A good sports betting column should be backed by a profitable gambler with a proven track record. It should offer picks generated by a sophisticated and conceptually sound model. Most importantly, it should treat the subject with the seriousness it warrants.
This is not that column.
Instead, this will be an offbeat look at the sports betting industry-- why Vegas keeps winning, why gambling advice is almost certainly not worth the money, and the structural reasons why even if a bettor were profitable, anything they wrote would be unlikely to make their readers net profitable, too.
While we're at it, we'll discuss ways to minimize Vegas' edge and make recreational betting more fun, explain how to gain an advantage in your office pick pools, preview games through an offbeat lens (with picks guaranteed to be no worse than chance), and touch on various other Odds and Ends along the way.
Big Fortunes Are Built On Bad Bets
A few weeks ago, I laid out the math behind bet sizing, which is the process of deciding how much to bet based on the size of your bankroll and the size of your edge, known as "Kelly bet-sizing". That math advocates for much smaller bets than people would naively think: if you had a guaranteed 10% edge over the house, you should bet just 1/12th of your bankroll, and the long-run expectation is a 0.42% increase in your bankroll per bet. If you started with $5000 and wanted to become a millionaire, you should expect to need 1,265 bets. (And that's before considering taxes.)
I also reminded that this wasn't a conservative prescription, it is the route you should travel if you wanted to earn maximum returns as quickly as possible. Betting any other value would make the path to your first million dollars take even longer in expectation. (If you deviate sufficiently far from optimal bet sizing, you'll actually lose money over time; I showed how it's possible to go broke betting on a coin flip that's weighted in your favor.)
If this seems bleak, well... so far, this is an extremely rosy picture of reality. Because this is the math for when we know the size of our edge, which will never happen. We might think we have a 10% edge, but there's a good chance we're wrong. And the damage to our bankroll of being wrong is not symmetric-- the gains if we're underestimating our edge are not as significant as the losses if we're overestimating our edge (which is more likely, anyway). Because of this, no serious gamblers "bet Kelly". Instead, they bet "fractional Kelly"-- meaning whatever the math says, they bet a fraction of that. 1/4th is a popular target, though depending on the nature of the bet, you might see even smaller fractions like 1/8th or 1/10th. (Generally, even 1/2 Kelly is considered overconfident and reckless.)
Again, I can't reinforce this enough: the reason for betting fractional Kelly isn't because you're risk-averse; it's because this is the number that maximizes your bankroll growth in the long run. At 1/4th Kelly, you're looking at 5,000 bets at an estimated 10% edge before you add that coveted second comma to your bankroll. But at anything other than 1/4th Kelly, you're looking at even longer. (Potentially infinitely long if you go broke in the pursuit.)
How do you make a living gambling? A massive amount of very risky, very patient work. How do you make a fortune gambling? You ignore optimal bet sizing, wager way too much, and hope you get absurdly lucky and get rich before you go bankrupt. You can go from $5000 to $1,000,000 in just eight bets if you go double-or-nothing on each and win them all. (Of course, even one loss leaves you broke. And the odds of at least one loss are 99.6%.)
The people who made the most money gambling are usually the ones who made the worst bets. (Most people who made millions gambling in America won it in the lottery despite the lottery being one of the worst bets available-- as little as 50% of money wagered is returned to the players, which would be like if sportsbooks let you bet against the spread, kept your wager if you lost, and returned your wager with no extra winnings if you won.)
There's a belief that if you want to get rich, you should study rich people and do what they did. This is spectacularly dumb because of something called survivorship bias: by only looking at trials that were successful, you miss all the trials that were unsuccessful. If a thousand people tried a strategy and one wound up rich while the other 999 wound up destitute, that was a dumb strategy, and you probably shouldn't be giving it a try. (Survivorship bias is the key ingredient behind The System.)
We have seen this in action. In 2020, Sam Bankman-Fried, a 31-year-old wunderkind with an estimated 11-figure net worth, posted a Twitter thread where he walked through the math behind Kelly bet-sizing and then just... disagreed with it. He essentially said that he was a special unicorn who was going to repeatedly bet five times Kelly because his value function was non-linear and so he was willing to accept more risk to maximize his return. But again, Kelly isn't conservative; that's the value that maximizes expected return!
(This blog post runs through a bunch of simulations to see just how lucky you'd have to be to wind up with more money betting 5x Kelly than betting Kelly. The value was so extreme that the author's laptop broke before he could find it.)
Bankman-Fried got rich by making a bunch of absurdly overleveraged bets based on a misunderstanding of the underlying math and continually getting lucky enough to not be punished for his error. And once he was rich, he continued making absurdly overleveraged bets until his luck ran out; his net worth fell by $9.1 billion on November 8, 2022 -- the largest single-day drop for anyone in history -- after a reckless bet resulted in a bank run on his company. His net worth continued to fall to zero. Bankman-Fried was convicted of seven counts of conspiracy and fraud and eventually sentenced to 25 years in prison.
(There's a theory called nominative determinism that suggests a person's name will influence the path their life takes. Someone named Stephen Baker, for instance, might be more likely to work as a baker or a pastry chef than someone named Steven Painter. This is probably just junk science, but still, witnessing the fate of Mr. "Bank Man Fried" gives one at least a moment's pause.)
This is a useful lesson. The numbers behind exponential growth through wagering are dismal, but the math is the math. And anytime you see anyone who has been extraordinarily successful but isn't preaching bankroll discipline, assume you're witnessing survivorship bias firsthand. Anyone trying to sell you an easy road is selling you a scam.
As someone who talks about sports on the internet, I see all these scams being pushed and I recognize how seductive they can seem. But the only sustainable path to profit (in this space or any other) is slow and laborious; for anyone who thinks they're a special unicorn and the laws of math don't apply to them, "up big" is merely a precursor to "down bad".
This is why I'm such a fan of the second option: bet for fun, wager only what you can afford to lose, and count your losses as the cost of entertainment.