Never underestimate the power of compounding..$2k to $16 million

[stadus]

You forgot that it's possible to that you will win a match with odd of 1.90 for example which automatically ups your stake for the next bet, and that next bet could be a game that comes with odds of 2.3 for example, and you end up losing it,

You can always aim for 1.90 odds. Maybe I get what you mean, are you saying OP is placing bets on moneyline odds? That’s not possible because the percentage mentioned, 52.5% (the break-even point), is based on the average odds of 1.90. Those two numbers have to go together.

So it’s safe to say it’s not moneyline odds. It’s most likely point spread and totals.

Unlike the OP, what I mean is that what is possible in theory isn't feasible in real world.

100% correct.

So, in fact, no, I mean quite the opposite to people being able to apply that system and making casinos go bankrupt.

This is sports betting, use “sportsbook” to be specific.

And about the word bankrupt, that will never happen. Even if a bettor turns his $2k bankroll into $16 million, his winnings don’t come from the sportsbook’s bankroll, but from the bettors who took the losing side. So in that case, the sportsbook will still be profitable because of the cut they take from the winning bet.

[Satofan44]

If I assume a win rate of 100% I can be the richest person in the world with compounding my bets at some arbitrary number of my choice. Do you even realize how stupid you are with this? You can make anything in the world sound like the best thing by making a false assumption. Just because it seems reasonable to you, that does not mean it is a reasonable assumption. It just means that you are stupid and don't have a clue about the thing that you are talking about.

There is not a single person in the world that would create a consistent win-rate of 55% across 1000 bets.

2000 × (1.0009^10000)

1.0009^10000 ≈ 8080 (rounded)

final bankroll ≈
2000 × 8080
= $16,160,000+

This part is by far the dumbest as it assumes that you are always winning.  That's not how you compute this, this is how you compute it for something where you have a constant and guarantee positive growth rate. This is not the case with real-world betting, you may run into extremely long loss streaks which completely invalidate this model. How about you take a basic statistics course on YouTube for a start? Idiot.

Unlike the OP, what I mean is that what is possible in theory isn't feasible in real world.

The theory is completely wrong too but you need statistics knowledge to be able to figure out, the kind that 99.9% users in this section don't have. At least some people like you can recognize this nonsense from other aspects of life, say gambling experience.

[KTChampions]

Of course that's correct. But the OP is calculating as if every bet is profitable. But this is fundamentally wrong, since with a losing streak of only 10 events (this is a very common streak at such a distance), his theoretical growth "1.0009 growth per bet" will actually turn into loss. A fairly common practice where clueless theorists, instead of getting a couple of percent profit after 10 bets, end up with a minus 20% loss   The problem is that losing streaks reduce both the deposit and the bet size, so the accumulation of profits (even with a winning strategy) occurs at a much slower pace.

It’s a wrong assumption that every bet is profitable. Of course a losing streak is still possible. Just look at the winning rate.

But his calculations are calculations where every bet is a winning one, so they are simply rubbish.

For example, if I have 1,000 bets and I won 550 of them, that means my win rate is 55%. With 1.90 odds, I would still end up profitable. And with proper bankroll strategy like using only 2% per bet, so even a 10-loss streak won’t drain my bankroll.
~

You'll be surprised, but this isn't guaranteed at all, as you could lose your first 50 bets and then have to "grow" from a paltry sum. Even with proper bankroll management, this is unrealistic. And in the case we discussed in the first post, 50 losses completely destroy the deposit, since there is no provision for reducing the bet at all. I see that many have already written to him about the absurdity of the calculations, there is nothing more to discuss here.

[Vaculin]

It just means that you are stupid and don't have a clue about the thing that you are talking about.

There is not a single person in the world that would create a consistent win-rate of 55% across 1000 bets.

You can call me stupid if you want, but that doesn’t change math or history.

You said “There is not a single person in the world that would create a consistent win-rate of 55% across 1000 bets.”

Well, check the article yourself, it clearly shows it’s doable. Billy Walters is widely reported to have hit around 57% long-term on his sports bets.
I’m not asking you to believe me, the info is already out there.

If you still want to say it’s “impossible”, then you’re ignoring the actual examples that already proved otherwise.

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/billy-walters-became-successful-gambler-world/

Billy claims to have a lifelong 57% winning percentage on his sports bets.  Famously reclusive and secretive about his methods, Walters once told a reporter:

But his calculations are calculations where every bet is a winning one, so they are simply rubbish.

You misunderstood it.. which part did i mentioned that every bet is a winning one?
If every bet is a winning one, then it would be 100% win rate.

You'll be surprised, but this isn't guaranteed at all, as you could lose your first 50 bets and then have to "grow" from a paltry sum.

You’re not getting the point I raised. Did I say everyone can be profitable? If you’re a bettor who has a 50-game losing streak, then obviously this won’t work for you. It’s only for those who can maintain a win rate of 55% or more in the long run.

I made a calculation, after 50 losing streak from $2k bankroll, it will be down to  $728.34 ( so you are not busted yet)...

[KTChampions]

But his calculations are calculations where every bet is a winning one, so they are simply rubbish.

You misunderstood it.. which part did i mentioned that every bet is a winning one?

Here:

~2. apply 2% staking with compounding

you bet 2% of your bankroll each time.

so each bet grows the roll by:

1 + (0.02 × 0.045)
= 1 + 0.0009
= 1.0009 growth per bet

3. compound it over 10,000 bets

bankroll =
2000 × (1.0009^10000)

1.0009^10000 ≈ 8080 (rounded)

final bankroll ≈
2000 × 8080
= $16,160,000+

Are you unable to understand what you're writing? If you're using AI calculations, you should at least have some understanding of what it's writing to you. But you have zero understanding, that's why you write this garbage.

You'll be surprised, but this isn't guaranteed at all, as you could lose your first 50 bets and then have to "grow" from a paltry sum.

You’re not getting the point I raised. Did I say everyone can be profitable? If you’re a bettor who has a 50-game losing streak, then obviously this won’t work for you. It’s only for those who can maintain a win rate of 55% or more in the long run.

I made a calculation, after 50 losing streak from $2k bankroll, it will be down to  $728.34 ( so you are not busted yet)...

If you had even a minimal understanding of what you are writing about, then you would know that a series of outcomes (for example, 2 heads in a row, or 5, etc.) are practically guaranteed to happen after a certain number of tosses. Even if the bettor is very good and wins 55% of the time, long losing streaks are inevitable if the distance is long.

I made a calculation, after 50 losing streak from $2k bankroll, it will be down to  $728.34 ( so you are not busted yet)...

The deposit busted relative to your delusional final figures. You simply don't understand what you're writing about, since you have an AI output instead of a brain.

[Porfirii]

So, in fact, no, I mean quite the opposite to people being able to apply that system and making casinos go bankrupt.

This is sports betting, use “sportsbook” to be specific.

And about the word bankrupt, that will never happen. Even if a bettor turns his $2k bankroll into $16 million, his winnings don’t come from the sportsbook’s bankroll, but from the bettors who took the losing side. So in that case, the sportsbook will still be profitable because of the cut they take from the winning bet.

Thank you for the clarification stadus, you're totally right.

In fact I used these terms ("casinos" and "bankrupt") because the user I was replying to used these same words, but I agree with you that they're not the most correct ones for this topic.

-snip-
If everyone could do what you say, the casinos would go bankrupt!!

[Satofan44]

It just means that you are stupid and don't have a clue about the thing that you are talking about.

There is not a single person in the world that would create a consistent win-rate of 55% across 1000 bets.

You can call me stupid if you want, but that doesn’t change math or history.

You said “There is not a single person in the world that would create a consistent win-rate of 55% across 1000 bets.”

Well, check the article yourself, it clearly shows it’s doable. Billy Walters is widely reported to have hit around 57% long-term on his sports bets.
I’m not asking you to believe me, the info is already out there.

If you still want to say it’s “impossible”, then you’re ignoring the actual examples that already proved otherwise.

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/billy-walters-became-successful-gambler-world/

Billy claims to have a lifelong 57% winning percentage on his sports bets.  Famously reclusive and secretive about his methods, Walters once told a reporter:

Fuck off with your celebrity gossip. My grandma claims to have a 10000000% winning percentage on her sports bet. What about that?  

The deposit busted relative to your delusional final figures. You simply don't understand what you're writing about, since you have an AI output instead of a brain.

It is one of those retarded 3rd world shitposters. Unfortunately the people in power here are too kind to them. In any reasonable place OP would be banned for posting this bullshit. 

[Vaculin]

Here:

~2. apply 2% staking with compounding

you bet 2% of your bankroll each time.

so each bet grows the roll by:

1 + (0.02 × 0.045)
= 1 + 0.0009
= 1.0009 growth per bet

3. compound it over 10,000 bets

bankroll =
2000 × (1.0009^10000)

1.0009^10000 ≈ 8080 (rounded)

final bankroll ≈
2000 × 8080
= $16,160,000+

Are you unable to understand what you're writing? If you're using AI calculations, you should at least have some understanding of what it's writing to you. But you have zero understanding, that's why you write this garbage.

That’s why I used AI for the computation, because that’s a total of 10k bets which is hard for me to do that manually. It was already stated in the OP in the first place that it wasn’t my own computation. So if that calculation is wrong, blame the AI, not me.

But the main point I’m trying to raise here which some people still can’t seem to get is that if we can maintain a win rate of at least 55%, we will be profitable in the long run.

You'll be surprised, but this isn't guaranteed at all, as you could lose your first 50 bets and then have to "grow" from a paltry sum.

You’re not getting the point I raised. Did I say everyone can be profitable? If you’re a bettor who has a 50-game losing streak, then obviously this won’t work for you. It’s only for those who can maintain a win rate of 55% or more in the long run.

I made a calculation, after 50 losing streak from $2k bankroll, it will be down to  $728.34 ( so you are not busted yet)...

If you had even a minimal understanding of what you are writing about, then you would know that a series of outcomes (for example, 2 heads in a row, or 5, etc.) are practically guaranteed to happen after a certain number of tosses. Even if the bettor is very good and wins 55% of the time, long losing streaks are inevitable if the distance is long.

The problem is you’re stating things based on your own assumptions. Unlike me, I actually provided a computation for the figures I laid out here, like this one.


--------


That's where $728.34 came from...

The deposit busted relative to your delusional final figures. You simply don't understand what you're writing about, since you have an AI output instead of a brain.

Check the computation... That's my brain who made it, not AI.

It just means that you are stupid and don't have a clue about the thing that you are talking about.

There is not a single person in the world that would create a consistent win-rate of 55% across 1000 bets.

You can call me stupid if you want, but that doesn’t change math or history.

You said “There is not a single person in the world that would create a consistent win-rate of 55% across 1000 bets.”

Well, check the article yourself, it clearly shows it’s doable. Billy Walters is widely reported to have hit around 57% long-term on his sports bets.
I’m not asking you to believe me, the info is already out there.

If you still want to say it’s “impossible”, then you’re ignoring the actual examples that already proved otherwise.

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/billy-walters-became-successful-gambler-world/

Billy claims to have a lifelong 57% winning percentage on his sports bets.  Famously reclusive and secretive about his methods, Walters once told a reporter:

Fuck off with your celebrity gossip. My grandma claims to have a 10000000% winning percentage on her sports bet. What about that?  

That’s on you if you want to ignore actual documented history and compare it to your grandpa’s fantasy numbers,  .

I didn’t post “gossip” dude. What I shared is something that’s widely reported about Billy Walters and you can even find it on Wikipedia --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Walters_(gambler). It’s not some made-up example.

You don’t have to believe me, that’s fine. But acting like it’s the same as a joke claim doesn’t make your point any stronger. I’m talking about a real bettor with decades of results, and you’re replying with sarcasm instead of facts.

In any reasonable place OP would be banned for posting this bullshit.  

We’re guided by the forum rules, and according to those rules, trolling is a bannable offense.
So I guess the best thing I can say to you is: don’t feed the trolls?  


Use this formula to arrive a $16 million figure.

Code:

2000 * (1.0009^10000)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=2000+*+%281.0009%5E10000%29

2000 = the starting bankroll
1.0009 = the expected growth per bet.
10000 = total number of bets.

That number ($16 million ) is only the expected amount, not a guaranteed amount

[tread93]

Shoot man, I wish I could just buy a robot that can go to the casino for me and place very calculated bets somehow to make it such a higher chance of winning haha

[Maslate]

Shoot man, I wish I could just buy a robot that can go to the casino for me and place very calculated bets somehow to make it such a higher chance of winning haha

Unfortunately, nothing like that exists. You can consider that robot the same as AI, neither of them can make you win in sports betting. Maybe they’re good with computations since there’s a formula for that, but when it comes to predictions, there are too many factors to consider when choosing where the value is. So it’s not going to work.

[stadus]

So, in fact, no, I mean quite the opposite to people being able to apply that system and making casinos go bankrupt.

This is sports betting, use “sportsbook” to be specific.

And about the word bankrupt, that will never happen. Even if a bettor turns his $2k bankroll into $16 million, his winnings don’t come from the sportsbook’s bankroll, but from the bettors who took the losing side. So in that case, the sportsbook will still be profitable because of the cut they take from the winning bet.

Thank you for the clarification stadus, you're totally right.

In fact I used these terms ("casinos" and "bankrupt") because the user I was replying to used these same words, but I agree with you that they're not the most correct ones for this topic.

Don’t mention it. There are things you don’t know that I know, and things I don’t know that you know. We share information here that might be useful to all of us. Some info might not be helpful, so we just scratch it out.

But about the win rate, yeah, it’s really hard to maintain 55%. I experienced going as high as 57%, but now after two losses I’m down to 54.28%.

You can check my thread if you’re interested in NBA betting.

[xenomorfo]

Hey xenomorfo, I think that you misunderstood my post. Unlike the OP, what I mean is that what is possible in theory isn't feasible in real world. So, in fact, no, I mean quite the opposite to people being able to apply that system and making casinos go bankrupt.

Sorry, I misunderstood, so you think exactly like me.

I have noticed that all these systems are used or rather advertised by influencers who then put the links with referral links to the casinos
Here's why they advertise them, they think they're smart

[Satofan44]

Shoot man, I wish I could just buy a robot that can go to the casino for me and place very calculated bets somehow to make it such a higher chance of winning haha

Don't waste your time in threads like this. A person does not mature in life until they stop believing in fantasies of getting rich easy. Sit down and do the work if you want money, because for fucking sure you are not going to make it with gambling. Exceptional outliers do not disprove the theorem, they confirm it.

Unfortunately, nothing like that exists. You can consider that robot the same as AI, neither of them can make you win in sports betting. Maybe they’re good with computations since there’s a formula for that, but when it comes to predictions, there are too many factors to consider when choosing where the value is. So it’s not going to work.

Most people will not even have a 50% win-rate over the long run when you factor in the payouts and fees. Therefore the whole assumption of getting rich easy, just play a bit longer is nonsense. People need to stop being children and looking for an easy way out, there is none. Anything that starts with an unreasonable or impossible assumption is not even worth reading.

But about the win rate, yeah, it’s really hard to maintain 55%. I experienced going as high as 57%, but now after two losses I’m down to 54.28%.

Impossible in the long-run with a high odds pick. You could manipulate it to make it possible by playing something stupid like 1.05 odds all the time; it would be an useless exercise of stupidity of people like OP. A signature spammer telling you how you can compound $2k to $16 million. If we sold his entire family and all their assets they would not be worth the amount.  

Sorry, I misunderstood, so you think exactly like me.

I have noticed that all these systems are used or rather advertised by influencers who then put the links with referral links to the casinos
Here's why they advertise them, they think they're smart

It is not just the influencers, most people in this section are also dumb but they like to believe that they are smart. Classic Dunning-Kruger examples.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Shoot man, I wish I could just buy a robot that can go to the casino for me and place very calculated bets somehow to make it such a higher chance of winning haha

Keep your imagination alive and also stay alive until the reach that era where it's going to be possible because  that's not going to happen now because if it does, it means the casinos can shot down because every body would also get that AI that will go to the casinos to make cool profits for them and you know that the casino can only thrive if they are making more profits from players.

[Julien_Olynpic]

The main problem with these percentages of your total bankroll per bet is that they seem overly optimistic. Do you think winning 55% of your bets out of a thousand is easy? Yes, it can be easy under certain conditions. For example, if you always bet on favorites, you could win 90% of your bets or even more. But the odds on these bets will be so ridiculously small that you'll be surprised. And a few losses to high-stakes underdogs will send your bankroll into hell.

[mirakal]

The main problem with these percentages of your total bankroll per bet is that they seem overly optimistic. Do you think winning 55% of your bets out of a thousand is easy? Yes, it can be easy under certain conditions. For example, if you always bet on favorites, you could win 90% of your bets or even more. But the odds on these bets will be so ridiculously small that you'll be surprised. And a few losses to high-stakes underdogs will send your bankroll into hell.

I think that wasn’t what was stated in the OP.
This is on the formula

if odds are 1.90, profit on a win is +0.90 per unit.

So my assumption to this given its 1.90 standard odds for small bookies, i think he is referring to even (+ -)  point spread, or total, not moneyline odds.

[len01]

Too much theory.

Have you learn from actual experience? TBH, I don't really taking serious are mosthly in theory. But, more prefer from someone experience in real field like you actually do these in gambling and explained with us based on real result.

Not theory.

Obviously this is just a theory, but it gives us a picture of what we could possibly achieve. I think it’s good to see it this way because it gives a clearer path on how to manage our gambling journey if we’re thinking long term.

Theory always looks good until you put it into practice. But believe me, if a gambler truly implements that theory, they will definitely lack patience. The biggest enemies of gamblers are discipline and patience, and it's rare to find a truly disciplined gambler who consistently follows their theory. Making 10k bets would be incredibly exhausting.

[Smartprofit]

In my opinion, your calculations don't stand up to the test of mathematical probability theory. 🤷 Unfortunately... because, of course, it would be very tempting to come up with an effective gambling system! If we're talking about testing your calculations in practice, then, in my opinion, such an experiment is very difficult (and most likely even impossible). After all, to test your calculations in practice, you would need to make 10,000 bets in a row REPEATEDLY (only then can such an experiment be considered scientific).

You write that to achieve a positive result, you need to win with a probability of 55% or more. And you also write that this is easy to do. However, I disagree with you! Achieving such results is not at all easy. Moreover, the more attempts you make (and in your calculations, that's 10,000 bets), the greater the likelihood of failure. 🤷 I am certain (unfortunately) that your gambling system will not work in practice.

[dimonstration]

In my opinion, your calculations don't stand up to the test of mathematical probability theory. 🤷 Unfortunately... because, of course, it would be very tempting to come up with an effective gambling system! If we're talking about testing your calculations in practice, then, in my opinion, such an experiment is very difficult (and most likely even impossible). After all, to test your calculations in practice, you would need to make 10,000 bets in a row REPEATEDLY (only then can such an experiment be considered scientific).

You write that to achieve a positive result, you need to win with a probability of 55% or more. And you also write that this is easy to do. However, I disagree with you! Achieving such results is not at all easy. Moreover, the more attempts you make (and in your calculations, that's 10,000 bets), the greater the likelihood of failure. 🤷 I am certain (unfortunately) that your gambling system will not work in practice.

With this huge number of bet sample size it will be difficult to stay in 55% winning percentage since the volume might be a hindrance to have an accurate prediction overtime.

Also, Even professional sports bettor struggles to have high winning percentage whenever they are betting in the long run with huge number.

In paper analysis this is feasible because the 55% is fixed but in reality that’s the hardest part to achieve.

[Vaculin]

🤷 I am certain (unfortunately) that your gambling system will not work in practice.

That’s not a gambling system. I’m just showing what we can achieve if we hit a 55% win rate in the long run based on the bankroll mentioned in the OP.

What we’re questioning here isn’t the calculation, it’s whether someone can stay profitable after reaching that 10k bets. For some people that might take a year or two, but if you believe there are bettors who are profitable in sports betting, then you believe that a 55% win rate is achievable.

I already used Billy Walters as an example, but someone said it’s just gossip without doing any research. So if you want to know the truth, look up his name so you understand what I’m trying to bring into the discussion.