1.90 odds in sports gives you 50% chance fo winning.

[freedomgo]

So if you keep choosing odds of 1.90 or lower with a 50% chance of winning, do you think you can win in the long run? This is like giving the house an edge of 10%, and that's too much to give, yet we are too confident in winning. Are we being realistic here, or are we just too confident in our skills that we believe we can win 60% of the time?

Are there any gamblers here which are betting with those kinds of odds that has already achieve a long term success?

No, you're wrong 1.90 in decimal odds for 50% winning chances doesn't give a 10% edge to the house (or to the bookmaker here). That's what is offering Freebitcoin in its dice game for example, it's only 5% HE actually.
And since there are 2 outcomes (one for winning, the other for losing), you only need to overcome half of this house edge to not lose money.  

EV = 1.90 x 50% - 1= -0.05 = -5%



In order to not lose money you need to have an EV >= 0

EV = 1.90 x WC - 1 >= 0
=> WC >= 1 / 1.90
   WC >= 0.526 = 52.6%

It means you will make profits if you win more than 52.6% of times bets with 1.90 odds.

Well, I guess you are correct with your computation, but winning 52.6% to be profitable is still not easy. If we can bet on odds like 1.95 every time, do you have a computation for that? How many percent should I achieve to win in the long run, or might as well make sure to bet on odds 2.00 just to ensure that on our wins, we won't be paying the vig anymore.

[AmoreJaz]

So if you keep choosing odds of 1.90 or lower with a 50% chance of winning, do you think you can win in the long run? This is like giving the house an edge of 10%, and that's too much to give, yet we are too confident in winning. Are we being realistic here, or are we just too confident in our skills that we believe we can win 60% of the time?

Are there any gamblers here which are betting with those kinds of odds that has already achieve a long term success?

Winning always remains a thing of luck mostly when it's gambling, if it's casino games, forget it, you can almost never out weigh the house but to hope you get a better chance some day but literally the house has got almost 70% edge most of the times and they give you a chance and not you giving them na edge, I know talking certain risk at times may look like giving them the edge but mostly they have got the edge most times.

No odds guarantees a win or a loss, they are just luck based most of the times, this is what I always keep in mind before placing a bet and for me it's been the reality. Even with top skill you still loose some times. The reason some persons take certain risk with so much confidence on their side believing they will win is mainly because of history.

If we are considering the sportsbetting, there is high chance because low odds are deemed to be the potential winner of that match. It means, they are strong contenders in that game. However, do remember, upset can always happen in any sports. But to say, most of the time, low odds has good chance of happening, then I can agree in that opinion. But you still have to keep up yourself with the game as there will be hints of injury or coaching technique that can influence the results of the game.

[ralle14]

So if you keep choosing odds of 1.90 or lower with a 50% chance of winning, do you think you can win in the long run?

It's possible to win while maintaining a 50% win rate if you adjust your units per bet instead of betting a fixed amount. Then again it'll be challenging to have an average odds of 1.90 because they tend to shift a lot of the time based on certain factors, but that doesn't always mean your chances of winning goes up or down. For example, the public and sharp bettors can move the odds from the opening until kickoff and adjust the underdog odds from 2.10 to 1.90 throughout the day.

[freedomgo]

So if you keep choosing odds of 1.90 or lower with a 50% chance of winning, do you think you can win in the long run?

It's possible to win while maintaining a 50% win rate if you adjust your units per bet instead of betting a fixed amount. Then again it'll be challenging to have an average odds of 1.90 because they tend to shift a lot of the time based on certain factors, but that doesn't always mean your chances of winning goes up or down. For example, the public and sharp bettors can move the odds from the opening until kickoff and adjust the underdog odds from 2.10 to 1.90 throughout the day.

That does not align with my bankroll management principles. I would rather stick with a certain percentage of the wager, as it will increase the amount once my bankroll grows. I just want to make a simple strategy that works, and odds like 1.90 and lower don’t seem to work for me based on my experience. Experts mention that we just need to achieve 53%, and while that's right, which is easier: lowering the winning percentage and increasing the odds, or the opposite?

[alani123]

This gives the bookie you're playing at 10% wiggle room to keep a head over you. Even if you're above average, chances are that in the long run you won't be able to keep up with winning over 50% of bets. Let alone the fact that 1.9 odds aren't common in sports where there's only 2 possible outcomes as win/loss for a team. 1.9 is common in soccer where there can also be a draw in normal time but you shouldn't consider the odds of winning 50% because the chance of a draw is always there.

So in a game like basketball or tennis where either of the two has to win and a draw isn't a possibility odds of 1.9 don't actually mean 50%.
Let me give an example:



This is a table tennis match that is upcoming. The players aren't internationally famous and the league is just the Czech liga. It's hard to make predictions for such a sport and league because not many people are very knowledgeable in it so bookies employ some very rudimentary statistics to give initial odds before the match starts.

You can see one player has odds slightly above 1.9 while the other has odds closer to 1.7. You see now. It's safe to assume the casino considers the second player having better win chances than 50%, yet they give odds much lower than 2 or even 1.9. So for you to be afforded odds of 1.9 in an outcome that's either a loss/win scenario, you aren't betting on the likely winner. Just consider this when making decisions. You'd have to be really good and selective at making picks in such sports to keep winning with 1.9 odds.

[Viscore]

You can see one player has odds slightly above 1.9 while the other has odds closer to 1.7.

Your example is about moneyline bets. Naturally, you can't get the odds you're looking for if you only bet on moneyline bets. You can only get a 50-50 chance from bookies if you're betting on the point spread and its total, but this doesn't apply to every market. As in your example, if the moneyline odds for one side are already 1.90, you can't get 1.90 on the other side anymore since that's what the bookies are offering.

You need to choose the games you bet on carefully, making sure the teams aren't equally matched. For instance, if Team A is the heavy favorite with a moneyline of 1.50, you might get -4.5 at 1.90 odds and +4.5 on the other side with the same odds when betting on the point spread.

[AbuBhakar]

So if you keep choosing odds of 1.90 or lower with a 50% chance of winning, do you think you can win in the long run? This is like giving the house an edge of 10%, and that's too much to give, yet we are too confident in winning. Are we being realistic here, or are we just too confident in our skills that we believe we can win 60% of the time?

Are there any gamblers here which are betting with those kinds of odds that has already achieve a long term success?

Most of the successful sports bettor usually pick a lower odds since most of the pick that most likely win are those below 1.9 odds. We are considering the long term probability here so I’m skeptical if someone can manage to win long term with consistently taking 1.9 odds since it’s already more on luck based game due to pick involved are nearly close to each either when it comes to win rate.

Successful bettor in long run frequently choose a pick that has higher winning rate and just use the parlay or combo bets to increase the odds instead of consistently taking 1.9 odds or an almost even match.

[Saint-loup]

Well, I guess you are correct with your computation, but winning 52.6% to be profitable is still not easy. If we can bet on odds like 1.95 every time, do you have a computation for that? How many percent should I achieve to win in the long run, or might as well make sure to bet on odds 2.00 just to ensure that on our wins, we won't be paying the vig anymore.

For 1.95 decimal/european odds it's the same computation.
You need to have an Expected Value of 0 at least, to not lose money, and above 0 to make profits (in the long run).
EV = 1.95 x WC - 1 = 0
WC = 1 / 1.95
WC = 0.513 = 51.3%
You would need to win more than 51.3% of the time

Betting on odds of 2.00 won't change the vig if the real winning chances are below 50%.
You can see it on the Multiply BTC game of Freebitcoin for example.
If you put 2.00 odds your winning chances will fall to 47.5%

So for example, if the real winning chances are 30%, you will double your stake when you win with 2.00 odds, but you will lose 70% of the time.
When you only have 2 outcomes, and the two are of 2.00, you are at least sure that if one is a bad value bet the other is a good one. So randomly, you won't lose money in the long run.

[famososMuertos]

You don't bet on just one type of probability, in fact you can't bet the same on a probability of 1.5 as on a probability of 1.9, that is, it's a combination of both, so at the end of the month what you're interested in is seeing a positive result.

There are many combinations that can be made in terms of bet size vs. estimated probability, so that when one fails it compensates with the gain of the other. That improves your chances of winning better than thinking of just one type of probability like the one you mention.

[alani123]

You can see one player has odds slightly above 1.9 while the other has odds closer to 1.7.

Your example is about moneyline bets. Naturally, you can't get the odds you're looking for if you only bet on moneyline bets. You can only get a 50-50 chance from bookies if you're betting on the point spread and its total, but this doesn't apply to every market. As in your example, if the moneyline odds for one side are already 1.90, you can't get 1.90 on the other side anymore since that's what the bookies are offering.

You need to choose the games you bet on carefully, making sure the teams aren't equally matched. For instance, if Team A is the heavy favorite with a moneyline of 1.50, you might get -4.5 at 1.90 odds and +4.5 on the other side with the same odds when betting on the point spread.

In games where it's uncertain who will win, bookies are unlikely to give 1.9 to both parties. I think it would be more realistic to see 1.75 or something. The reality is that bookies don't want to take any risks. Plus it's easy that with a bit of intuition some people might be good at picking the right result more than 50% of the time.

So for any match with two possible outcomes, it's very often to see both parties at odds under 1.9. bookies actually have a higher edge than most gambling games if you calculate it. At 0% edge both ends should have 2.0 odds.

[Moreno233]

So if you keep choosing odds of 1.90 or lower with a 50% chance of winning, do you think you can win in the long run?

It's possible to win while maintaining a 50% win rate if you adjust your units per bet instead of betting a fixed amount. Then again it'll be challenging to have an average odds of 1.90 because they tend to shift a lot of the time based on certain factors, but that doesn't always mean your chances of winning goes up or down. For example, the public and sharp bettors can move the odds from the opening until kickoff and adjust the underdog odds from 2.10 to 1.90 throughout the day.

I think you are right but an average odd of 1.9 is still achievable but the danger is that in trying to get it, one might add more combinations that will increase the risk of the game. I have been in a situation whereby I was chasing 2 odds per bet which I planned to compound until I achieve a target. Some days I will have some reliable games but not up to the odds I want so I will have to add other games that end up spoiling my bet. There is indeed a big burden in playing a fixed odds because some flexibility is really needed some times to be able to win.

[GreatArkansas]

(....)

Are there any gamblers here which are betting with those kinds of odds that has already achieve a long term success?

As a gambler, I will not just fully rely on this kind of odds, if this is only your basis to place your bet, I don't think it will make you profitable, you need to consider a lot of things, for example in the NBA games, like the players line up, injury reports, home court advantage, etc.

[serjent05]

This is not accurate. The 1.90 is given to you by the house when it calculates that there is a 50% probability that you will win. Those calculations are not exact. It is not like in roulette that if you play red or black you have a 47.37% chance of winning (in American roulette). That's exact.

If you are able to beat the house in the odds calculation is how you win money in the long term, which is becoming increasingly difficult especially in major sports.

I highly agree!  I believe the chance of winning on the 1.90 odds is not dependent on the odds alone.  Even if it has more than 50% chance of winning theoretically, there are other factors that affect the result of the match like the condition of the team or athlete on the day of the fight, the unknown factor that can affect the result of the game and more.

At the end of the day, the actual chance of winning is dependent on how a bettor assesses the possible outcome of the game and not the given odds by the bookmaker.  So it is still not sure whether betting on these odds will be profitable in the long run unless we can precisely predict the outcome of the game.

[Samlucky O]

So if you keep choosing odds of 1.90 or lower with a 50% chance of winning, do you think you can win in the long run?

No odd regularly played in thesame perttern can continue winning in a long run. Even if you chose to play 1.50, 1.60 to 1.90 odd which is almost like %90 chance preferably over your %50 as you said, you may not be able to win continuously because odd will remain thesame but game changes. This still implies that it's all about luck.

Are there any gamblers here which are betting with those kinds of odds that has already achieve a long term success?

Let me talk for myself, I have tried playing 2odd single games in 5 different tickets instead of multiple, and I was able to almost win %80 of my ticket which is 4 tickets out of 5. So I continued but it was not regularly. sometimes I lose 3 tickets and win 2, and the win amount is just small compared to multiple stake. So looking at it, you will see how difficult it's is. In summary no strategy is a perfect strategy in the long run hence gambling is for fun not a business that generates a steady income. Even the casino didn't built it for business porpos but as a "try your luck method " which is either keep trying for fun and have hope to win big someday than not trying atol.

[ralle14]

That does not align with my bankroll management principles. I would rather stick with a certain percentage of the wager, as it will increase the amount once my bankroll grows. I just want to make a simple strategy that works, and odds like 1.90 and lower don’t seem to work for me based on my experience. Experts mention that we just need to achieve 53%, and while that's right, which is easier: lowering the winning percentage and increasing the odds, or the opposite?

Those rules are okay too, but from my perspective, it's more challenging if you limit yourself to an exact percentage because there are weeks when matches are unreadable and good teams suddenly whittle down in predictable matches.

Out of those two choices, i'd pick the former because i've tried it with a bit of success, the biggest downside with it is that you need a lot of discipline and patience knowing when good underdogs appear at a good price.

[Darker45]

As for myself, I haven't achieved success in my years of gambling. As always for me, gambling has been an expense rather than a source of money.

We are confident of a win sometimes not because of the odds but because of how we see the upcoming game or match. The odds of course would reflect this oftentimes, but it doesn't work that way all the time. So the same confidence that you may find in a bet with 1.90 odds could also be found in bets with odds as high as 2.80.

To those who place bets coming from a high level of familiarity and analysis, their bets must be realistic. They aren't betting while summoning luck.

[Distinctin]

As for myself, I haven't achieved success in my years of gambling. As always for me, gambling has been an expense rather than a source of money.

We are confident of a win sometimes not because of the odds but because of how we see the upcoming game or match. The odds of course would reflect this oftentimes, but it doesn't work that way all the time. So the same confidence that you may find in a bet with 1.90 odds could also be found in bets with odds as high as 2.80.

To those who place bets coming from a high level of familiarity and analysis, their bets must be realistic. They aren't betting while summoning luck.

I have the same experience; it has been an expense, but what's important is that I'm having fun with it. That's the difference when you treat gambling as a fun activity as you don't see your losses as a challenge but rather consider them as an expense for the entertainment.

I think the mindset differs among gamblers, but what’s important is that they are responsible for what they’re doing. Some may believe they have the skills to turn gambling into a way to make a living, which is quite exceptional. Most of us don't have that talent, so we should know our limits to stay safe.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

The house edge is usually in favor of the casino and no matter how high or low the odds are, the casino are still people that benefits the more. Success in betting doesn't come by playing the 1.90 odd repeatedly but you can combine different small odds and stake on it with the amount you can afford to lose. Even small odds doesn't guarantee a huge win. If you take gambling as a business, be ready to lose unexpected times and also to win in unexpected times.

[Questat]

The house edge is usually in favor of the casino and no matter how high or low the odds are, the casino are still people that benefits the more. Success in betting doesn't come by playing the 1.90 odd repeatedly but you can combine different small odds and stake on it with the amount you can afford to lose. Even small odds doesn't guarantee a huge win. If you take gambling as a business, be ready to lose unexpected times and also to win in unexpected times.

I would rather bet on higher odds than combine two bets into a parlay. Based on what I've read, parlays are often money traps designed to entice us with the potential for bigger winnings. The more legs we add to a parlay, the lower our chances of winning, which is why sportsbooks favor bettors who enjoy parlays. The allure of a big payout might be tempting, but the reality is that the odds of hitting a large parlay are slim.

[tread93]

So if you keep choosing odds of 1.90 or lower with a 50% chance of winning, do you think you can win in the long run? This is like giving the house an edge of 10%, and that's too much to give, yet we are too confident in winning. Are we being realistic here, or are we just too confident in our skills that we believe we can win 60% of the time?

With 2 odds, the chance of winning is not even 50%. Just like you posted, there is house edge. So with 50% chance of winning a game, the casino are still more likely to win the gambler because the house edge makes the winning probability to be less than 50% for the gambler.

quote author=freedomgo link=topic=5505716.msg64410240#msg64410240 date=1723270074]
Are there any gamblers here which are betting with those kinds of odds that has already achieve a long term success?

Most gamblers wants to win, but it is in the casino terms of service that gambling should be for fun. The casinos know that gamblers are losing regardless of the odds they are using to bet.
[/quote]

Its pretty wild that casinos have got it down to a science. That alone should definitely tell anyone that you are up against a professional opponent. I've talked about professional gamblers and all that and there have been threads and all this but i've finally come to the conclusion that the best professional gamblers are the casino operators because the house always wins lol.