Is sports betting actually beatable long-term or are we all just gambling?

[FadeThePublic]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I'm genuinely curious what everyone's honest opinion is. Are we actually beating the books over the long run or are we just deluding ourselves and getting lucky in the short term?

I've been tracking my bets for three years now and I'm up overall but not by a huge amount. Some months I feel like a genius and I'm crushing it. Other months I wonder if I'm just fooling myself and the whole thing is just variance. The books are so sharp now with their algorithms and models that I keep asking myself if there's even any edge left for individual bettors to find.

Look at guys like Billy Walters who made hundreds of millions. That was decades ago when the market was way softer. Can someone still do that today or has the market gotten too efficient? I feel like every edge that exists gets arbitraged away within hours now because of how fast information travels and how sophisticated the betting syndicates have gotten.

I'm not trying to be negative here, I'm genuinely asking. Do you guys think sports betting is beatable long term for regular people or are we all just gambling and convincing ourselves we have an edge when really it's just the same as playing blackjack or roulette?

 

[SharpEddie47]

This is the most important question in sports betting and most people never ask it honestly because they're afraid of the answer.

The truth is sports betting is absolutely beatable long term but the number of people who actually beat it is incredibly small. I'd estimate less than 5% of people who bet sports regularly are profitable over multi year time frames. The rest are either breaking even after accounting for the juice or they're losing money and lying to themselves about it.

What separates the winners from the losers isn't luck, it's process. The profitable bettors have systematic approaches to finding edges, they track everything meticulously, they manage their bankroll properly, and most importantly they're brutally honest with themselves about what's working and what isn't. The unprofitable bettors bet based on feelings, they chase losses, they remember their wins and forget their losses, and they never actually calculate their true ROI over meaningful sample sizes.

I've been doing this for over 20 years and I can definitively say I've beaten it long term. My verified ROI over the past 15 years is plus 4.1% which doesn't sound like much but on the volume I bet it's substantial. But I've also put in thousands of hours building models, tracking data, studying line movements, and constantly adapting as the market evolves. It's not passive income, it's real work.

The market has definitely gotten sharper over time. Twenty years ago you could beat the books just by doing basic research that they weren't doing. Now the opening lines are often sharper than the closing lines used to be. The books have access to the same data and models that sharp bettors use so the edges are much thinner. But edges still exist because human psychology and market dynamics create inefficiencies that can be exploited.

The key is you need to have an actual edge not an imaginary one. Most bettors think they have an edge because they won some bets or because they watch a lot of games. That's not an edge. An edge is a systematic approach that produces positive expected value over time and you need hundreds or thousands of bets to prove it exists. If you can't demonstrate your edge with hard data over a large sample then you probably don't have one.

So to answer your question directly, yes sports betting is beatable but only if you treat it like a business not a hobby. If you're betting for entertainment and you're okay with losing some money over time, that's fine. But if you want to actually beat the market you need to be willing to do the work that 95% of bettors won't do.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

This thread is kind of depressing lol. I don't really think about whether I'm beating the books long term, I just bet on games because it makes watching more fun. Like I know I've lost some money overall but it's not a huge amount and I consider it entertainment budget anyway.

Reading Eddie's response though makes me wonder if I should be taking this more seriously. Like if only 5% of people are actually profitable then I'm probably in the 95% that's losing money. That's kind of a bummer to think about.

I guess my question is does it matter if you're not beating it long term if you're having fun and not losing more than you can afford? Like some people spend money on concerts or going to bars and I spend money on sports bets. As long as I'm not going broke does it really matter if I have a positive ROI or not?

Maybe I'm just trying to justify my losing but honestly I think I'm okay with losing a little bit if it makes the games more exciting. Although now that I'm thinking about it I probably should actually calculate how much I've lost since I started betting because I don't really know the exact number.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

I think the answer depends on what your goals are and how you define beatable. If you mean can you make a full time living from sports betting then I'd say no for 99% of people. The edges are too thin, the variance is too high, and the books will limit you if you're actually good enough to make serious money. But if you mean can you grind out a small profit over time that supplements your regular income then yes I think that's achievable for people who are willing to put in the work.

I've been profitable over the past decade but we're talking maybe 10k to 15k per year which is nice but not life changing. I have a full time job as a coach so this is just extra money on the side. For me that's beating it because I'm generating positive returns over a long time frame. But I'm not under any illusion that I could quit my job and bet full time because the numbers just don't work at the volume and bankroll I'm operating with.

The question of whether the market is too efficient now is interesting. I do think it's gotten much harder over the years. The information edge that used to exist is mostly gone because everyone has access to the same stats and injury reports within minutes. The books have gotten way more sophisticated with their models and they move lines lightning fast based on sharp action. So the traditional edges that guys had 20 years ago don't really exist anymore.

But I think there are still edges to be found in areas that are harder to quantify. Situational spots, coaching matchups, understanding game flow and how teams perform in specific contexts. The books can't perfectly model every situational variable so there's still room for handicappers who really understand the game to find spots where the line doesn't properly reflect what's likely to happen.

The other thing is that different people have different edges in different areas. Eddie's edge comes from data and models. My edge comes from understanding coaching and situational football. Fade's edge comes from reading market behavior and public sentiment. There isn't one way to beat sports betting, there are multiple paths and you need to find the one that matches your skills and knowledge.

Princess to answer your question, there's nothing wrong with betting for entertainment as long as you're honest about it. The problem is when people bet for entertainment but convince themselves they're investing or making smart decisions. If you know you're losing money and you're okay with that cost for the entertainment value, that's a perfectly rational choice. Just don't lie to yourself about it.

 

[FadeThePublic]

I appreciate everyone's honest responses here. Eddie I think your 5% number is probably accurate or maybe even generous. Most people betting sports are losing money and either don't know it or won't admit it.

The thing that keeps me going is that I do have verified tracked results showing I'm profitable over three years. It's not huge money but it's real and consistent. My ROI is around 3.8% which I know doesn't sound impressive but when you factor in the vig that's actually pretty solid. The question I struggle with is whether that's sustainable or whether I just got lucky with variance over a relatively small sample.

Tony makes a good point about different edges in different areas. I think the contrarian public fade approach I use still works because public betting patterns are driven by emotion and psychology which doesn't change even as the market gets more sophisticated. People still bet their favorite teams, they still overreact to last week's results, they still chase points in high scoring games. Those behavioral patterns create inefficiencies that can be exploited even in an efficient market.

But I do worry that as more people adopt these strategies the edges get smaller. Like 10 years ago fading the public was probably way more profitable than it is now because fewer people were doing it. Now everyone knows about it so the books adjust their lines to account for it. That's just market evolution and at some point maybe all the edges disappear entirely.

The other issue Eddie mentioned about books limiting winners is huge and not talked about enough. I've been limited at four different books over the past two years. Now I have to use multiple accounts and bet through friends just to get action down. If you actually are good enough to beat the books consistently they're not going to let you keep betting. So in a practical sense even if you can beat the market theoretically you might not be able to beat it in practice because they'll shut you down.

I think the honest answer to the original question is that sports betting is beatable in theory but extremely difficult in practice. The edges exist but they're small, they require a lot of work to identify, and even if you find them you might not be able to capitalize on them because of limits. For most people it's probably closer to gambling than investing even if they don't want to admit it.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Fade your 3.8% ROI over three years is absolutely legitimate and you should have confidence in it. Three years is enough time to separate skill from luck assuming you've made at least a few hundred bets. The key question is can you maintain that edge as the market continues to evolve and that requires constant adaptation.

Princess there's nothing wrong with entertainment betting as long as you're honest about the cost. The problem is most entertainment bettors don't actually know what it's costing them because they don't track it. If you calculated that you spent 2000 dollars last year on sports betting entertainment and you're fine with that, great. But if you think you spent 500 when you actually spent 3000 then you have a problem.

Tony is right that there are multiple paths to beating the market. My data driven approach isn't the only way. Film study and situational handicapping can work. Market timing and contrarian betting can work. The common thread is that all of these approaches require discipline, tracking, and honest self assessment. You can't just bet randomly and hope it works out.

The limiting issue is real and it's getting worse. Books are much more aggressive about limiting winners now than they were even five years ago. I've had accounts limited after winning just a few thousand dollars which is absurd. They claim they want sharp action to help them set lines but the moment you show consistent profits they cut your limits to nothing. It's hypocritical but it's the reality we're operating in.

The other reality is that even if you can beat sports betting the returns are pretty modest compared to the effort required. My 4.1% ROI sounds good until you realize that's worse than just investing in an index fund with zero effort. The only reason to bet sports is if you genuinely enjoy the process of handicapping and following the games. If you're just doing it for profit there are easier ways to make money.

So my final answer to the thread question is yes sports betting is beatable but barely and only for a tiny percentage of people who treat it seriously. For everyone else it's gambling with extra steps. If you want to bet sports for entertainment that's fine, just be honest about it. If you want to beat it long term you need to be prepared for thousands of hours of work for modest returns and the constant threat of being limited or banned.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

Okay you guys have convinced me to actually calculate my total deposits versus withdrawals since I started betting. I'm kind of scared to see the real number lol but Eddie's right that I need to know what this is actually costing me.

I think I'm definitely in the entertainment betting category not the trying to make a profit category. Like I don't have spreadsheets or models or any of that stuff. I just bet on games I'm watching and try to have fun with it. Based on this thread it sounds like I'm never going to be profitable with that approach which is kind of a bummer but also makes sense.

Maybe the real question is whether I should try to get serious about this and actually develop an edge or whether I should just accept that it's entertainment and stop worrying about whether I'm winning or losing. I feel like trying to be a serious bettor would take all the fun out of it but also losing money isn't that fun either.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

Princess I think you need to decide what you actually want from sports betting. If you want entertainment then accept that it costs money and budget for it accordingly. If you want to be profitable then you need to completely change your approach and treat it like work not fun. Those are two different goals and they require two different mindsets.

The middle ground is what gets people in trouble. They want the entertainment of betting casually but they also want to convince themselves they're being smart and making money. That cognitive dissonance leads to bad decisions and chasing losses because you're not clear on what you're actually trying to accomplish.

I'd say for most people the entertainment approach is healthier as long as you set clear limits on what you're willing to lose. Trying to be a serious profitable bettor is stressful and time consuming and honestly not worth it for most people. But you do need to track your spending and make sure the entertainment value is worth the cost.

To bring this back to the original question, I think sports betting is beatable but it's not worth beating for most people. The effort required versus the returns you'll generate just doesn't make sense unless you really love the process of handicapping. You're better off betting small for fun and focusing your energy on your career or other investments that have better risk adjusted returns.

 

[FadeThePublic]

I think we've basically answered the thread question. Sports betting is theoretically beatable but practically very difficult. Most people are gambling whether they admit it or not. The few who are actually beating it long term are putting in serious work and dealing with limits and other obstacles that make it barely worth the effort.

The real insight here is that you need to be honest with yourself about which category you're in. If you're entertainment betting own it and budget for it. If you're trying to be profitable then prove it with data not feelings. What you can't do is bet like an entertainment bettor and convince yourself you're investing. That's the path to losing way more money than you intended.

I'm going to keep grinding because I've proven to myself that I have an edge even if it's small. But I totally understand why most people would rather just bet casually for fun and accept the cost. There's nothing wrong with that choice as long as it's a conscious decision not self delusion.

 

[SharpEddie47]

This has been a good discussion and I'm glad we're all being honest about the realities instead of selling false hope.

My final thought is this. Sports betting is one of the few forms of gambling where skill can overcome the house edge. It's not like slots or roulette where you're guaranteed to lose over time. The edge exists for people who are willing to work for it. But the work required is substantial and the returns are modest and you'll face obstacles like limits that make it even harder.

For 95% of people reading this thread, my advice is bet small for entertainment, track your spending, and don't fool yourself into thinking you're investing. For the 5% who want to actually beat it long term, be prepared to treat it like a second job with all the work and discipline that entails. There's no middle ground that works.

Trust the process, not your gut.