- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,574
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 63
This guide is for bettors who feel like they understand golf but their results don't match their effort, or anyone who wants to identify which specific mistakes are wrecking their profitability before they blow through another bankroll.
Betting Every Tournament Just Because Golf Is On
There's golf on TV almost every week. That doesn't mean you should bet every week. Most bettors treat this like a subscription service - there's a tournament, therefore I must bet it. They force bets in tournaments they haven't researched, on courses they don't understand, in fields they haven't analyzed, just because not betting feels like missing out.
This creates two problems. First, you're making bets where you have no edge because you haven't done the work to identify value. You're guessing with a thin layer of analysis on top to make it feel legitimate. Second, you're spreading your bankroll and attention across too many tournaments, which means none of them get the focus they need.
Better approach is betting 15-20 tournaments per year where you've genuinely got an edge and skipping the rest. That might mean going two or three weeks without betting. That's fine. Not betting is a decision, and sometimes it's the best decision you can make.
The FOMO is real though. You watch a tournament Sunday afternoon, someone you researched but didn't bet wins at 30.0, and you torture yourself thinking you should've bet it. But you didn't bet it because you didn't have strong enough conviction or the price wasn't good enough or whatever the reason was. That was the correct decision even though it feels wrong in hindsight.
Overrating Recent Form and Ignoring Regression
A player finishes top-5 three weeks in a row and suddenly everyone thinks he's transformed into an elite player who should be 8.0 instead of 15.0. Markets adjust toward recent form, bettors pile on, and two weeks later the player misses the cut because the hot streak was variance and regression has arrived.
Recent form matters but most bettors overweight it massively. Three good weeks doesn't erase two years of being a mediocre player. It might signal improvement, or it might just be small sample noise that will disappear. You need to figure out which, and that requires looking at underlying stats not just results.
Is the player striking the ball better than his career baseline or is he just putting lights out? Putting is the most volatile skill in golf and hot putting streaks end fast. Is he playing courses that suit his game perfectly or has he genuinely elevated his ball-striking? If his recent success is course-specific, it's not necessarily predictive of how he'll do at a completely different venue.
Markets overprice recent form consistently. When someone has three top-10s in a row, their odds for the next tournament shorten significantly even if nothing fundamental has changed about their game. This creates value elsewhere - other players who are just as good or better but don't have the recent results are getting overlooked and their odds are longer than they should be.
Recency Bias Works Both Ways
Just like hot streaks get overpriced, cold streaks get overdiscounted. A quality player misses three cuts and suddenly he's 40.0 instead of 20.0 even though his underlying ball-striking numbers are fine and he's just been unlucky with variance.
This is where value often exists - finding players whose recent results are worse than their actual game quality. Maybe they had bad luck with weather draws, or played courses that didn't suit them, or had a minor injury that's now healed. The market sees three missed cuts and assumes decline, but the player is still the same quality he was before the bad stretch.
The trick is separating bad luck from actual decline. A 35-year-old who's been mediocre for six months and is losing ball speed probably is declining. A 27-year-old who's been great for two years and then has a bad month probably isn't. Markets don't always make this distinction properly.
Ignoring Course Fit Entirely
Some bettors just bet good players regardless of whether the course suits them. They see someone ranked 15th in the world at 18.0 odds and think that's value without checking if this particular course matches his skillset at all.
A bomber who hits 320 yards but sprays it all over has massive advantages on wide-open courses where length matters and accuracy doesn't. Put him on a tight tree-lined course where you have to hit fairways and his edge disappears. He's still a good player but this isn't his course. The market might not adjust enough for this because casual bettors just see "top-20 player at good odds" without understanding the mismatch.
Course fit matters more in golf than almost any other sport because courses are so different from each other. Pebble Beach and TPC Scottsdale might as well be different sports. A player's results at one tell you almost nothing about how they'll do at the other. You need to actually analyze what the course demands and which players have games that match those demands.
The other side of this mistake is overrating course history. A player won at this course five years ago so he must be a good bet now. Except five years ago he was 26 and in his prime, now he's 31 and his game has changed. Or the course setup has changed. Or he's had injuries. Past results at a venue matter but they're not the whole story, and markets overweight them constantly.
Chasing Losses After a Bad Week
You have a bad week. Three bets, all losses, down five units. Now you're irritated and want to make it back immediately, so you start betting more aggressively than normal. Bigger stakes, more bets, less selective about what you're betting. Within two weeks you've turned a manageable five-unit loss into a 15-unit disaster.
This happens to everyone at some point. The emotional response to losing is to try to fix it immediately through more betting. But you're not fixing anything, you're just making more bets while your judgment is compromised by frustration. The quality of your selections drops, your bankroll management discipline fails, and variance has more chances to hurt you.
The correct response to a bad week is to review what went wrong, figure out if you made actual mistakes or just got unlucky, adjust if needed, and then continue betting normally. Not to increase action trying to get even fast. Your bankroll doesn't know or care that you're down this week. Each bet needs to be evaluated on its own merits, not as a vehicle for making back previous losses.
I've seen people turn a 10% drawdown into a 40% drawdown through tilt betting after bad runs. They knew they were doing it, they knew it was wrong, but the emotional pull of trying to get back to even was stronger than their discipline. If you find yourself betting differently after losses - bigger stakes, more bets, less selective - you need to force yourself to take a break until you're thinking clearly again.
Betting Without Tracking Anything Properly
Most losing bettors don't actually know they're losing bettors because they're not tracking results properly. They remember winners more clearly than losers, they don't write down every bet, they have a vague sense they're "about even" when actually they're down 20% on the year.
If you're not recording every bet with odds, stake, result, and reasoning, you're flying blind. You don't know which bet types are profitable and which are losing money. You don't know if your course fit analysis works or if you're better just betting favorites. You can't tell if you're profitable on PGA Tour events but losing on European Tour, or profitable on longshots but losing on favorites.
Tracking also forces honesty. When you have to write down "bet 3 units on X at 12.0, lost" you can't pretend that bet didn't happen or wasn't as big as it was. The record keeps you honest about what you're actually doing versus what you think you're doing.
The minimum tracking is date, tournament, player, bet type, odds, stake, result, profit/loss. Better tracking includes reasoning, course fit notes, how you felt about the bet, what went wrong or right. This lets you review later and identify patterns - maybe your "confident" bets actually perform worse than your normal bets, or maybe you lose money on certain courses consistently.
Sample Size Delusions
Related to tracking - bettors make conclusions based on tiny samples. They win three longshot bets in a row and decide they're good at finding longshots. They lose four matchups and decide matchup betting doesn't work. Neither conclusion is justified by the sample size.
You need 100+ bets minimum to start drawing conclusions about whether an approach works. Even that's low, really you want 200-300 bets to be confident. But most bettors are evaluating strategies after 10 or 20 bets, which tells you almost nothing because variance dominates small samples.
Track everything, give strategies real sample sizes before deciding they work or don't work, and be suspicious of any conclusion drawn from less than 100 bets. This applies to your own results and to anyone else telling you about their system or approach.
Betting Favorites at Short Odds Without Real Edge
Backing Scottie Scheffler at 6.0 feels safe because he's the best player in the world. But favorites are almost always properly priced or overpriced because recreational money piles onto big names. You need a real reason beyond "he's really good" to justify betting favorites at short odds.
Most weeks the favorite doesn't win. The second favorite doesn't win either. Betting favorites without specific edges - course fit, recent form, something the market is underrating - is just paying juice to bet on recognizable names. You need very high win rates to profit at 6.0 or 8.0 odds, higher than most bettors realize.
If you're betting favorites, you should be able to articulate why this favorite at this course at these odds is mispriced. Not just "he's playing well" or "he's won here before," but actual reasons the market is wrong. If you can't do that, you're probably just making -EV bets on good players because it feels less risky than betting longshots.
The math on favorites is brutal. To break even betting 6.0 odds you need 16.7% win rate. To be profitable you need notably higher. Are you confident your favorite selection is good enough to hit 18-20%? Because if not, you're losing money slowly and consistently.
Misunderstanding What Each-Way Betting Actually Offers
Each-way betting looks like insurance - you get paid even if your player doesn't win. But the structure means you need different win rates to profit than straight win betting, and most bettors don't calculate this correctly.
If you're betting each-way at 1/5 odds for top-5, you're getting paid 1/5 of the win odds for a top-5 finish. A 25.0 each-way bet pays 5.0 for top-5. That sounds good until you realize you need your player to finish top-5 at much higher rates than the market implies for the bet to be profitable, and top-5 finishes aren't as common as people think.
Each-way betting works when you've identified a player who's underpriced for both winning and for top-5 finishes. It doesn't work as just "insurance" on longshots you're not confident about. That's paying extra juice for a cushion you didn't need and reducing the value of the bet overall.
Many bettors use each-way betting as a crutch to make themselves feel better about backing longshots. They're not confident the player will win but each-way makes the bet feel safer. This is emotional hedging, not strategic betting. Either the longshot is good value straight win or it's not a bet worth making.
Betting Based on Narratives Instead of Analysis
"This player is due" or "he's had three top-5s, this is his week to break through" or "he grew up near this course so he should play well." These are narratives that make intuitive sense but don't actually predict results better than proper analysis.
Golf media loves narratives because they make good TV content. Player returning from injury, seeking redemption after last year's collapse, playing for his late father, whatever. These stories are compelling but they're not predictive edges. The market hears the same narratives you do and prices them in.
Sometimes narratives align with actual edges - a player is "due" and also his underlying stats are excellent and he's had bad luck recently. Fine, bet on the actual edge, not the narrative. But when the only reason you're betting is because of a story, you're not betting with an edge, you're just making entertainment bets.
The worst version of this is betting on players you like personally or players you want to see win. Your emotional investment in a player doesn't create value in the betting market. If anything it probably clouds your judgment and makes you overrate their chances.
Not Understanding Variance in Golf
Golf has massive variance. The best player doesn't win most tournaments, they win maybe 10-15% in strong fields. Players can do everything right and shoot 71 instead of 67 because of a couple unlucky bounces or a lip-out putt. This inherent randomness destroys bettors who expect their good analysis to win predictably.
You can make a series of excellent bets and go 0-for-10 if variance breaks against you. That doesn't mean your bets were bad. It means golf has variance and ten bets isn't enough sample to overcome it. But most bettors panic after losing runs, assume their process is broken, and start changing things that didn't need changing.
Understanding variance means accepting that losing runs happen even when you're doing everything correctly. The correct response is to keep betting your process, not to abandon it after bad luck. But this requires trust in your process which requires having actually tracked enough results to know your process works in the first place.
Variance also means you can have winning runs that don't indicate you've "figured it out." Win six bets in a row and you might think you've cracked golf betting. Then you go 2-for-15 and realize the six-bet streak was just variance temporarily running in your favor. Don't let short-term results convince you that variance doesn't apply to you.
Overthinking Weather and Conditions
Weather matters in golf but bettors tend to either ignore it completely or overreact to it. Wind comes up on Thursday and everyone assumes the bombers are cooked, when actually bombers might still have advantages if they can flight it low. Rain softens the course and people think scoring will be low, but soft conditions plus rough means different things for different player types.
The market adjusts for weather. By the time you've checked the forecast and decided wind favors certain players, the odds have already moved. Unless you've got detailed analysis of how specific conditions affect specific player types at this specific course, you're probably just guessing like everyone else.
Better to focus on finding mispriced players based on skill and course fit, then adjust slightly for weather if needed. Don't let weather forecasts become the primary driver of your betting decisions unless you've got actual process for it.
Betting Markets You Don't Understand
Props, hole-by-hole betting, live betting during rounds - all of these are tempting because they offer action while tournaments are happening. But these markets are either very sharp (books know what they're doing with props) or highly random (hole-by-hole results are mostly luck).
If you don't have specific edge in these markets, you're just gambling for entertainment. That's fine if you're clear about it, but don't pretend you're making +EV bets. Most bettors lose money on props and exotics because they're betting on things they don't understand just because they're bored or want more action.
Stick to bet types where you've actually developed edge. For most golf bettors that's outrights, each-ways, top finishes, maybe matchups. Everything else is probably costing you money you could be using for better bets.
FAQ
Which mistake costs bettors the most money?
Betting without tracking results. If you're not tracking, you can't identify which parts of your approach work and which don't. You're making the same mistakes repeatedly without realizing it. Everything else on this list can be fixed once you've got tracking data that shows you what's actually going wrong.
How do I know if I'm making these mistakes?
Track your bets for 100+ selections, categorize them by type and approach, calculate ROI for each category. The data will show you exactly where you're losing money. Most bettors find they're profitable in 1-2 areas and giving back all that profit in other areas they thought were working but weren't.
Can you be profitable in golf betting while making some of these mistakes?
Maybe, if your edge in other areas is strong enough to overcome them. But you'd be more profitable without the mistakes. Most bettors who think they're profitable are actually break-even or slightly losing once they track properly, and fixing these mistakes is the difference between losing and winning.
Last edited:
