Why Most Betting Systems Eventually Fail

[FadeThePublic]

Let's talk about something nobody wants to hear: your "system" is probably garbage.

I see it constantly. Someone hits a good run using some pattern they noticed - maybe fade primetime favorites, or bet road underdogs on Thursdays, or whatever. They post their 15-3 record. Everyone congratulates them. Then six months later, crickets.

Here's the reality: most betting systems fail because they're just curve-fitted nonsense that worked during a specific sample. The market adapts, variance catches up, or the "edge" never existed in the first place.

The only systems that work long-term are the boring ones nobody wants to talk about. Line shopping. Bankroll management. Tracking actual results instead of cherry-picked wins.

Change my mind.

 

[SharpEddie47]

You're not wrong but you're also not entirely right either.

Systems fail for one primary reason: insufficient sample size before implementation. Someone notices that home underdogs in divisional games are 23-17 ATS over the past two seasons and thinks they've discovered something. They haven't. That's 40 games. That's noise.

I've tracked various "systems" over 15+ years. The ones that show genuine edges require 500+ bets minimum to validate, and even then you need to account for market evolution. A system that worked in 2015 might not work now because the market has adjusted.

However - and this is critical - systematic approaches absolutely can work if they're based on actual inefficiencies rather than pattern recognition. Asian handicap markets on certain leagues show consistent mispricing. Some totals markets systematically overvalue goals. These edges exist but they're smaller than people think (2-4% typically) and they require discipline to exploit.

The real issue isn't that systems fail. It's that most bettors never had a real system to begin with. They had a hunch that got lucky.

 

[ThePuntingProf]

I must take issue with both of you on this matter because while I agree that most betting systems do indeed fail the reasons are rather more nuanced than either of you suggest and I speak from thirty years of experience during which I have seen countless systems rise and fall including several of my own early attempts which failed spectacularly before I developed the rigorous mathematical framework I use today, the fundamental problem with most betting systems is not insufficient sample size per se though that is certainly a factor but rather a failure to understand the underlying probability distributions and the assumptions one makes when constructing a system, for example many punters will create a system based on historical match results without accounting for the fact that team quality changes over time or that managerial changes affect performance or that the bookmakers themselves adjust their pricing models as patterns emerge, I have found through extensive Poisson modeling and expected value calculations that the only systems which persist over decades are those built on fundamental mathematical principles rather than observed patterns, when Margaret and I first began serious punting in the 1990s we lost considerable sums following various "systems" advertised in betting shops until we realized that one must build the system from first principles using probability theory rather than working backwards from results, my current approach which has delivered consistent returns for over fifteen years now is based entirely on calculating true probabilities using Poisson distributions and then comparing those to market odds to identify value, this is not a system in the traditional sense but rather a mathematical framework that adapts to changing circumstances, so I would argue that systems fail not because they are inherently flawed but because they are poorly constructed without proper statistical foundations.

 

[DublinDegen]

lads im gonna be honest here i dont have a system i just bet on whatever looks good at the time and yeah

i know thats terrible and yeah im down money this year but like when i try to follow a system

i always end up breaking the rules anyway because ill see a match and think "this is definitely hitting" even though the system says not to bet it and then

i bet it anyway and then it loses and im like why did i do that but then the next time the exact same thing happens so basically systems dont work for me because

i dont have the discipline to follow them which i know is my own fault but also like systems are boring right like wheres the fun in just mechanically betting whatever your spreadsheet tells you to bet

i want to actually ENJOY the matches and feel something when i win not just tick a box on some excel sheet...

 

[GlasgowGrinder]

@DublinDegen perfectly demonstrates why systems fail.

The problem is not the system.

The problem is the person.

My position:

1. Most bettors lack discipline to follow any system
2. They modify rules mid-stream when variance occurs
3. They abandon system after normal losing streak
4. They never had proper system to begin with

My experience:

• Same correct score system since 2010
• 2,847 documented bets
• 4.8% ROI verified
• Zero modifications to core rules
• Never missed recording a single bet

Why mine works:

• Simple rules, no complexity
• Based on statistical edges not patterns
• Fixed stake size, no adjustments
• Disciplined execution every single time
• Detailed records prove effectiveness

Why others fail:

Most people want excitement, not profit.

They create "system" that is actually just their biases formalized.

Then they blame the system when it fails.

Recommendation:

If you cannot follow system for 500+ bets without modification, you do not have discipline for systematic betting.

Stick to recreational betting instead.

 

[TaffyTipster]

Right listen yeah.

I'm gonna disagree with @GlasgowGrinder here because not everyone needs to be a robot about this stuff.

Like yeah discipline matters sure.

But some of us have actual lives and jobs and families and we can't spend three hours a day updating spreadsheets and tracking every single metric.

I've got a system that works for ME.

It's not complicated.

I look for value on the exchange, I lay overpriced favourites, I bet on rugby when I know the matchups.

Do I track every single bet in some massive database? No.

Do I make money? Yeah, most years.

Am I gonna stop going down the pub to watch matches with my mates just so I can sit at home calculating Poisson distributions? F**k no.

Eddie and the Prof and Grinder can do their thing and fair play to them.

But there's a middle ground here innit.

You can have a loose system based on principles without being obsessive about it.

The systems that fail are the ones that are either total bollocks OR the ones that are so complicated nobody can actually follow them in real life.

 

[oli_sussex]

Systems fail because edges are tiny and most people can't identify them.

Market is efficient enough that systematic mispricing requires either significant data advantage or faster information processing. Most "systems" are neither.

If Pinnacle doesn't show the edge, it doesn't exist.

 

[FadeThePublic]

Taffy you just proved my point without realizing it.

You don't have a "system." You have an approach. There's a difference.

A system is: "I bet every home underdog of 3 points or more in Week 10+ divisional games." That's specific, trackable, and almost always bullshit.

An approach is: "I look for overpriced favorites and bet against them when the value is there." That's what you do. That's what I do. That's not a system, it's a philosophy backed by understanding market dynamics.

The systems that fail are the ones that try to be too clever. "Bet the under when the total moves 0.5 points toward the over in the last 4 hours and the temperature is below 40 degrees." That's not an edge, that's data mining.

Andy's correct score thing works because it's simple and he has the discipline. But most people don't have that discipline, which is why they create elaborate "systems" to give themselves permission to bet.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Fade is right about the difference between a system and an approach, though I'd argue a good system IS an approach that's been formalized and tested.

The issue is that most bettors confuse correlation with causation. They see that road dogs in primetime have covered 60% of the time over the last two years and think that's meaningful. It's not. That's variance masquerading as an edge.

Here's what actually matters: Why would that edge exist? What market inefficiency creates it? If you can't answer that question with something other than "because the numbers show it," you don't have a system.

For example: If you're betting unders in certain situations, WHY are those unders mispriced? Is it because the public overvalues offense? Is it because bookmakers shade lines toward overs for action? Is it because weather isn't being properly factored in?

The why matters more than the what.

Taffy's approach works because he understands WHY favorites get overpriced on exchanges - too much public money creates value on the lay side. That's not curve-fitting, that's understanding market mechanics.

Most "systems" are just people fooling themselves with small samples and no theoretical foundation.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

I think everyone here is making valid points but talking past each other a bit.

There's a difference between:

1. Mechanical systems (Grinder's approach)
2. Philosophical frameworks (Taffy's approach)
3. Mathematical models (Prof's approach)
4. Market-based strategies (Fade's approach)

They can all work. They can all fail. It depends on the person and the execution.

As a coach, I can tell you that the best "system" is the one you'll actually follow consistently. Grinder's system works FOR HIM because he has military discipline. It wouldn't work for @DublinDegen because he doesn't have that personality type (no offense mate).

Taffy's approach works FOR HIM because he understands rugby markets and has the experience to spot value. It wouldn't work for someone who's just starting out and doesn't have that knowledge base yet.

The systems that fail are the ones that don't match the bettor's personality, knowledge, or discipline level. Someone trying to copy Grinder's system without his discipline will fail. Someone trying to copy Prof's Poisson models without understanding the math will fail.

Here's what I tell my players: Find a system that matches who you are, not who you think you should be. If you're not going to track 3,000 bets in a spreadsheet, don't pretend you will. Build something simpler that you'll actually execute.

 

[DublinDegen]

I think everyone here is making valid points but talking past each other a bit.

There's a difference between:

1. Mechanical systems (Grinder's approach)
2. Philosophical frameworks (Taffy's approach)
3. Mathematical models (Prof's approach)
4. Market-based strategies (Fade's approach)

They can all work. They can all fail. It depends on the person and the execution.

As a coach, I can tell you that the best "system" is the one you'll actually follow consistently. Grinder's system works FOR HIM because he has military discipline. It wouldn't work for @DublinDegen because he doesn't have that personality type (no offense mate).

Taffy's approach works FOR HIM because he understands rugby markets and has the experience to spot value. It wouldn't work for someone who's just starting out and doesn't have that knowledge base yet.

The systems that fail are the ones that don't match the bettor's personality, knowledge, or discipline level. Someone trying to copy Grinder's system without his discipline will fail. Someone trying to copy Prof's Poisson models without understanding the math will fail.

Here's what I tell my players: Find a system that matches who you are, not who you think you should be. If you're not going to track 3,000 bets in a spreadsheet, don't pretend you will. Build something simpler that you'll actually execute.

Tony that actually makes a lot of sense mate like ive tried to be like Eddie and Glasgow with the spreadsheets and the discipline and it lasts about two weeks

before i just go back to betting whatever i feel like betting and then i feel guilty about it like i SHOULD be tracking everything and i SHOULD be calculating expected value and all that

but the reality is im never gonna do it consistently so maybe i should just accept that im a casual bettor who does this for fun and stop pretending im gonna be some professional sharp bettor... although i still want to MAKE money obviously i just dont want it to feel like a second job you know...

 

[GlasgowGrinder]

Tony that actually makes a lot of sense mate like ive tried to be like Eddie and Glasgow with the spreadsheets and the discipline and it lasts about two weeks

before i just go back to betting whatever i feel like betting and then i feel guilty about it like i SHOULD be tracking everything and i SHOULD be calculating expected value and all that

but the reality is im never gonna do it consistently so maybe i should just accept that im a casual bettor who does this for fun and stop pretending im gonna be some professional sharp bettor... although i still want to MAKE money obviously i just dont want it to feel like a second job you know...

Accept what you are.

You are recreational bettor, not professional.

That is not failure, that is reality.

Recommendation:

1. Stop trying to be something you are not
2. Set entertainment budget, not "bankroll"
3. Bet smaller amounts for enjoyment
4. Stop feeling guilty about approach

Most bettors are recreational.

Nothing wrong with that.

Problems occur when recreational bettors pretend to be professional.

You lose money because you bet too much on too many things, not because you lack system.


If you had proper system but kept breaking rules:

System is not the problem.

Your relationship with gambling is the problem.

Consider that seriously.

 

[ThePuntingProf]

I find myself agreeing with Tony's assessment that different approaches suit different personalities though I would still maintain that only mathematically rigorous approaches can deliver consistent long-term profits and while I respect Taffy's success with his less formal methodology I suspect that if he actually tracked his results with the precision that I employ he would find that his returns are lower than he believes them to be which is not a criticism but rather an observation that most punters overestimate their profitability due to selective memory and inadequate record keeping, regarding @DublinDegen 's situation I must say that Andy is absolutely correct that this appears to be less about systems and more about impulse control which is a separate issue entirely and one that requires professional help rather than a better betting system, returning to the original question of why systems fail I maintain that the primary reason is mathematical invalidity, systems based on observed patterns without underlying theoretical justification are simply curve-fitting exercises that will inevitably regress to the mean, the only systems that persist are those built on genuine market inefficiencies that can be explained through probability theory and mathematical modeling, for instance my Asian handicap approach works not because I noticed a pattern but because I can demonstrate mathematically why certain handicap lines are consistently mispriced relative to true probabilities calculated via Poisson distributions, that is not curve-fitting that is applied mathematics and it is the only sustainable approach to systematic betting in my extensive experience.

 

[TaffyTipster]

@ThePuntingProf Prof with all due respect mate.

I DO track my bets.

Maybe not in some fancy database with Greek symbols and that.

But I know exactly how much I've deposited and how much I've withdrawn.

Over the past three years I'm up about 8 grand.

That's real money in my account not theoretical mathematical profits.

And yeah maybe if I was more precise about it I could squeeze out another 1 or 2 percent ROI.

But I've also got a life to live innit.

I'm not saying your way is wrong.

I'm saying there's more than one way to be profitable.

You don't need a PhD in mathematics to beat the bookies.

You just need common sense, value awareness, and discipline.

Which I've got plenty of thank you very much.

 

[FadeThePublic]

This thread is perfectly demonstrating why most systems fail, by the way.

Everyone's defending their own approach and assuming everyone else is doing it wrong.

Prof thinks you need advanced math. Andy thinks you need military discipline. Taffy thinks you need practical common sense. Eddie thinks you need statistical rigor.

Here's the reality: YOU'RE ALL RIGHT. For yourselves.

The systems that fail are the ones that get sold on forums or Twitter as "one size fits all." Because there's no such thing.

What works for a 58-year-old retired math professor in London isn't going to work for a 33-year-old software sales guy in Dublin who has impulse control issues.

The reason most systems fail isn't because systems don't work. It's because people try to use systems that don't match their personality, knowledge, or lifestyle.

Find what works for YOU, or you're just wasting time and money.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Fade's hit on something important here.

I've been doing this for 20+ years and I've seen every type of system imaginable. The ones that work share one thing in common: consistency between the system and the person using it.

But let's be clear about something: not every approach is equally valid just because it "works for you." If you're losing money, your approach doesn't work, full stop. Comfort and profitability are not the same thing.

Conor's approach might be comfortable for him, but he's admitted he's down money. That's not a "different style that works," that's just losing with extra steps.

Taffy's up money, so his approach is valid even if it's less rigorous than Prof's or Andy's. Different styles can all be profitable.

But the original question stands: Why do most systems fail?

Answer: Because most systems are either:

1. Based on insufficient data
2. Lack theoretical foundation
3. Don't match the user's discipline level
4. Never had positive expectancy to begin with

All four of those have to be addressed or you're just gambling with a spreadsheet.