At What Win Rate Does Betting Stop Being Gambling and Become Investing?

CoachTony_Bets

CoachTony_Bets

Bankroll Crusher
Joined
Dec 7, 2024
Messages
196
Reaction score
6
Points
18
Philosophical question that's been on my mind: at what point does betting stop being "gambling" and become skill-based investing or a legitimate profession?

Is it 52% win rate? 55%? 60%? Or is it not about win rate at all but about ROI? Or is it about sample size proving skill over luck?

Legally, it's all "gambling" in most jurisdictions. But practically, there's clearly a difference between someone spinning roulette and someone with a verified 57% ATS record over 1000 bets.

Where's the line?
 
This is actually a crucial question with real implications for how we think about what we're doing.

My take: It stops being gambling when you have a statistically significant positive expected value over a meaningful sample size. That's probably 53%+ over 500+ bets at standard juice.

Below that, you're still gambling regardless of what you tell yourself.
 
I'd say 55% minimum. Anything below that and variance can easily explain your results.

53% over 500 bets could just be a lucky run. 55% over 1000 bets starts looking like actual skill.
 
Statistical significance requires considering both win rate and sample size.

At -110 odds (1.91 decimal), 52.4% breakeven. Any positive ROI over 500+ bets suggests skill.

However, confidence intervals must be calculated. 54% over 100 bets insufficient. 54% over 2000 bets statistically significant.
 
Good question Princess. The distinction is expected value.

Gambling = negative expected value (slot machines, roulette)
Investing = positive expected value (index funds, real estate)

The question is whether sports betting can be investing if you're good enough.
 
But there's also the philosophical question: even if you have positive EV, is it "investing" or just "skilled gambling"?

Like poker pros call themselves professional gamblers, not investors. There's a semantic distinction too.
 
Back
Top
Odds