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

[sompitonov]

In general, I have never liked odds below 1 and I prefer to take more risk. But at the same time, I see how even more players bet on small odds to win at least something, but with a higher probability. But sometimes later I see threads in which a player complains that he lost with odds of 1.1 

They may enjoy more wins with lower odds due to the high probability of winning, but if they look at the big picture, they'll see that it's not profitable. I would rather go for the 50-50 market offered by the bookies, avoid parlays, and limit the number of bets so I can maintain my focus.

Sports betting doesn't need to take up much of our time. If we aim to win, we need to focus, and since we're only human and don't have an extreme ability to multitask, we should prioritize the quality of our bets.

I also prefer quality in betting instead of quantity, because if you chase quantity, you can lose concentration and we will spend a lot of time on a quality analysis of the event. And what is most important is that this time and effort spent may not bring profit, it is not like a regular job where we will definitely get money for our actions. You can bet for years, but no one guarantees profit here, although many players come here specifically for profit and think that they will always have it as income, but this is a misconception.

50/50 looks like an excellent solution, you just need to determine some subtle points. I do not place express bets, because I also believe that they should be avoided.

[Distinctin]

In general, I have never liked odds below 1 and I prefer to take more risk. But at the same time, I see how even more players bet on small odds to win at least something, but with a higher probability. But sometimes later I see threads in which a player complains that he lost with odds of 1.1 

They may enjoy more wins with lower odds due to the high probability of winning, but if they look at the big picture, they'll see that it's not profitable. I would rather go for the 50-50 market offered by the bookies, avoid parlays, and limit the number of bets so I can maintain my focus.

Sports betting doesn't need to take up much of our time. If we aim to win, we need to focus, and since we're only human and don't have an extreme ability to multitask, we should prioritize the quality of our bets.

I also prefer quality in betting instead of quantity, because if you chase quantity, you can lose concentration and we will spend a lot of time on a quality analysis of the event. And what is most important is that this time and effort spent may not bring profit, it is not like a regular job where we will definitely get money for our actions. You can bet for years, but no one guarantees profit here, although many players come here specifically for profit and think that they will always have it as income, but this is a misconception.

50/50 looks like an excellent solution, you just need to determine some subtle points. I do not place express bets, because I also believe that they should be avoided.

My strategy is very simple: I focus on a limited number of games. For example, when betting on NBA games, there might be 8 to 10 games in a day, but I only choose a maximum of 4 games to carefully study and analyze. I would be happy getting 3 wins out of 4 because that's already a good percentage if I can maintain that consistently. Of course, bankroll management cannot be neglected because all the effort we put in from the very beginning will be wasted if we start chasing losses due to a lack of self-control.

[o48o]

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?

Um? Didn't you just answer your own question? We obviously CAN win but in long term it's very unlikely. Even with 2.0 odds and 50% change of winning, there's 50% change of being in loss, and by removing 10% outcome should be pretty clear. It's not complex statistics.

Infact it's so unlikely to make long term profit that casinos don't need other then way smaller house edge to make profit. This is why i find it funny when some people are blaming fixed games for losing. Admitting that they can't do math is just too embarassing for them.

Short answer to your question is no, but why else would we be gambling, if we wouldn't like to believe in luck? If we would just look at probablility and math behind the house edge, we  most likely wouldn't play, as that's not profitable in a long run. But that's a boring way to look at things and gambling is all about excitement.

[Weawant]

My strategy is very simple: I focus on a limited number of games. For example, when betting on NBA games, there might be 8 to 10 games in a day, but I only choose a maximum of 4 games to carefully study and analyze. I would be happy getting 3 wins out of 4 because that's already a good percentage if I can maintain that consistently. Of course, bankroll management cannot be neglected because all the effort we put in from the very beginning will be wasted if we start chasing losses due to a lack of self-control.

Such a brilliant strategy, if most gamblers can keep greed aside and try to follow a model such as this, their chances of stay profitable is definitely going to be high and consistently making profit more often than they loss. This strategy you have spoken about entails a whole lot of greed management because for a greedy fellow this may look too small as the odds too may not look appealing to them either but for a very disciplined and calculative gambler, this model is a great one as the probability with this model is high and even while suffering loss you can still be profitable if you had made some profit before the losses.

[betswift]

My strategy is very simple: I focus on a limited number of games. For example, when betting on NBA games, there might be 8 to 10 games in a day, but I only choose a maximum of 4 games to carefully study and analyze. I would be happy getting 3 wins out of 4 because that's already a good percentage if I can maintain that consistently. Of course, bankroll management cannot be neglected because all the effort we put in from the very beginning will be wasted if we start chasing losses due to a lack of self-control.

Such a brilliant strategy, if most gamblers can keep greed aside and try to follow a model such as this, their chances of stay profitable is definitely going to be high and consistently making profit more often than they loss. This strategy you have spoken about entails a whole lot of greed management because for a greedy fellow this may look too small as the odds too may not look appealing to them either but for a very disciplined and calculative gambler, this model is a great one as the probability with this model is high and even while suffering loss you can still be profitable if you had made some profit before the losses.

Sounds like a great plan, I agree. A dream for people who can control themselves while they bet or gamble, for sure

[sompitonov]

In general, I have never liked odds below 1 and I prefer to take more risk. But at the same time, I see how even more players bet on small odds to win at least something, but with a higher probability. But sometimes later I see threads in which a player complains that he lost with odds of 1.1 

They may enjoy more wins with lower odds due to the high probability of winning, but if they look at the big picture, they'll see that it's not profitable. I would rather go for the 50-50 market offered by the bookies, avoid parlays, and limit the number of bets so I can maintain my focus.

Sports betting doesn't need to take up much of our time. If we aim to win, we need to focus, and since we're only human and don't have an extreme ability to multitask, we should prioritize the quality of our bets.

I also prefer quality in betting instead of quantity, because if you chase quantity, you can lose concentration and we will spend a lot of time on a quality analysis of the event. And what is most important is that this time and effort spent may not bring profit, it is not like a regular job where we will definitely get money for our actions. You can bet for years, but no one guarantees profit here, although many players come here specifically for profit and think that they will always have it as income, but this is a misconception.

50/50 looks like an excellent solution, you just need to determine some subtle points. I do not place express bets, because I also believe that they should be avoided.

My strategy is very simple: I focus on a limited number of games. For example, when betting on NBA games, there might be 8 to 10 games in a day, but I only choose a maximum of 4 games to carefully study and analyze. I would be happy getting 3 wins out of 4 because that's already a good percentage if I can maintain that consistently. Of course, bankroll management cannot be neglected because all the effort we put in from the very beginning will be wasted if we start chasing losses due to a lack of self-control.

It is good to have the opportunity to choose from such a number of games in one game day and your tactics will hopefully bring you a good percentage of victories on the long path of betting in the NBA. In general, in almost every sport there comes a time when major tournaments take place and the number of games per day allows us to choose between those in which we are very confident. Of course, if we have arguments to bet more on other matches, then we can even increase this number, the main thing is that it does not interfere with our win rate. Of course, in addition to this, we need to monitor the bankroll as you mentioned, well, and other things. If in general everything is done very thoughtfully and carefully, even if we often do not have luck, our percentage of losses should be less than that of other players who play these rules.

[pawanjain]

That's not the right way of portraying it because even if it the bet is having lower odds then it doesn't guarantee a win.
The probability will still be 50-50 for the game. I have myself did this experiment once and placed all my bets on the ones with lower odds.
I lost almost 8/10 bets which shows that it's not the lower odds that always wins.
Also, luck is an important factor and we need to win our bets whether it be the one with lower odds or higher odds.

We need to carefully analyze our bets and not fully rely on the odds. If we automatically assume that odds of 1.50 mean a sure win, we’re likely to lose easily. In popular events or games that attract a lot of bettors, bookies might offer lower odds that seem attractive, but sometimes it turns out to be just a trap. I believe these ideas aren't often discussed with beginners, but once you consistently gamble on sports and join various forums, you’ll come across theories that might make you think they have some truth to them. This can help you become more cautious with your decisions, so you don't easily fall into traps when you see odds that are too attractive or hard to resist.

Yes ofcourse, I have come to know that the lower odds are not always more fruitful.
Sometimes it's better to bet on the one with higher odds because you might just end up winning it easily.
You're right that more analysis is needed when we are betting on sports. We can't take it for granted.
Talking about traps, have you encountered such traps earlier ?

[stomachgrowls]

In general, I have never liked odds below 1 and I prefer to take more risk. But at the same time, I see how even more players bet on small odds to win at least something, but with a higher probability. But sometimes later I see threads in which a player complains that he lost with odds of 1.1 

They may enjoy more wins with lower odds due to the high probability of winning, but if they look at the big picture, they'll see that it's not profitable. I would rather go for the 50-50 market offered by the bookies, avoid parlays, and limit the number of bets so I can maintain my focus.

Sports betting doesn't need to take up much of our time. If we aim to win, we need to focus, and since we're only human and don't have an extreme ability to multitask, we should prioritize the quality of our bets.

I also prefer quality in betting instead of quantity, because if you chase quantity, you can lose concentration and we will spend a lot of time on a quality analysis of the event. And what is most important is that this time and effort spent may not bring profit, it is not like a regular job where we will definitely get money for our actions. You can bet for years, but no one guarantees profit here, although many players come here specifically for profit and think that they will always have it as income, but this is a misconception.

50/50 looks like an excellent solution, you just need to determine some subtle points. I do not place express bets, because I also believe that they should be avoided.

My strategy is very simple: I focus on a limited number of games. For example, when betting on NBA games, there might be 8 to 10 games in a day, but I only choose a maximum of 4 games to carefully study and analyze. I would be happy getting 3 wins out of 4 because that's already a good percentage if I can maintain that consistently. Of course, bankroll management cannot be neglected because all the effort we put in from the very beginning will be wasted if we start chasing losses due to a lack of self-control.

It is good to have the opportunity to choose from such a number of games in one game day and your tactics will hopefully bring you a good percentage of victories on the long path of betting in the NBA. In general, in almost every sport there comes a time when major tournaments take place and the number of games per day allows us to choose between those in which we are very confident. Of course, if we have arguments to bet more on other matches, then we can even increase this number, the main thing is that it does not interfere with our win rate. Of course, in addition to this, we need to monitor the bankroll as you mentioned, well, and other things. If in general everything is done very thoughtfully and carefully, even if we often do not have luck, our percentage of losses should be less than that of other players who play these rules.

Stick into the sports on which you do really know that you do have that sufficient knowledge or really having that kind of awareness on what it is rather than on testing or betting out on sports on which you dont really even know. If its for the sake of diversifying your bankroll bets then its something that will bring out that huge devastation into your overall bankroll on which means that its not really that recommendable at all.
It will really be that bringing out that huge loses or will blown up your capital. Speaking about odds then 1.90 doesnt give out that fix 50% chance. Even if we do say 2x or more then it will really be not something
definite or fixed. Chances of winning will really be that affected by different factors on which it could really be happening along the way. So it would really be that on your personal preference and choices.

The key on here is that you should really be playing on sports on which you are knowledgeable, not only just that giving out that good chance on winning but also you would really be finding this to be that
interesting or something that gives out thrill because you do know the sports in compared into those things on which you dont know on what it is, then it will really be giving out that
kind of no emotion or no excitement because this isnt really that your line.

[Su-asa]

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?

The lower the odds the higher the chance of winning but the tricky part to this is that nothing is safe or guaranteed in sports betting, we have seen odds as low as 1.01 ending up badly. Gamblers play odds of less than 2 odds and try to rollover for a month or more than that, everyone into sports betting has thought of this but 90 percent of us have failed because there's no way to always be in profit and have a winning streak for up to 30 days no matter how small the odds are. I actually prefer not to go below or above 2 odds I find it reasonable to aim for 100 percent return of my stake and if it doesn't work out as planned I know it's all risky

[swogerino]

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?

I don't think we can have a clear percentage on how much successful a certain odd can be in a sport betting. That is very easy to proof as normally an odd as low as 1.20 should be able to be a winner in 5 out of 6 bets and we know this not to be the case as we can see in tennis,basketball and soccer to name a few. So we cannot really make calculations in percentages regarding sport betting. It is difficult to win nowadays as injuries and referees can make your sport bet go the wrongest way possible.

[EarnOnVictor]

In general, I have never liked odds below 1 and I prefer to take more risk. But at the same time, I see how even more players bet on small odds to win at least something, but with a higher probability. But sometimes later I see threads in which a player complains that he lost with odds of 1.1 

They may enjoy more wins with lower odds due to the high probability of winning, but if they look at the big picture, they'll see that it's not profitable. I would rather go for the 50-50 market offered by the bookies, avoid parlays, and limit the number of bets so I can maintain my focus.

Sports betting doesn't need to take up much of our time. If we aim to win, we need to focus, and since we're only human and don't have an extreme ability to multitask, we should prioritize the quality of our bets.

I also prefer quality in betting instead of quantity, because if you chase quantity, you can lose concentration and we will spend a lot of time on a quality analysis of the event. And what is most important is that this time and effort spent may not bring profit, it is not like a regular job where we will definitely get money for our actions. You can bet for years, but no one guarantees profit here, although many players come here specifically for profit and think that they will always have it as income, but this is a misconception.

50/50 looks like an excellent solution, you just need to determine some subtle points. I do not place express bets, because I also believe that they should be avoided.

My strategy is very simple: I focus on a limited number of games. For example, when betting on NBA games, there might be 8 to 10 games in a day, but I only choose a maximum of 4 games to carefully study and analyze. I would be happy getting 3 wins out of 4 because that's already a good percentage if I can maintain that consistently. Of course, bankroll management cannot be neglected because all the effort we put in from the very beginning will be wasted if we start chasing losses due to a lack of self-control.

Your explanation is good but you should also admit that it's based on assumptions, if it were to be real, then it is a foolproof plan that will surely help you earn every time. But as we know gambling, regardless of what you are betting, you can never be making the 3 out of 4 games win, that's the reality.

For this, there is no way it will not affect the management which is why I would have considered it better in terms of having the factor of safety. If I were you, I would base my risk management on the premise that out of a whole 4 games, I would win just 1.5, this alone has covered enough for you in terms of risk management and mind preparation and if you are good and win more, it will be an added advantage because the risk management will even be better rather than preparing less for it.

[Findingnemo]

Probability of winning a bet has nothing to do with the streaks of bets cause the probability resets for every new bet so anything happened before that bet become irrelevant to the scenario.

I don't know how you did the math and concluded that 1.90 odd means 50% of winning but in sports betting probability is not even a thing it's just for measuring the odds nothing else.

[Fortify]

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?

If you're going to gamble on sports, you might as well aim to at least double up every go, it's a bit boring doing things like 1.1x where you have to win 10 times just to make 100% extra on your money. That is ten times that the bet could go the wrong way, because even the bookmaker is admitting that there is room for that bet not to win your money - if it was guaranteed then they would give you 0% odds. You also have to remember that the bookmaker will be adding in an extra buffer to every bet, so you're looking at a 1.9x bet, but the reality is the bookmaker thinks it is really worth 1.8x and have stuck an extra 0.1 safety margin on top that you'll never see - it's a hidden cost of doing business with them.

[oll]

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?

If you're going to gamble on sports, you might as well aim to at least double up every go, it's a bit boring doing things like 1.1x where you have to win 10 times just to make 100% extra on your money. That is ten times that the bet could go the wrong way, because even the bookmaker is admitting that there is room for that bet not to win your money - if it was guaranteed then they would give you 0% odds. You also have to remember that the bookmaker will be adding in an extra buffer to every bet, so you're looking at a 1.9x bet, but the reality is the bookmaker thinks it is really worth 1.8x and have stuck an extra 0.1 safety margin on top that you'll never see - it's a hidden cost of doing business with them.

Winning 10 times at x1.1 is not as easy as many people think. On the contrary, I avoid such odds because I know what it leads to - a mandatory loss if you do it too often. Of course, you can do it without a break, but one day your luck will run out. The bookmaker will never lose, this is the main rule of betting, so I can never be sure that my winning streak will continue. And even if we win and leave, we can come back and leave all the winnings back, because rarely does anyone quit gambling completely.

[mv1986]

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?

I am quite sure that your question lacks logic and coherence. When you win 50% of the time while either losing 100% or winning 90%, how the hell would you make it into profits long term? It's simple maths here if you assume that these outcomes are a given at odds 1.9. The point is to find odds that you think are not accurately calculated by the bookmaker (to your advantage of course). When the bookmaker gives you 2.0, which basically means you can double your money, and your assessment is that winning has a chance of >50%, then in the very long term you would be profitable. If, as I said above, the chance for losing 100% is the same as winning 90% of your stakes, it's a path that guarantees you to lose money in the long run.

[Nwada001]

I don't know how you did the math and concluded that 1.90 odd means 50% of winning but in sports betting probability is not even a thing it's just for measuring the odds nothing else.

There has always been a saying and argument about this, not just on 1.9 odds, but odds that are below 2 always have a higher chance of winning compared to when someone goes for higher odds.

It works most times, but not all the time; it's just a probability, which is why I believe the Op gave it a rating of 50/50 chances of winning. There are also times where those 1.9 odds will definitely be against the bettor, and the option with higher odds will play most times.

[rachael9385]

I don't know how you did the math and concluded that 1.90 odd means 50% of winning but in sports betting probability is not even a thing it's just for measuring the odds nothing else.

There has always been a saying and argument about this, not just on 1.9 odds, but odds that are below 2 always have a higher chance of winning compared to when someone goes for higher odds.

It works most times, but not all the time; it's just a probability, which is why I believe the Op gave it a rating of 50/50 chances of winning. There are also times where those 1.9 odds will definitely be against the bettor, and the option with higher odds will play most times.

Actually it works but we don't have to trust the odds unless the games has been played according to how you predicted it.
Most times 2 odds plays more than odds below two, although it's just luck that can make the whole things work for the gambler. Sometimes the players in the game made the gamblers to win, because when the players are not performing well and they have lower odds they will probably lose their match and the gambler that bet on the club that the players are playing for will lose his or her bets. This is why gamblers have a 50% chance of winning on sport games than casino games, but the gambler still need luck to win on sport, and luck starts the moment the gambler is predicting the bets.

[Julien_Olynpic]

In fact, with odds of 1.9, the probability of winning is not 50% in sports betting, but 52.63%. This is the exact probability of winning with this odds. The probability of winning is calculated using the formula 100/odds. That is, if we divide 100 by 1.9, we get the figure 52.6315…%
At first glance, it may seem that this figure is close to the probability of 50%. But the difference is 2%. This is a fairly large difference in probabilities, which can be summed up in your strategy or subtracted from it in the long term, which can lead to very large wins or losses over the long term.
This difference must be taken into account in any case.

[Solosanz]

In fact, with odds of 1.9, the probability of winning is not 50% in sports betting, but 52.63%. This is the exact probability of winning with this odds. The probability of winning is calculated using the formula 100/odds. That is, if we divide 100 by 1.9, we get the figure 52.6315…%
At first glance, it may seem that this figure is close to the probability of 50%. But the difference is 2%. This is a fairly large difference in probabilities, which can be summed up in your strategy or subtracted from it in the long term, which can lead to very large wins or losses over the long term.
This difference must be taken into account in any case.

I don't think it's accurate.

You can try to calculate with the moneyline odds, there's a match I calculate both of the teams, when I sum both of the winning percentage, it doesn't reach 100% and sometime it bigger than 100%.

It should be odds 1/(odds 1+odds 2) or vice versa.

I think people shouldn't bet based on probability like team one has 52% win chance, another one is 48%, both of them are pretty much same, but their history, popularity and recent performance are different, so bettors can use this analysis to make a bet.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

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?

If you are playing a single game you have a good chance to be fairly even over the long run in wins and losses, could swing on the side of wins if you are lucky. If you are playing a multi ticket the chances of winning is much lower over the long run.

- Jay -

If you're playing single odds, the probability of winning is slightly higher quite alright, but don't you for once think you're being overly optimistic? Thereby neglecting that the chances of losing big money is enormous compared to the scenario when games are combined. Most times the surest games disappoint, and the kind of funds used to straighten these single games takes away the fun when they are lost.

It's easier to handle with amounts you can afford to loose when you combine few games, the accumulated odds makes more sense and you're more comfortable staking with lower funds since the multipliers have made the potential winnings feasible and you can have your fun without pressure.