bet on pro sports

Let's assume the best: You get good enough at sports betting to win consistently. Are you now going to be unwelcome at sportsbooks? Are you going to be stuck in the kind of cat and mouse game that goes on between casinos and blackjack card counters? Patton: This has never been a problem for me, as my bets are currently small and my success to date limited.
However, the forums are full of stories from people who assert they have had their limits reduced or been booted outright from books because they have been successful. Since there is no regulation of the industry in this regard, the books are entirely within their rights to do this.
Supposedly the big books are not concerned with whether you're winning or losing, but I am still in the process of getting to the point where I can find out!
Turkoman1963: Obviously, this would be a nice problem to have. One of the reasons to have many outs is this very issue: in case you are booted because you are winning too much, you can simply play at another sportsbook. The Internet is full of sports book betting--there are dozens recommended by alone--so the fact that one sportsbook reduces your limits or asks you to leave is not exactly the same hardship as your local bookie telling you to get lost.
It's all about bargaining position. If you only have one sportsbook that you play with and you win and they ask you to leave, well, then you are in a pickle. But if you have five sportsbooks you play with--and you should, if only for the fact that you can shop sports betting lines that way--then this shouldn't be an issue. Just be happy that you've won.
Buckeye: In general, I don't think most outs will kick you out just for winning. Some players have reported this, but how are we to know they didn't break the book's rules in some way (like bearding) or try to cheat them (emptying their account on an obvious bad line) or pull some scam. Many posts that start out as some player "playing innocent" about being stiffed or booted, turn out to be the player trying to pull a scam. Most outs just want fair play; they know that over 90% of players lose and that "11 is greater than 10" will get most in the end--literally. They feel that you may be lucky now, but it will turn and we will get it all back and more.
But that's not to deny that there are some books that lower limits for winners to ridiculous levels and a few that just plain boot them.
The Philosopher: On the whole, I think the risk of becoming unwelcome at a sportsbook because you are winning is generally low. Reading the forums at places like might well lead you to believe it is more common than it really is. What you have to remember is that, as Buckeye pointed out, most of the people complaining about being booted are betting in a way that very few other players, especially newbies, ever would. They want it to sound like "Hey, if this happened to me, it could happen to any of you!" but usually that's disingenuous.
Lesser countermeasures, such as reducing the player's limits, cutting the player off from certain sports or certain wager types, or issuing the player a warning are more common, but most players will never face even these countermeasures.
Here are a few things that can make you unwelcome at a book:
1. Out-and-out fraud: If you do something like deposit by credit card, lose, and then dispute the charges with your credit card company and get them cancelled, then obviously you are not going to be welcome to play at that book any longer. In fact, to some extent, such information is shared among books, so you'll probably have the door slammed in your face at some other books as well.
2. Taking unfair advantage of sportsbook errors: There seems to exist a sort of unwritten "code" of behavior that prohibits players from exploiting certain sportsbook vulnerabilities. The clearest example of this would be the so-called "bad line" cases. If a sportsbook hangs a line that any reasonable person could see is just a typo or something unintentional (such as listing Duke as an 18 point underdog instead of an 18 point favorite), and you?re gambling it, you will likely be regarded by the book as only one step removed from the credit card fraud type of thief. Most books, in fact, will cancel the bet. But whether they cancel it or pay it, they will certainly make a note of what you did, and too many such transgressions will get you shown the door.
Unfortunately, the exact line of what will be considered shrewd sport gambling and what will be considered dishonest exploitation of the book is not always clear. What if, for instance, you find out about an important injury minutes before your book does and you make a bet based on your information? Apparently at least some people in the industry consider this too to be a violation of the "code," so here also your book might be giving you demerits even as it pays off your bet.
Some books seemingly take it to the extreme that pretty much any form of wagering where the player finds a betting edge is to be regarded as unethical. If you are online sports betting only an obscure sport like NASCAR, or only bet unusual props that you've researched in greater depth than the linesmakers, you might well come under suspicion. (The "justification" being that these things are offered as a courtesy to players, and it's understood that you will only dabble in them occasionally while giving the book plenty of action on the mainstream offerings.) Similarly, if you are sports gambling only on reduced vig days, or gambling only parlays or teasers at shops that offer excellent deals on those types of bets, this could be frowned on.
This is getting disturbingly close to declaring g that a player winning is in and of itself objectionable. I suppose the distinction would be that even this sort of book wouldn't care that some of their customers win by pure luck (as lottery winners do); they just don't want anyone playing with a positive mathematical expectation.
Thankfully, from what I gather, this attitude is not the norm. Certainly there are books that will kick you out for sport betting intelligently like this, or at least warn you, but there are far more that will not.
3. Placing bets for an organized, professional betting syndicate: Sportsbooks have limits on what an individual can bet. But what's to stop someone from betting $50,000 at a book with a limit of $1,000 from simply arranging for 49 other people (the "movers" or "beards") to bet $1,000 each for him?
This kind of syndicate sports betting is explicitly prohibited at some books, and frowned on at most others. Often an understanding is reached where such sports betting sports bettors will be allowed to play, but will forego bonuses and other perks that might be available to regular customers. Obviously the book wants customers, but these syndicates typically need the book more than the book needs them, and the bargaining proceeds accordingly.
4. Betting "steam": First, a quick explanation of what "steam" is, as I understand it.
The betting lines move when books get significantly more action on one side than the other. The most common times this happens is precisely when one or more of the aforementioned betting syndicates are slapping down big bets simultaneously in octopus-like fashion.
There are many players, not formally a part of the syndicates, who sit and watch the betting lines at numerous books all day, and when they see the line changing in the same direction at several of them, they frantically call the others and try to get down on the same side before they move the sports betting line, or at least while they've only moved it as little as possible so far.
These bettors are the so-called "followers," and they are betting "steam." Their strategy, as I understand it, is twofold. First, they assume that whoever is betting enough to move the line is likely to really know something and to win more often than chance, and they want to get on the same side if possible. Second, if the original syndicate wagers and the wagers of the followers are big enough, the betting line will move sufficiently that later you can bet the other side for a middle or a scalp opportunity (see earlier definitions). In that case, you're quite indifferent as to whether the original bettor can handicap his way out of a paper bag or not. You just are taking advantage of the line move and playing both sides; you don't care whether the steam side wins.
Now let's look at steam from the book's perspective. You not only have the $1,000 from the original bettor (who does this for a living and who you have to think might have a better than chance likelihood of being right), and the $49,000 from his employees and associates, but also now countless thousands more from the innumerable lemmings sitting at their computers all day watching for just this kind of move, and all on the same side.
One of two things can happen, both bad. If you move your betting line too little or too slowly, you are going to have wildly unbalanced action. You'll be gambling instead of booking. If you move your line too much, there will be such a gap that people will ultimately jump on the other side and then you risk the nightmare scenario of being middled and paying off all of them.
Now some books have sufficient cash reserves and sufficient confidence in their linesmakers that they can handle this. They'll take the extra action in the belief that the vig is enough to keep them with a positive expectation over the long run. (Just like at Caesar's Palace, if several high casino gambling rollers choose to bet "red" at the same time decide on roulette gambling, and numerous other superstitious bettors immediately copy them and pile on the same side, Caesar's isn't going to panic just because it might lose big on this one upcoming spin.)
Be aware, though, that many books do not want this kind of action at all. They try to get rid of the steam chasers almost as diligently as they try to get rid of the syndicates themselves. If you're going to try to make your living by watching your computer screen and timing your bets just as you see the betting lines changing like this, you'll want to do some research about each book individually to get a feel for their attitude toward steam bettors, and play at the places that actually want your action.
5. Scalpers and middlers: In effect, a skilled scalper or middler is making the books collectively pay him vig. He's betting only in cases where the combination of lines available to him means the vig has been reversed and he's collecting a fee from the books for letting them take his bets. One day his profit will come from the first book and the next day from the other, but in the long run, he's skimming from all of them collectively.
Many books don't have a problem with this, and some do. Again, if you plan to use this sports betting strategy, it's a matter of researching the different books to get a sense of who wants your action and who does not.
Rightly or wrongly, in the case of books who discourage such action, scalpers often seem to be resented more than middlers. Scalpers guarantee themselves a small profit with each transaction, while middlers go through many small losses and a few large wins to realize a similar long term positive result. Some books seem to regard the former as more offensive, for whatever reason.
6. Betting your own sports betting picks and winning consistently simply because you're a good handicapper: Frankly, I think this is the one where you have the least to worry about. I'm not saying it's impossible that you'll get into trouble for this, but for the most part, this is not the kind of player that books take countermeasures against.
Again, think about it from the book's perspective. They just want to get roughly balanced action; they don't care if you happen to be on the right side of that balance 55% of the time, or 60% of the time, or 99% of the time. They're just keeping the vig and letting you players win and lose against each other.
What they don't like is the artificially unbalanced situations where everybody is copying everybody else, and so everybody wants on the same side at the same time. That's not going to happen if everyone is doing their own handicapping and making their own decisions.
So if you just happen to make good picks and do well, I think the majority of sportsbooks will pay you with a smile and thank you for your business.
In summary, (and this is only my opinion, as someone who is not an "insider" in the industry), #1 and the unambiguous cases of #2 are unwelcome behavior pretty much everywhere. The rest of #2, #3, #4, and #5 will be unwelcome at some books, tolerated grudgingly at some, and little or no problem at some. #6 will only be a problem at the chintziest books.
If winning in the style of #6 is your goal, as it is mine, then I don't think you have to worry about running out of quality places to play. #2-#5 can be a bit dicier, but even though there will be more places that frown on these styles than on #6, there should still be plenty of books available to you.
So if you're wondering "Are the books going to let me continue to play any more if I win?" the complex answer starts with "It depends what you're doing that's enabling you to win?," and the simple answer is "Probably yes."
Buckeye: If a book actually boots players for winning, then that isn't playing fair, in my opinion. You are OK as long as they are beating you, but if your sports handicapping skills get sharp, or the cold player you piggyback gets hot, or whatever it takes that reverses your course at the book, then they don't give you a shot at winning any back.
Some say it shouldn't matter, because you can always play elsewhere. I agree, in general, but some books are more useful than others. They may have better odds, unique props, better sport betting lines, etc. Say I get hammered betting totals on Norwegian fishing for two years at the only book that offers it. Then I stop betting overs on perch and start betting unders on bass and I get on a roll. If they boot me then, it's not even offered elsewhere, so they have frozen me out of the market. I am sure many say that is their right, but I want to know up front that I won't be allowed to win there, otherwise why should I be willing to risk losing to them in the first place?
It seems unfair to me to get booted when I didn't cheat, break rules, etc.; I just started winning. Many say, "They can kick out anyone they want for any reason." True, but it's still wrong for the same reasons that in many countries businesses can't discriminate (by race, religion, etc.) when it comes to whom they will or won't take on as customers without risking lawsuits. Is it fair to be taken on by a book, follow the rules and not pull anything crooked, only to get booted just because you stopped losing money to them? I say no way!
I have never been booted, and hope I never am. I am still a major square, admittedly, but I will say I rarely make what I call "plain vanilla" bets. Meaning I rarely bet something that is generally available at most outs for that exact price and line. So most of sports gambling bets I make, and outs I use, are valuable in helping my bottom line over time. This is part of the reason bonuses aren't that big a deal to me, and vig and opinionated lines are a very big deal. So losing a useful out would likely mean I'd be taking worse lines or paying more vig for bets in the future, win or lose (which would suck).
I agree that books have the right to lower players' limits based on their tolerance to risk, etc. and that they have the right to kick out beards trying to circumvent those limits. On the other hand, the rules some books have against "wise guys" and "steam" players are a mystery to me. How can they differentiate between a player who develops skill both at handicapping and at sports betting strategies to get the best numbers, versus those who fall under these derogatory labels? Requiring customers to follow the rules and to not be jerks is one thing, but when they make the rules so nebulous that they can be used to kick out anyone they want, it is once again unfair, in my opinion.
What sports are best to bet on? Buckeye: There are several levels this can be approached from. The first is that if all other things are equal, the sports with the lowest vigorish/hold, most games and sports line and odds to choose from, would appear to be the most vulnerable for bettors. So online baseball betting, with its uniquely low standard 10 cent betting line, and large number of games, would be an obvious choice for U.S.-based sport bettors.
Since nothing is ever really equal, the second level to consider, which may be the most important factor, is the expertise of the lines makers for the sport and the availability of pertinent sports handicapping information to lines makers and the general public. Handicapping can be looked at as an "information war". The greater the disparity between your information and the lines makers', or your information and Joe Public's, the softer the betting lines will be for you, and thus the more advantage you have.
For these reasons, the less generally popular the sport, the more real expertise and knowledge gives you a betting edge in handicapping it. Sports wagering odds on non-major sports, like tennis, golf, and NASCAR, are often thrown out-by both sides of the counter--as the most beatable sports betting sports, because lines makers and Joe Public don't have the plethora of information sources that other sports provide. No injury reports on the AP wire tracking every hangnail, few statistical studies or databases to be mined, no national TV shows analyzing games, and in general less overall knowledge about these sports. These sports also tend to have more disparity in lines, as they are less "Don Best" influenced than the major sports now are. They are less popular with pros and scalpers, because their betting limits are lower, and they aren't as widespread and uniform in offerings.
The third level is your own "fan interest" in the sport. This often overrides all other considerations. Though some players have no fan interest in the sports gambling pick they bet on, most internet sports betting players tend to bet the sports they enjoy the most, the ones they watch on TV or go to in person, the ones they actively follow by choice, for those are the sports they are confident they know best. If a handicapper is to spend even 10 hours a week analyzing stats and angles and conditions of a sport, it sure helps if he has a passion and genuine interest in the game to start with.
For example, internet football betting is so popular among bettors in the U.S. that it dominates the market and pervades our society. It is thought of as un-American to not be glued to a TV for the Super Bowl, and to not have a "square" or a sheet in the nfl sports betting office pool is considered blasphemous. It is arguably justified for a typical American sports betting player to focus on football betting.
So my opinion is that the less popular sports are more easily handicapped and beatable than the major sports, but not everyone has the interest or dedication or knowledge to exploit those sports and their relatively softer betting lines. It may take half as much work for you to beat NASCAR as it would to beat the NFL, but if you are a football fan who finds auto racing deadly dull and would have to force himself to put even a quarter as much work into sports handicapping NASCAR as football, you're actually better off sticking with the sport that's tougher to beat.
The Philosopher: My thoughts overlap a great deal with Buckeye's. I would look at the following factors:
1. Sports betting sports with the lowest vig and/or the most sports betting line shopping variation. Buckeye's example of the dime line in baseball betting is right on point here.
2. Betting on the most obscure sports, where you have a chance to be one of the few people who actually is knowledgeable about it. If you know a lot about women's tennis, or some small college and a few of the teams it plays each year in basketball, you may well be ahead of the lines makers already, since they offer such things as an afterthought at lower limits.
3. Cutting almost exactly in the opposite direction, online gambling with the sports that are likely to draw the most uninformed square money. Remember, in a sense, the betting public really determines the line; the bookie is just trying to put it where he'll get roughly equal action on both sides. Since everybody and their brother are into pro football betting, Kentucky Derby, etc., you'd think there is an awful lot of "dumb" money affecting those betting lines.
4. Online sports gambling where you have the most personal interest and experience. Sport gambling on something where researching it will be a tedious chore.
When I decided to become more serious about sports betting, I opted to concentrate on the NFL betting. Since I was still something of a neophyte, I wasn't really aware of #1, or at least wasn't thinking about it. I mostly was thinking about #2 and #3. I wasn't sure if it was better to be where the squares are or where almost nobody is. I kind of let #4 break the tie for me. I felt I had a head start on the NFL football betting since that was the sport I was most interested in, so I decided to devote myself to that.
I now lean more toward the view that #2 is a stronger factor than #3. In retrospect, I tend to believe that if I had devoted the same number of hours these last few years to something like NASCAR betting rather than pro football betting, instead of just doing pretty well, I'd probably be stinking rich.
Turkoman1963: I concentrate on the small areas where I believe I have a good feel for the sport in question. Obviously, I have no idea who will win a cricket match between India and England, whereas I might have a very good feeling as to whether Tennessee will cover a seven point spread against LSU.
Also, you have to factor in a key question: Is internet gambling a hobby or income for you? If it is the former, then all the more reason for betting on the Tennessee-LSU game rather than the cricket match, especially since the cricket match is not even on American television.
Since I live on the West Coast, I think I have a good grasp of Pac 10 football and basketball and, according to my records, have done quite well when concentrating on those two areas. When I venture outside my sports betting area of expertise to, say, MAC Basketball, I am lost in the wilderness.
Now, this is not to deny that many sports gambling bettors has done quite well concentrating on a small niche, like MAC basketball, since most people don't follow it. But unlike the stock market, online sports gambling is also supposed to be fun, so while I might have a better chance of winning on Weber State tomorrow night if I really study the game, I much prefer concentrating my efforts on whether Quincy Carter can string two good games in a row and thus, should I take the 4 points and the Cowboys this Sunday against the Giants.
There's also an element of bravado in all this: it is much more fun to tell your co-workers or friends that the Cowboys are a "mortal lock" this Sunday than to breeze in one morning extolling the virtues of William & Mary's point guard and how you should take the points against the Citadel.
Patton: Many years ago, after he made the Magellan Fund the most successful mutual fund in history, Peter Lynch wrote a book on stock investing. I can't remember the name of the book but the advice was generally as follows.
You can beat the stock pros by developing information from your own life. Take a number of positions in different stocks that you believe will do well because the companies provide goods or services that appear to you to be valuable and unique.
A sports "investor" can pick up two things from this. First, it is possible to beat other bettors if you can gain an insight into a particular sport that only a few people have. This means, to me, that you should have a real love for the game to start with. Then develop that into a knowledge that enables you to understand better how that sport "works," and the factors that affect outcomes in it.
Lots of people try to game handicapping solely with numbers, and add a little about injuries, weather, etc. into the mix. But the intangibles are also extremely important to consider. If you have a better knowledge of what those intangibles are, and how they affect your chosen sport, you have a big edge over the competition.
My experience has been that hard, quantifiable data (stats) is easier to come by than intangible information, making the latter more valuable. Everywhere you go you can find free statistical data on the internet. Getting into the intangibles, however, requires more digging. At best you will actually view the games and see how the teams and players interact with each other in the heat of battle. If you can't do that, there are also lots of stories, and commentary, about games. But in either case, to get the intangibles, you need to spend time and exert a lot of effort. Since everyone's time is limited, you are correspondingly limited in the degree to which you can dig up and consider intangibles.
To take Turkoman's example about betting a Weber State game versus Nfl betting a Dallas Cowboys game, you are more likely to make money on more obscure information about Weber State than the better known information about Quincy Carter and the Cowboys. Most people have insufficient interest in Weber State and its conference to develop intangible information about it that will give them a betting edge over other bettors. But everyone and their uncle is tracking Quincy Carter's performance and has a good idea how he will perform this weekend against the Giants, making this information less valuable.
The second thing people can take away from Peter Lynch is his advice to have a number (in the case of the Magellan Fund, a vast number) of picks against which to apply your sports betting strategy. That means a sport in which there are a number of betting opportunities. Of course, you should only bet gambling sports when you feel you have an edge, but you are more likely to find them in sports with many games. Baseball betting and basketball betting have been mentioned already, to which I would add hockey, if that's your thing.
Thus, I would stress personal interest first. If you have no interest, you won't work hard enough to succeed. Second, I would put the number of games or gambling betting opportunities. Third, I would put the level of knowledge and skills of the other sport gambling bettors, who are, in effect, your competition. But none of these factors should be ignored.
Buckeye: Following up on a point Philo made, I would say "inside" knowledge, or at least concentrated knowledge about a sport or league is a very good way to exploit even a major sport. What Turkoman called "niche betting" is a very salient point. Studying and knowing a small school "hoops" conference could be more valuable, time wise, than trying to cap the entire 300+ NCAA field. Concentrating on your favorite conference, or local area conference, can be a good way to keep from "stretching" to weak plays. Some successful sport betting handicappers only handicap a small portion of the sport. Some will even team up and break the league into sections for each to specialize in.
The important goal is to try to gain a betting edge over Joe Public who is throwing darts or flipping a coin. Any sports betting edge that can be gained, whether through unpopular sports or conferences or teams, can be exploited. I think this is a more likely productive effort than trying to bet "steam" or know where the smart versus square money is. I guess that is because I believe more in handicapping games than in handicapping money moves (as in where is the money coming from and whom is it going on).
One point I'd like to make that runs counter to some of what we've said is that it can be a mistake to confuse the fan interest of watching and enjoying games with real knowledge. The natural biases of a fan can actually detract from one's handicapping. Sometimes an objective view, like "number crunchers" use, can keep you from falling into the "I just know this team is due to bet on pro sports" trap. For some, it is better to bet on sports they don't care about, as it brings objectivity.
Scalpers and middlers, for instance, often remove the emotion of whom it is they are sport gambling on from the equation. They concentrate on the line instead of the team. There is a lesson in that perspective, in my opinion. Their only interest in the teams is how the lines makers or the public views them, not how they themselves view them.
This is where your purpose in web gambling comes in. If you are doing it for amusement, and have no delusions of grandeur, then by all means bet on your favorite bet gambling sports. But if your interest is in making money from internet gambling, then a sport that you have developed biases (very possibly faulty) in over years of "fan interest" may be the last place you should look to for betting a profit.
The Philosopher: In summary, we really can't name a specific sport or list of sports that is best for everyone. All we can do is mention some of the factors that we think are most important in making that decision. And many of those factors are relative to the individual online sports gambling bettor.