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

CoachTony_Bets

CoachTony_Bets

Market Sharp
Joined
Dec 7, 2024
Messages
203
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.
 
Semantics less important than mathematical reality.

If activity produces positive risk-adjusted returns over time, functionally equivalent to investing regardless of terminology.

Society's label does not change underlying mathematics.
 
Mate you lot are overthinking this.

If I'm making money, I'm investing.

If I'm losing money, I'm gambling.

Simple as that innit.
 
This is quite a profound question that touches on probability theory, legal definitions, and philosophical questions about the nature of risk and skill, from a mathematical perspective I would argue that any activity with positive expected value over a sufficient sample size to establish statistical significance cannot properly be termed gambling in the classical sense, gambling implies games of pure chance where the house edge ensures negative expected value, whereas sports betting if approached with proper methodology can demonstrate consistent positive returns, I have maintained detailed records for thirty years showing approximately five percent ROI which over thousands of bets demonstrates clear statistical significance, however society and legal systems persist in classifying all sports betting as gambling regardless of skill level which creates interesting tax and regulatory complications, in the UK betting winnings are not taxed which implicitly acknowledges them as gambling proceeds rather than investment income, whereas in the United States they are taxed which somewhat contradicts their classification as gambling, the philosophical question of whether skill-based betting constitutes investing or merely skilled gambling likely depends on one's definition of investing but I would argue that any activity requiring research, analysis, and disciplined capital allocation with demonstrable positive returns meets reasonable criteria for investment activity.
 
Back
Top
Odds