flip, but there is more edge against the house (which in this case is the playing field).
Your thoughts please.

[deisik]

Within that timeframe, you will see enough outliers to increase your deposit sufficiently (actually, like many times, as this thread clearly proves, unless you hit the max bet limit). That will allow you to survive ever longer and longer losing streaks by changing your autobet settings accordingly in the process (let's call it escape adjustment). Indeed, everything said holds true only if the casino doesn't put piles of roadblocks on your way to success like disabling small bets, limiting bet speed, etc (and remains provably fair or just fair beyond the house edge at all times, of course)

That's technically all you need to know

Alright, I've read through that thread, and can say that I had similar thoughts at some point, but consider the following. When thinking that your winnings are constantly being added to your balance thus extending your survival times, calculate what percentage of your balance should be added to survive just one more loss. It appears that it is a shockingly big amount, equal to 100% of your initial balance. Now, to double your balance with a safe martingale setting you should make so many bets that hitting a longer losing streak that will kill you becomes very probable.

In short, if you can initially survive n losses, the likelihood of hitting an (n+1) losing streak is increasing faster than your balance is doubling

In fact, I can confirm that

But you consider only one variable, which is generally a good idea and the correct thing to do, though not in this case. Simply put, you don't have to keep all other settings the same from the outset of your martingale journey. And I don't do that either. Since the "likelihood of hitting an (n+1) losing streak is increasing faster than your balance is doubling", you can easily counterbalance this increase with other adjustments

Personally, I increase the win chance, and that gives me some peace of mind. You can do that too, but it still will be only in your mind, and purely psychological in nature because technically, this probability doesn't increase at all, no matter how many rolls you have made so far. In other words, you rolling for 30 years doesn't make the killing streak any closer for the simple reason it remains as far in the future as ever before (statistically speaking)

[Lucasgabd]

Within that timeframe, you will see enough outliers to increase your deposit sufficiently (actually, like many times, as this thread clearly proves, unless you hit the max bet limit). That will allow you to survive ever longer and longer losing streaks by changing your autobet settings accordingly in the process (let's call it escape adjustment). Indeed, everything said holds true only if the casino doesn't put piles of roadblocks on your way to success like disabling small bets, limiting bet speed, etc (and remains provably fair or just fair beyond the house edge at all times, of course)

That's technically all you need to know

Alright, I've read through that thread, and can say that I had similar thoughts at some point, but consider the following. When thinking that your winnings are constantly being added to your balance thus extending your survival times, calculate what percentage of your balance should be added to survive just one more loss. It appears that it is a shockingly big amount, equal to 100% of your initial balance. Now, to double your balance with a safe martingale setting you should make so many bets that hitting a longer losing streak that will kill you becomes very probable.

In short, if you can initially survive n losses, the likelihood of hitting an (n+1) losing streak is increasing faster than your balance is doubling

In fact, I can confirm that

But you consider only one variable, which is generally a good idea and the correct thing to do, though not in this case. Simply put, you don't have to keep all other settings the same from the outset of your martingale journey. And I don't do that either. Since the "likelihood of hitting an (n+1) losing streak is increasing faster than your balance is doubling", you can easily counterbalance this increase with other adjustments

Personally, I increase the win chance, and that gives me some peace of mind. You can do that too, but it still will be only in your mind, and purely psychological in nature because technically, this probability doesn't increase at all, no matter how many rolls you have made so far. In other words, you rolling for 30 years doesn't make the killing streak any closer for the simple reason it remains as far in the future as ever before (statistically speaking)

I bet (pun intended) that likelihood of losing streaks also changes from game to game.
specially because some games at the casino are designed in a way that player's edge is much smaller.

this is something to take into account too.

[Kasabus]

Gambling as a profession I thought about this too , I some would he must have lot of experience and a lot of money for backup gambling as uncertain results so cant depend on gambling money for living , I know some who do gambling along with other incomes , like trading and gambling or a freelancer and gambling

You can't try that experiment but you can never depend making a living in gambling when you don't have the skills.
In reality, gambling is not for us to win but for them to become profitable and just look at the reality that most of us are losers and few only are successful, you are lucky and good enough if you belong to the group of people who makes money in gambling.

[Ucy]

Gambling as a profession I thought about this too , I some would he must have lot of experience and a lot of money for backup gambling as uncertain results so cant depend on gambling money for living , I know some who do gambling along with other incomes , like trading and gambling or a freelancer and gambling

Well there are people who make a living through gambling, they treated it as their main source of income. They not rely mostly on luck but by their skills and strategy. This is not easy and only few people can do this and for normal gambler that is having a hard time to win its impossible to earn through gambling only.

Agree. The regular winners are likely few. Regular winners must be "extraordinarily" skillful/talented/unique in their particular games. They are also the best where they gamble.  I suspect they hide most times to remain profitable otherwise most gamblers and house would try to avoid them.

[Gheka]

Gambling as a profession I thought about this too , I some would he must have lot of experience and a lot of money for backup gambling as uncertain results so cant depend on gambling money for living , I know some who do gambling along with other incomes , like trading and gambling or a freelancer and gambling

Well there are people who make a living through gambling, they treated it as their main source of income. They not rely mostly on luck but by their skills and strategy. This is not easy and only few people can do this and for normal gambler that is having a hard time to win its impossible to earn through gambling only.

Agree. The regular winners are likely few. Regular winners must be "extraordinarily" skillful/talented/unique in their particular games. They are also the best where they gamble.  I suspect they hide most times to remain profitable otherwise most gamblers and house would try to avoid them.

Those who are good at gambling will certainly hide their profits, sometimes they will even create traps to let the casino think they are losing while it is only a small amount of their victory, showing too much as you might say, the casino will not allow them to play or, more unfortunately, they will become targets for the casino to eliminate. And we can see that even when we consider gambling as a career, it still has a lot of trouble and risk, don't think we are good when casinos are where other people do business, they are very cunning foxes

[Betwrong]

~ Since the "likelihood of hitting an (n+1) losing streak is increasing faster than your balance is doubling", you can easily counterbalance this increase with other adjustments

Personally, I increase the win chance, and that gives me some peace of mind.

But you do realize that with this you're extending the time it will take for the ability to survive one additional loss, right?

You can do that too, but it still will be only in your mind, and purely psychological in nature because technically, this probability doesn't increase at all, no matter how many rolls you have made so far. In other words, you rolling for 30 years doesn't make the killing streak any closer for the simple reason it remains as far in the future as ever before (statistically speaking)

Yes, it's a known fact that however many bets you've made the probability of something happening in the next several bets always remains the same. And yet it's possible to predict with a high likelihood that something will happen within a certain amount of bets. For example, we will surely hit at least one winning roll within 50 bets with 50% win chance. And we, either consciously or unconsciously, exploit that knowledge continuously, in whatever situations, in our everyday life.

[deisik]

~ Since the "likelihood of hitting an (n+1) losing streak is increasing faster than your balance is doubling", you can easily counterbalance this increase with other adjustments

Personally, I increase the win chance, and that gives me some peace of mind.

But you do realize that with this you're extending the time it will take for the ability to survive one additional loss, right?

You won't be able to bet after you reach the max bet amount anyway

Apart from that, it works like the law of diminishing returns, i.e. after you reach a certain threshold, it doesn't make sense to increase the losing streak any more. For example, if you are not going to hit it within 3 years (statistically speaking), you may rightfully assume you are not going to bust any time soon. Indeed, it doesn't mean that you can't but nevertheless it is a pretty solid assumption. Then you can start building on that (and keep fingers crossed that the casino won't run away with your money in the process)

And yet it's possible to predict with a high likelihood that something will happen within a certain amount of bets. For example, we will surely hit at least one winning roll within 50 bets with 50% win chance

You are not going to roll for 30 years on end, so you should keep things balanced in terms of risk and reward

[Betwrong]

~ Since the "likelihood of hitting an (n+1) losing streak is increasing faster than your balance is doubling", you can easily counterbalance this increase with other adjustments

Personally, I increase the win chance, and that gives me some peace of mind.

But you do realize that with this you're extending the time it will take for the ability to survive one additional loss, right?

You won't be able to bet after you reach the max bet amount anyway

Apart from that, it works like the law of diminishing returns, i.e. after you reach a certain threshold, it doesn't make sense to increase the losing streak any more. For example, if you are not going to hit it within 3 years (statistically speaking), you may rightfully assume you are not going to bust any time soon. Indeed, it doesn't mean that you can't but nevertheless it is a pretty solid assumption. Then you can start building on that (and keep fingers crossed that the casino won't run away with your money in the process)

And yet it's possible to predict with a high likelihood that something will happen within a certain amount of bets. For example, we will surely hit at least one winning roll within 50 bets with 50% win chance

You are not going to roll for 30 years on end, so you should keep things balanced in terms of risk and reward

I agree, and, in fact, I periodically, once or twice per year, calculate how much can I earn with "safe settings", such ones so that it would be highly improbable to lose all my balance. And the result is always the same. Even if there were no restrictions on the site's side, and even if I could roll for 30 years on end, I wouldn't be able to earn a significant amount this way.

[The-Devil]

Yes, there are people whose only means of making money is gambling. They are professional gamblers. If they win, they gamble and lose. But I think gambling is not a good profession. It should not be accepted as a profession. However, many have accepted gambling as a profession. Gambling is good but it is not good as a profession.

[CodyAlfaridzi]

but is there such a thing as professional gamblers?

people who make a living onlyout of gambling (online or on rl)?

resources and comments on that are really welcome.

I don't think so. Their income must be irregular. It's actually fine. Freelancers do have irregular income too. The problem is gambler is risking their capital. Once they had a bad streak and lost their capital, it could mean losing your income source too.

A question.
Do you think that professional poker players can be categorised as gamblers when they put some actual math into the game? Of course the gambling component is there when you need to play a flip, but there is more edge against the house (which in this case is the playing field).
Your thoughts please.

Of course, why would you think otherwise? Even if they're counting the cards, it's still a game of chance. They're just counting their risk, will it be a good bet, etc. It doesn't make the game free of luck factor either.

[deisik]

You are not going to roll for 30 years on end, so you should keep things balanced in terms of risk and reward

I agree, and, in fact, I periodically, once or twice per year, calculate how much can I earn with "safe settings", such ones so that it would be highly improbable to lose all my balance. And the result is always the same. Even if there were no restrictions on the site's side, and even if I could roll for 30 years on end, I wouldn't be able to earn a significant amount this way

That's because you don't take into account the effect of outliers

As I've gotten from your previous posts (and the posts of others, for the record), you and many other people here are thinking about martingale in the wrong way. Basically, you calculate how much you would make hourly, daily, weekly, etc in a more or less consistent way. But this is a wrong approach to martingale served right as it doesn't consider or account for the potentially destructive power of outliers

It is them which kill so many aspiring martingalers as the latter obviously neglect their destructive potential. On the other hand, if you come prepared for them, you will not only be able to survive them but to actually earn something. You just need to keep them contained and make them work for you, not the other way around. Outliers are a reality of gambling, and whether they kill you or heal you (from being the prey to the casino) is up to you

[iamsheikhadil]

Gambling as a profession I thought about this too , I some would he must have lot of experience and a lot of money for backup gambling as uncertain results so cant depend on gambling money for living , I know some who do gambling along with other incomes , like trading and gambling or a freelancer and gambling

Well there are people who make a living through gambling, they treated it as their main source of income. They not rely mostly on luck but by their skills and strategy. This is not easy and only few people can do this and for normal gambler that is having a hard time to win its impossible to earn through gambling only.

I watched the movie 21 and I think there are actually people who uses methods like counting to determine future bets and it is not even illegal! Like strategies like those can be used and as Sherlock says, if you can know every information of the present, you would be able to calculate the future perfectly but it is only possible on offline casinos.

[Webetcoins]

Yes, there are people whose only means of making money is gambling. They are professional gamblers. If they win, they gamble and lose. But I think gambling is not a good profession. It should not be accepted as a profession. However, many have accepted gambling as a profession. Gambling is good but it is not good as a profession.

Even the professional gamblers at times go through high losses and that is because of the house. House never wants any gambler to win jackpot or a huge amount of money. They try all possible tricks to get back the money from gambler. Considering the side effects of gambling, it shall be banned at least for young people. There are numerous cases where ended up on roads because of gambling.

[Betwrong]

You are not going to roll for 30 years on end, so you should keep things balanced in terms of risk and reward

I agree, and, in fact, I periodically, once or twice per year, calculate how much can I earn with "safe settings", such ones so that it would be highly improbable to lose all my balance. And the result is always the same. Even if there were no restrictions on the site's side, and even if I could roll for 30 years on end, I wouldn't be able to earn a significant amount this way

That's because you don't take into account the effect of outliers

As I've gotten from your previous posts (and the posts of others, for the record), you and many other people here are thinking about martingale in the wrong way. Basically, you calculate how much you would make hourly, daily, weekly, etc in a more or less consistent way. But this is a wrong approach to martingale served right as it doesn't consider or account for the potentially destructive power of outliers

It is them which kill so many aspiring martingalers as the latter obviously neglect their destructive potential. On the other hand, if you come prepared for them, you will not only be able to survive them but to actually earn something. You just need to keep them contained and make them work for you, not the other way around. Outliers are a reality of gambling, and whether they kill you or heal you (from being the prey to the casino) is up to you

But gambling is not trading. Even in trading it's hard to predict when those outliers will occur, let alone in gambling where, in my opinion, it's simply impossible. I mean, there is a simple formula to follow in order to be successful in trading, "Buy low, sell high", and yet we fail most of the time because there are too many factors to consider before calling a price either "low" or "high". But in gambling we don't even have such a formula. Or do we?