An analogy in gambling.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Do you believe this analogy as to sport betting? that sometimes, casino bets with higher stakes are likely to not cut it? Considering the amount that a certain multiplier could reach?

I've known a certain group of gamblers that would sing their praises to games with lower potential winnings. At some point, I'm stuck in-between the fact that they're either lucky with games of little potential winnings and it happens on almost every winning tickets? Again, if you're also in doubt to their belief, is their winning tickets on the low outcome always a coincidence? Also, if the casinos are always cautious as to not incuring too much to pay, how about tickets with $800k winnings?

[Russlenat]

Sportsbook does only have to balance the action from both sides in order to be profitable as their main income is the juice or vigorish. It's not us beating the book here unlike playing in casino games where we play against the house.

Big odds with big payout, mathematically, the percentage of winning on our side is lower, so it will hit 50% most of the time. In terms of payouts, that depends on the sportsbook as they set their own limit, but those huge sportsbook could accept a million dollar bet, but as mentioned, they'll balance the action so their funds will not be affected and will just get the juice from the winning bets.

[alani123]

If you want to play a so called "strategy" for sports betting, you need to bet on low or mid odds matches because otherwise it's impossible to keep predicting reliably and you'll lose track. Generally allowing too much chance in your predictions takes away any sense of strategy. A few predictions per week at most is at the limits of doing anything strategic.

The thing is though, the higher the odds in gambling, the more impossible a bet becomes to keep earning you even if you win. You have to consider that in a casino game, there's a certain amount of house edge. For example crypto dice usually has 1%. If you use the same method to count house edge on sports bets, the edge is around 10%. Which is crazy high. No matter the strategy one can have, the way house edge gets reflected in odds, makes high odds bets such as parlay multi bet slips even less appealing. If the so called house edge of bets was lower the multipliers for such hard to hit bets would have been much much higher. Just something to consider when you're building those parlay slips, so don't chase high odds too much.

[o48o]

Do you believe this analogy as to sport betting? that sometimes, casino bets with higher stakes are likely to not cut it? Considering the amount that a certain multiplier could reach?

I've known a certain group of gamblers that would sing their praises to games with lower potential winnings. At some point, I'm stuck in-between the fact that they're either lucky with games of little potential winnings and it happens on almost every winning tickets? Again, if you're also in doubt to their belief, is their winning tickets on the low outcome always a coincidence? Also, if the casinos are always cautious as to not incuring too much to pay, how about tickets with $800k winnings?

I don't understand what this would have to do with belief? Higher multipliers are harder to win, that's why they are higher multipliers. If casino / bookmaker allows higher multipliers, they are counting in that the probability of how low your changes are to get it. And they are often lower than we can comprehend.

And it's not like one huge pay off once in a while would break their bank, after all they are dealing with millions of smaller wins daily. Both giving them out and keeping the lost bets.

[Distinctin]

Do you believe this analogy as to sport betting? that sometimes, casino bets with higher stakes are likely to not cut it? Considering the amount that a certain multiplier could reach?

I've known a certain group of gamblers that would sing their praises to games with lower potential winnings. At some point, I'm stuck in-between the fact that they're either lucky with games of little potential winnings and it happens on almost every winning tickets? Again, if you're also in doubt to their belief, is their winning tickets on the low outcome always a coincidence? Also, if the casinos are always cautious as to not incuring too much to pay, how about tickets with $800k winnings?

I don't understand what this would have to do with belief? Higher multipliers are harder to win, that's why they are higher multipliers. If casino / bookmaker allows higher multipliers, they are counting in that the probability of how low your changes are to get it. And they are often lower than we can comprehend.

And it's not like one huge pay off once in a while would break their bank, after all they are dealing with millions of smaller wins daily. Both giving them out and keeping the lost bets.

True, it's all about probability not the amount of your bet. Actually, we can use this too (https://www.aceodds.com/bet-calculator/odds-converter.html) to calculate the implied probability based on the odds the sportsbook would offer, just input the odds, and you'll see the implied probability.

A ticking with $800k winnings but a bet of $100k has lower probability than a ticket with $800k winnings but with a bet of $800k... That's the simple logic behind that, don't overthink too much, and just understand it's all probablity.

[danherbias07]

Do you believe this analogy as to sport betting? that sometimes, casino bets with higher stakes are likely to not cut it? Considering the amount that a certain multiplier could reach?

I've known a certain group of gamblers that would sing their praises to games with lower potential winnings. At some point, I'm stuck in-between the fact that they're either lucky with games of little potential winnings and it happens on almost every winning tickets? Again, if you're also in doubt to their belief, is their winning tickets on the low outcome always a coincidence? Also, if the casinos are always cautious as to not incuring too much to pay, how about tickets with $800k winnings?

Low potential winnings? Taking the underdogs? Well, these are high-risk takers of gamblers if you ask me and I think it's not abnormal at all. There are brave gamblers who would like to take those high profits not because they are just provoked by the high multiplier that was given but also because they know the underdog could win.

We have our own different views when it comes to sports betting and some do like taking the high risk but could result in a one-win with the potential to cash it out at a high profit. I would not mind tailing this kind of bet but still, we must do our own research before doing it. There have been events when I did tail some sports bettors who do this and I am glad I picked the right guy to follow although I don't see him anymore sharing his picks.

[ralle14]

We can only speculate, they could be lucky with a few rounds, or their bankroll is big enough to go through so many losses. We should realize that we can't win everything, and sportsbook handles things differently, which was already pointed out by Russelnat. Then again, with high stakes, it usually feels like the odds are against us because our bankroll can't afford to take several losses in a row. Also, some gamblers get away with those tickets with big multipliers because they're likely losing way more than what they've won.

[Poker Player]

I don't understand what this would have to do with belief? Higher multipliers are harder to win, that's why they are higher multipliers. If casino / bookmaker allows higher multipliers, they are counting in that the probability of how low your changes are to get it. And they are often lower than we can comprehend.

And it's not like one huge pay off once in a while would break their bank, after all they are dealing with millions of smaller wins daily. Both giving them out and keeping the lost bets.

That's what I thought, I don't know if I understood very well what the OP meant. Of course, if you bet with a winning probability close to 50% you will win more times than if you bet with a 1% probability, but the return, what you will win, will be less.

In sports betting I imagine the same thing happens, it will be difficult to consistently win bets on the one with the worst odds, and as alani123 says, better to focus the betting strategy on medium odds, maybe with once in a while betting on the clear underdog.

[Charles-Tim]

That's what I thought, I don't know if I understood very well what the OP meant. Of course, if you bet with a winning probability close to 50% you will win more times than if you bet with a 1% probability, but the return, what you will win, will be less.

In sports betting I imagine the same thing happens, it will be difficult to consistently win bets on the one with the worst odds, and as alani123 says, better to focus the betting strategy on medium odds, maybe with once in a while betting on the clear underdog.

In sport, the matches with probability of 1 will most likely be a loss, but those with probability of 50 is better has there are more chances that the match can be won than the one with probability of 1% which most people will not select while betting. I found this to be correct. But there are odds that are low and not good because anyone that go for such low odds which are too low would be encouraged to use huge amount of money to gamble with it which could leave to several won bets but any loss at once will result to huge low lost of money in a way the gambler will still lose money to the gambling site than won.

[AliMan]

Do you believe this analogy as to sport betting? that sometimes, casino bets with higher stakes are likely to not cut it? Considering the amount that a certain multiplier could reach?

I've known a certain group of gamblers that would sing their praises to games with lower potential winnings. At some point, I'm stuck in-between the fact that they're either lucky with games of little potential winnings and it happens on almost every winning tickets? Again, if you're also in doubt to their belief, is their winning tickets on the low outcome always a coincidence? Also, if the casinos are always cautious as to not incuring too much to pay, how about tickets with $800k winnings?

In sports betting, I believed that it's more fair to see potential successful target compared with casino luck game results because it was programmed based on the house profit. We can't beat the casino since their support was really strong and reliable. Unlike with sports betting, the probability always depends with odds and related analysis it's either from forum, news and team performances as well their specific skills with the game.

[swogerino]

They are just lucky.I have known a few guys who have started betting on few multiple tickets with 3-4 games with odds less than 2 in total,in the beginning they won quite a lot of tickets and they managed to go from some 1500 dollars up to 80.000 dollars by following this logic.Unfortunately after some time they gone and lost it all with the very same odds,this means that over the long run I don't believe in any so called strategy in sport betting,while they clearly have more chances to be winning ones compared to slot machines in the long run they are same,they take your money anyway.Still it is much better to focus and only bet on sports rather than playing games of luck in any casino,this way at least you know you are relying on some skills and not completely on luck controlled games.

[satscraper]

Do you believe this analogy as to sport betting? that sometimes, casino bets with higher stakes are likely to not cut it? Considering the amount that a certain multiplier could reach?

I've known a certain group of gamblers that would sing their praises to games with lower potential winnings. At some point, I'm stuck in-between the fact that they're either lucky with games of little potential winnings and it happens on almost every winning tickets? Again, if you're also in doubt to their belief, is their winning tickets on the low outcome always a coincidence? Also, if the casinos are always cautious as to not incuring too much to pay, how about tickets with $800k winnings?

In sports betting, I believed that it's more fair to see potential successful target compared with casino luck game results because it was programmed based on the house profit. We can't beat the casino since their support was really strong and reliable. Unlike with sports betting, the probability always depends with odds and related analysis it's either from forum, news and team performances as well their specific skills with the game.

I think the chances are approximately equal  when the sport betting is relevant to the  opposites with equitable skills. Even in tennis unpredictable odds like a waft of wind may make or break    not to mention the team sporting events. At the same time my mind is absolutely clear when the case is opposite and opponents do not match each other in skills.    When this occurs the probability favorites  the sport betting side.

[Casdinyard]

Do you believe this analogy as to sport betting? that sometimes, casino bets with higher stakes are likely to not cut it? Considering the amount that a certain multiplier could reach?

I've known a certain group of gamblers that would sing their praises to games with lower potential winnings. At some point, I'm stuck in-between the fact that they're either lucky with games of little potential winnings and it happens on almost every winning tickets? Again, if you're also in doubt to their belief, is their winning tickets on the low outcome always a coincidence? Also, if the casinos are always cautious as to not incuring too much to pay, how about tickets with $800k winnings?

Judging by the fact that games are always 50/50 intrinsically, as long as there's no disparity in the amount of players or other statistics, it only makes sense that casinos lose money on bookies, cause they'd lose 50% of the time, so the most sensible course of action for casinos is either to not put their fingers in these types of ventures, in which case they also lose out on the 50/50 chance that they'd win, or make bets that are low for the sake of still bagging some profits.

As in the case of people who aren't into betting high stakes and would rather choose lower potential winnings, I've been there, it's just that the current playstyle that works for me right now is on the high-roller side of things right now, but I don't know, I could've stuck with low potential winnings lol.

[Solosanz]

Judging by the fact that games are always 50/50 intrinsically, as long as there's no disparity in the amount of players or other statistics, it only makes sense that casinos lose money on bookies, cause they'd lose 50% of the time, so the most sensible course of action for casinos is either to not put their fingers in these types of ventures, in which case they also lose out on the 50/50 chance that they'd win, or make bets that are low for the sake of still bagging some profits.

The games are always 50/50, but the reward that the casino paid are 100 - commission rate/ 100 - commission rate, instead of paying 100 to the winner. Not to mention the winner need to pay tax too, usually gambling tax is quite higher than income tax.

Making money through gambling is really really hard, you not only require to have a good skill and analysis, but you also need to make sure you' can make a lot money since you need to pay tax.

[Sg4j1n3ll0]

Do you believe this analogy as to sport betting? that sometimes, casino bets with higher stakes are likely to not cut it? Considering the amount that a certain multiplier could reach?

I've known a certain group of gamblers that would sing their praises to games with lower potential winnings. At some point, I'm stuck in-between the fact that they're either lucky with games of little potential winnings and it happens on almost every winning tickets? Again, if you're also in doubt to their belief, is their winning tickets on the low outcome always a coincidence? Also, if the casinos are always cautious as to not incuring too much to pay, how about tickets with $800k winnings?

many times they already know who the lucky ticket will go to, as they always know when and where it will go, just think that it is said that in a famous Italian lottery even the pre-filled tickets have already been assigned to the betting shops designated for the victory, now the casinos will surely be different but don't think that they don't know who will get a big win, they have fun with us

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

@OP, I guess what you mean is that in sports betting, games with high odds are more likely to go burst than games with small odds? Well, that is a bit correct, but frequently too: high odds usually go as predicted, while small odds can likely disappoint the bettor too most times. 

The casinos usually offer those big odds when they see that there is a very low tendency for the result to be successful; therefore, the big odd is to tempt the gambler into staking on the high odd because of the huge profit. Those high odds can be tempting but very disappointing, although not all the time.

[Coin_trader]

I've known a certain group of gamblers that would sing their praises to games with lower potential winnings. At some point, I'm stuck in-between the fact that they're either lucky with games of little potential winnings and it happens on almost every winning tickets? Again, if you're also in doubt to their belief, is their winning tickets on the low outcome always a coincidence? Also, if the casinos are always cautious as to not incuring too much to pay, how about tickets with $800k winnings?

This is not a coincidence nor belief. It’s pure statistics and probability of the team for that specific match. It’s like a chess piece which you knew the piece potential and what they can do in the game.

Sportsbook is very good on sports analysis since they can provide fair odds on each event based on the possible outcome. That’s why you should be familiar on sports that you are betting so that you can verify how fair the odds is.

Low odds means the bet has a high chance of winning and vice versa.

[Lida93]

Do you believe this analogy as to sport betting? that sometimes, casino bets with higher stakes are likely to not cut it? Considering the amount that a certain multiplier could reach?

I've known a certain group of gamblers that would sing their praises to games with lower potential winnings. At some point, I'm stuck in-between the fact that they're either lucky with games of little potential winnings and it happens on almost every winning tickets? Again, if you're also in doubt to their belief, is their winning tickets on the low outcome always a coincidence? Also, if the casinos are always cautious as to not incuring too much to pay, how about tickets with $800k winnings?

There is no way a belief of any kind has a role to play in the  prospects of odds playing or not. It's a common axion to know that high odds games has slim chances of getting us a winning while low odds are the ones with greater winning chances. It's a statistic that bookmakers are aware of and  uses It to the house advantage except in lucky grounds that we gambler get to profit from higher stakes. I would have agreed with others who say it's a 50/50 but calculating how many times we gamblers get to win using higher-up odds to that of losing its within reason to say it's actually a 30/70 chances than 50/50.

[Assface16678]

Do you believe this analogy as to sport betting? that sometimes, casino bets with higher stakes are likely to not cut it? Considering the amount that a certain multiplier could reach?

I've known a certain group of gamblers that would sing their praises to games with lower potential winnings. At some point, I'm stuck in-between the fact that they're either lucky with games of little potential winnings and it happens on almost every winning tickets? Again, if you're also in doubt to their belief, is their winning tickets on the low outcome always a coincidence? Also, if the casinos are always cautious as to not incuring too much to pay, how about tickets with $800k winnings?

Well, the higher the stake, the higher the risk, and most likely it could end badly, but that is the beauty of sports betting: you can only have two possible outcomes, whether you win or lose, because there are only two teams fighting in a sportsport, unless you are only betting on different odds, like specific points for a player, a player, etc. Anyway, that's why it's better to bet on small, odd bets because we can assure good predictions and, of course, win. No matter how small the profit, if there are many small profits, it could be a big profit if combined. Anyway, that is the nature of gambling. As long as you increase the odds or the possible winnings, you will also have the slimmest chance of winning, and that's natural. It's up to the gambler if he or she will take the risk, but of course you should be ready for the consequences.

[AmoreJaz]

Well, the higher the stake, the higher the risk, and most likely it could end badly, but that is the beauty of sports betting: you can only have two possible outcomes, whether you win or lose, because there are only two teams fighting in a sportsport, unless you are only betting on different odds, like specific points for a player, a player, etc. Anyway, that's why it's better to bet on small, odd bets because we can assure good predictions and, of course, win. No matter how small the profit, if there are many small profits, it could be a big profit if combined. Anyway, that is the nature of gambling. As long as you increase the odds or the possible winnings, you will also have the slimmest chance of winning, and that's natural. It's up to the gambler if he or she will take the risk, but of course you should be ready for the consequences.

Bookies are giving high odds for so many reasons. And definitely, it is not because they want to bankrupt their site. So we can say, as much as possible, it is always for the benefit of their business. And if the gambler will go to choosing higher odds, he should very well understand the consequence that he will be more on the losing end. And if he can't afford to lose such money, better think twice before finally placing his bet.