Why "Good Picks" Can Be Bad Bets

[ParlayPrincess_88]

Okay so this is gonna sound dumb but I need help understanding something.

I keep seeing people say things like "that's a good pick but a bad bet" and honestly I don't get the difference? Like if you think a team is gonna win isn't that a good bet by definition?

For example everyone was saying the Chiefs would definitely beat the Raiders and they did win. But someone told me betting Chiefs -9.5 was a "bad bet" even though it won. How can a winning bet be bad lol.

I feel like I'm missing something obvious but I can't figure out what it is. Can someone explain this in a way that actually makes sense?

 

[betcatalog]

Yes, give me more info

 

[SharpEddie47]

This is actually one of the most important concepts in sports betting and most people never understand it.

A good pick means you correctly identified who will win. A good bet means you're getting paid enough to make the wager profitable long-term. These are completely different things.

Let me use your Chiefs example. Yes, the Chiefs beat the Raiders. But if the Chiefs were -450 on the moneyline, betting them requires you to risk $450 to win $100. The implied probability at -450 is roughly 81.8%. Do the Chiefs beat the Raiders 82% of the time? Probably not. Maybe they win 75% of the time in reality.

So you made a "good pick" - you correctly predicted the Chiefs would win. But you made a "bad bet" because you weren't getting paid enough for the actual probability of the outcome. Over 100 similar bets, you'd lose money even while winning 75% of them because the payout doesn't compensate for the 25% of losses.

The math is simple: if you bet $450 on -450 favorites 100 times, and they win 75 times, you win $7,500 but you lose $11,250 on the 25 losses. Net result: down $3,750 despite correctly picking the winner three quarters of the time.

That's why odds matter more than outcomes. A winning bet at bad odds is still a bad bet. You just got lucky this time that the lower probability outcome didn't occur.

 

[FadeThePublic]

The public makes "good picks" all day long and still loses money.

Everyone knows the Chiefs are better than the Raiders. That's not analysis, that's just watching football. The market knows this too, which is why the Chiefs are massive favorites. The public sees "Chiefs are way better" and bets them at whatever price, not realizing the price already reflects that information.

A good pick is identifying who's better. A good bet is identifying when the market has mispriced the gap between them. Those are completely different skills.

The Raiders might be 7-point underdogs but if you think the actual gap is 10 points, then Raiders +7 is a bad bet and Chiefs -7 is a good bet. The pick (Chiefs win) and the bet (what spread offers value) are separate questions.

This is why the public loses. They make good picks constantly. They just make terrible bets because they ignore price.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

This is actually one of the most important concepts in sports betting and most people never understand it.

A good pick means you correctly identified who will win. A good bet means you're getting paid enough to make the wager profitable long-term. These are completely different things.

Let me use your Chiefs example. Yes, the Chiefs beat the Raiders. But if the Chiefs were -450 on the moneyline, betting them requires you to risk $450 to win $100. The implied probability at -450 is roughly 81.8%. Do the Chiefs beat the Raiders 82% of the time? Probably not. Maybe they win 75% of the time in reality.

So you made a "good pick" - you correctly predicted the Chiefs would win. But you made a "bad bet" because you weren't getting paid enough for the actual probability of the outcome. Over 100 similar bets, you'd lose money even while winning 75% of them because the payout doesn't compensate for the 25% of losses.

The math is simple: if you bet $450 on -450 favorites 100 times, and they win 75 times, you win $7,500 but you lose $11,250 on the 25 losses. Net result: down $3,750 despite correctly picking the winner three quarters of the time.

That's why odds matter more than outcomes. A winning bet at bad odds is still a bad bet. You just got lucky this time that the lower probability outcome didn't occur.

Okay Eddie's math makes sense but like... practically speaking how am I supposed to know if the Chiefs actually win 75% or 82% of the time? I can't predict the future lol.

And @FadeThePublic I get what you're saying but again - how do I know if the "actual gap" is 7 points or 10 points? That just sounds like guessing with extra steps.

I feel like I'm being told "just know the right probability" but nobody's telling me HOW to know that. Do I need a math degree for this or something?

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

Princess you're asking the right question. The answer is you don't know the exact probability - nobody does. What you're looking for is spots where your analysis suggests the market is wrong by enough to overcome the vig.

Think of it this way: I'm not trying to predict exact probabilities. I'm trying to find spots where I'm confident the real probability is meaningfully different from what the odds imply.

For example, if a team is coming off an emotional overtime win on the road and now faces a short week with travel, I might think they're more likely to underperform than the market prices. I don't need to know their exact win probability - I just need to believe the market hasn't fully adjusted for those contextual factors.

The skill isn't precision, it's identifying situations where you have information or perspective the market doesn't fully reflect yet. That's where good bets live, even if the "pick" seems obvious.

It takes time to develop that judgment, but it starts with asking "why is this line here?" before asking "who do I think wins?"